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

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

a 






m ( \M\ ,\\& *A\£ 



7~^h 




\&m 



Given B> 



^11 Vl\ 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SELECT COMMITTEE 

ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 

LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 

EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGRESS 

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



MARCH 26, 27, 28, AND 29, 1958 



PART 25 



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







INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SELECT COMMITTEE 

ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 

LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 

EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGRESS 

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



MARCH 26, 27, 28, AND 29, 195S 



PART 25 



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




UNITED STATES 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1958 



PU BLIC J 



CUv^iV^ 



J* t M&1 



pfa, l*-Z8 



Boston Public Library 
Superintendent of Documents 

JUL 7 - 1 938 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR OR 
MANAGEMENT FIELD 

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

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

PAT McNAMARA, Michigan CARL T. CURTIS, Nebraska 

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

n 



CONTENTS 



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

Testimony of— Pa s e 

Bellino, Carmine 10239 

Conger, Symanc 10154 

Constantine, James V 9913 

Kohler, Herbert V 9933 

Reuther, Walter P 9958, 10041, 10083. 10147, 10180, 10244 

in 



EXHIBITS 

Introduced Appear 
on page on pag<? 

128. A pamphlet "A more perfect Union: The UAW Public 

Review Board, Why, What, How" 9983 (*) 

129. Article from the Detroit Free Press, May 24, 1950, "GM 

Contract Heralds Era of Industrial Peace" 9985 (*) 

129A. Article from Business Week, June 3, 1950, "Peace 

Treaty Instead of a Truce" 9985 (*) 

129B. Full page editorial from the Detroit Free Press, May 25, 
1950, "General Motors Contract Marks Milestone in 
our Technological Revolution' ' 9985 *) 

130. Telegram to Herbert V. Kohler, President, Kohler Co. 

from Walter P. Reuther, President UAW 9998 (*) 

131. Article by Walter Reuther written for Collier's magazine, 

"How to Beat the Communists" 10072 (*) 

132. Findings and decision of the Public Review Board, Inter- 

national Union UAW with respect to five international 
representatives 10077 ( *) 

133. Findings and decision of the Public Review Board, Inter- 

national Union UAW with respect to five international 
representatives 10080 (*) 

134. Sections of the LaFollette committee findings in 1939 as 

they relate specifically to the Kohler Co 10107 *) 

135. Letter from deputy attorney general to Senator McNamara 

enclosing a list of automobile agencies who have been 
found guilty in Federal court in Detroit of making con- 
tributions for political campaigns 10238 * I 

136. Financial records and reports kept by different local 

unions of the UAW and also the international union, 

UAW 10243 (*) 

Proceedings of — 

March 26, 1958 9913 

March 27, 1958 9957 

March 28, 1958 10041 

March 29, 1958 10147 

*May be found in the files of the Select Committee. 
XT 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 1958 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

in the Labor or Management Field, 

Washington, D. G. 

The Select Committee met at 11 : 00 a. m., pursuant to S. Res. 221, 
agreed to January 29, 1958, in room 357, Senate Office Building, Sena- 
tor John L. McClellan (Chairman of the Select Committee) presiding. 

Present : Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator 
John F. Kennedy, Democrat, Massachusetts ; Senator Pat McNamara, 
Democrat, Michigan ; 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 ; Jerome S. Adler- 
man, Assistant Chief Counsel; John J. McGovern, Assistant Counsel; 
and Ruth Young Watt, Chief Clerk. 

(At the time of the reconvening, the following members are present : 
Senators McClellan, Goldwater, and Mundt.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Mr. James V. Constantine, come forward, please. 

Do you solemnly swear the evidence you shall give before this Senate 
Select Committee shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but 
the truth, so help you, God ? 

Mr. Constantine. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES V. CONSTANTINE, ACCOMPANIED BY 
LOUIS G. SILVERBEHG 

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

Mr. Constantine. James V. Constantine, 7039 Wilson Lane, 
Bethesda 14, Maryland; Solicitor, National Labor Relations Board, 
Washington, D. C. 

The Chairman. How long have you held that position, Mr. 
Constantine ? 

Mr. Constantine. Since December 19, 1955. 

The Chairman. Whom did you succeed ? 

Mr. Constantine. Acting Solicitor William Considine. 

The Chairman. Of course you waive counsel, I assume. 

Mr. Constantine. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, Senator Mundt. 

9913 



9914 IMPROPER ACTIWTIFJS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. I have worked out a series of questions I want 
to ask Mr. Const antine, Mr. Chairman. I have typed them up. I 
think it may be conducive to expediency if I can give a list of them 
to him at this time. 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 

Senator Mundt. First of all, Mr. Constantine, describe the duties 
in the position that you hold. 

Mr. Constantine. The solicitor is the chief legal adviser for the 
Board as a whole as distinguished from the individual board members, 
although the board members, as individuals, may and often do call 
for opinions from the solicitor. 

In addition, he is a liaison officer between the Board and the general 
counsel, between the Board and the Executive agencies, between the 
Board and the public, between the Board and the legislative 
departments. 

Senator Mundt. Have you had any experience in the handling of 
NLRB secondary boycott cases ? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes, Senator. Prior to becoming solicitor I 
served several years in the secondary boycott section, which I think 
it is technically called the injunction and contempt section. It does 
other work besides secondary boycotts, but I have had experience as 
an attorney in the secondary boycott section. 

Senator Mundt. In that capacity, have you had any experience 
with NLRB settlement procedures ? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes, I have, Senator. Also, in subsequent capac- 
ities. That is to say the answer to your question is that I have had 
experience with NLRB settlements since I have been with the agency 
in whatever capacity I may have acted. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you, because my questions will go primarily 
to that phase of the NLRB activities. 

On page 2374 of the transcript of the hearings, Mr. Rauh, the 
attorney for the UAW, referred to a "stipulated complaint," and 
explained it as, and I quote him, "a complaint that was written and 
agreed to between us," meaning the IT AW and local 833 "and the labor 
board." 

I would like to have from you what is a stipulated complaint and 
under what circumstances does the NLRB enter into an agreement 
with the respondent, whether employer or union as to the contents 
or allegations of such a complaint. 

Mr. Constantine. I am not aware of any situation, Senator, where 
the parties, that is, the general counsel who prosecutes cases on behalf 
of the Board, and the respondents, bargain or agree as to the contents 
■of a complaint. The issuance of a complaint is the sole responsibility 
of the general counsel, who, of course, acts through various officials 
called regional directors. A regional director is the man in charge 
of the particular office, and there are several regional offices. That 
responsibility, as far as I have been able to ascertain, is entirely the 
general counsel's, and once he or his representative ascertains that 
there is merit to the case, he, and only he, can decide that a complaint 
shall issue. The contents of a complaint, as I understand the proce- 
dure, is entirely the regional directors' responsibility as an employee 
of the general counsel. 

Senator Mundt. And is not subject to bargaining and negotiations ? 

Mr. Constantine. Not the complaint. 



IMPROPER ACTiIVrnElS IN THE LABOR FIELD 9915 

Senator Mundt. Not the complaint. Now, will you explain what 
is meant by the term respondent to an NLRB proceeding? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes, I would be glad to. But perhaps in order 
to understand that, it might be a good idea if I just briefly described 
our procedures, Senator. The statute provides that employers and 
unions shall refrain from engaging in certain conduct called "unfair 
labor practices." The Board may not, on its own initiative, enter into 
any proceeding to cause an employer or a union to stop engaging in 
unfair labor practices. 

It may act only when some person outside of the board files what 
is known as a charge. The person against whom a charge has been 
filed is called the respondent, in board practice. 

You might call him loosely a defendant in a civil proceeding. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. That was my understanding of what 
the term meant, but I wanted to be sure. 

On page 2374 of the transcript, Mr. Rauh refers to a "stipulated 
agreed-to proceeding" as not constituting an NLRB proceeding in 
the ordinary sense. What is a stipulated or agreed-to proceeding? 

Mr. Constantine. I am not aware of any such proceeding. The 
proceeding as I have already explained to you, Senator, is entirely 
within the control of the general counsel, through his representative, 
who is the regional director. No one can stipulate as to how the 
general counsel shall proceed. 

Senator Mundt. Then you know of no such device or no such pro- 
ceeding as a stipulated or agreed-to proceeding? 

Mr. Constantine. Not that I know of, no, sir. 

Senator Mundt. It is one of the things that confused me somewhat 
by Mr. Rauh's testimony, and I wanted to get that from you. 

Is a settlement agreement based on a stipulated record an NLRB 
proceeding in the ordinary sense ? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes, sir, in my opinion they are. That is to say, 
as I previously explained to you, a charge is first filed with the Board 
which initiates the machinery of investigation. If there is merit to the 
charge, the regional director will issue a complaint. After he has 
issued the complaint, the parties, of course, may talk to him about 
settlement of that complaint. If there is a settlement, they proceed 
to sign what is known as a stipulation agreement. If there is no settle- 
ment, the parties then go to a contested hearing. If the general coun- 
sel prevails in the contested hearing, the board will enter an order and 
that order is reviewed by an appropriate court of appeals, and, on 
review, it is enforced or not, depending on whether the court agrees 
with the Board or not. In a consent case, that is, where there is a 
stipulation as to the order, after a complaint has issued, the Board 
will issue precisely the same type of order, and that can be enforced, 
or usually is enforced by court of appeals. 

They are both ordinary proceedings. One is just as common as the 
other. 

Senator Mundt. On page 2374, Mr. Rauh also stated, 
As part of the consent agreement, a complaint would be issued. 

Under what circumstances will the general counsel of the NLRB 
consent to an agreement with the respondent that a complaint will 
issue ? 

Mr. Constantine. I am not aware of any situation, Senator, in 
which the general counsel or his representative asks counsels or re- 



9916 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

spondent's counsel, counsel for respondents or respondents, as to 
whether they want a complaint to issue. 

As I pointed out before, the complaint is the entire responsibility of 
the general counsel, either personally, or, which is far more frequent, 
through his designated representative, the regional director. 

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

Senator Mundt. I am glad to hear you say that, Mr. Constantine, 
because when Mr. Rauh said that I felt a little bit disturbed that the 
NLRB had become the victim of either the union or the company. 
If you had to rely on their consent to get anything done, and stipulated 
with them through negotiations as to what could be done, it seems 
to me that the power to enforce the law automatically is transferred 
to the respondents, whether it be union or company. I am glad to 
have you state here that the NLRB keeps control of an enforcement 
situation, which, as I understand it, is the summation of what you 
have just said. 

Mr. Constantine. It keeps control of the proceedings. 

Of course, after a complaint has issued, there is nothing to prevent 
the parties, not only as a result of our practices but also as a result of 
the Administrative Procedure Act, from discussing settlement. But 
the initiation of the proceedings and the issuance of the complaint are 
not the subject of bargaining between the general counsel and the 
parties, as I understand it. 

Senator Mtjndt. They are under the control of the NLRB ? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes. When you say NLRB, of course, there is 
a division between the NLRB and the general counsel by reason of the 
statute, so it would be more accurate to say under the control of the 
general counsel on behalf of the NLRB. 

Senator Mundt. Which, in this case is you? You are the general 
counsel ? 

Mr. Constantine. No, I am the solicitor. 

The general counsel is an independent agency, you might call him, 
appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of 
the Senate. 

Senator Mundt. I understand. Further quoting Mr. Rauh on this 
same page, he says "The whole thing" meaning the settlement agree- 
ment "was stipulated to." 

Is everything in a settlement agreement subject to stipulation ? 

Mr. Constantine. Not everything, Senator, no. The issuance of 
the complaint, as I think I already mentioned, is not the subject of 
stipulation. Whether a complaint shall issue and what shall go into 
it is the exclusive province of the general counsel as delegated to his 
regional director. 

In a difficult case, it is not unusual for the regional director to submit 
a case to Washington for advice. There is a section in the general 
counsel's office known as the advice section, and they assist the general 
counsel in answering queries submitted from the regional offices. 

Senator Mundt. Who approves such stipulations for the NLRB, 
and under what circumstances ? Is that the general counsel ? 

Mr. Constantine. The general counsel initially approves them, 
but the ultimate approval is for the National Labor Relations Board. 
They approve them if they feel that it is the kind of agreement which 
is consistent with Board policies and would effectuate the purposes 
of the act. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9917 

Senator Mundt. On page 2376 of this same colloquy, Mr. Rauh re- 
fers to a complaint as, and I quote, "part of the overall settlement of 
this dispute." 

Under what circumstances is a complaint part of an overall settle- 
ment of a dispute ? 

Mr. Constantine. I am not aware of any circumstances, again, 
Senator, where the substance or the contents or the allegations of a 
complaint is ever a matter for settlement. 

Settlement, as I understand our Board procedure, is a matter which 
arises after the issuance of a complaint. 

Senator Mundt. Let me ask : Is a complaint in an NLRB proceed- 
ing ever part of a settlement ? 

Mr. Constantine. Well, it is incorporated into a settlement. I 
don't quite understand your question, Senator. That is, when a case 
is settled by a stipulation, called a settlement agreement, the parties 
agree as to what shall constitute the record so that the Board, when it 
comes to approve it, will know what to look at. Of course, in that 
stipulation, the complaint is included, not as something agreed to, 
but as something agreed to be part of the record. 

There is that distinction. 

Senator Mundt. A little further on, Mr. Rauh said on page 2377, 
referring to the language of an NLRB cease and desist order, as being 
"In the language of Taft-Hartley." The language of the order to 
which Mr. Rauh referred, and which was read to him by me, prohibits 
picketing or in other manner including threats, violence, orders, direc- 
tions, appeals, and so forth, inducing or encouraging employees of 
these companies to strike or to refuse to handle the products of the 
KohlerCo. 

Is this language of the order the language of the order of the Taft- 
Hartley Act as Mr. Rauh told me ? 

Mr. Constantine. Most of it, Senator, is not. Let me go through 
it carefully and point out which is not. The word "picketing" is not. 

Senator Mundt. The word "picketing" is not in the Taft-Hartley ? 

Mr. Constantine. Before I do that^ I assume from this here, and 
from an examination of the former file, that you are now referring to 
a secondary boycott. This is typical language in a secondary boycott 
order. If you are referring to all of Taft-Hartley, that is a different 
matter. But I don't think "picketing" is anywhere to be found in 
Taft-Hartley. 

So my statement was correct. But I will confine my remarks to 
the secondary boycott section. The word "picketing" isn't in there. 

"Threats," "violence," "orders," "directions" and "appeals" are not 
in there. "Induce or encourage employees" 

Senator Mundt. That eliminates all except "Violence," I believe. 

Mr. Constantine. "Violence" isn't in there either. 

Senator Mundt. "Violence" isn't there either ? 

Mr. Constantine. In the act. The act merely provides that 
unions shall not induce or encourage employees for certain purposes. 
The words "induce" or "encourage" as I see this question are in the 
act. 

The Board and the courts have expanded or interpreted the words 
"induce" or "encourage" to include picketing and other means, but 
the words "picketing", "violence", "threats" and so forth are not to be 
found in the statute. 



9918 IMPROPER ACTIYIT1EIS EN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. They are not in the language of the Taft-Hartley, 
as I was informed. 

Mr. Constantine. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Is it common to include the word "violence" in 
cease and desist orders of this type ? 

Mr. Constantine. Not very common. I have had a few cases, 
quite a few cases, and I don't recall ever having seen the word "vio- 
lence" as an act proscribed, either by the Board or the courts, as one 
way of inducing or encouraging employees. 

I would say it is not common, Senator. 

Senator Mundt. Let me ask you this : How does such order when 
stipulated or agreed to differ from an order entered into in a con- 
tested hearing ? What is the difference between the orders ? 

Mr. Constantine. In substance, so far as enforceability is con- 
cerned, there is no difference. 

In minor matters, there is a difference. One of them is that in a 
contested case the Board makes findings of fact on evidence or on 
stipulated evidence, either oral evidence or stipulated evidence. 
Parties often stipulate what the evidence is and then let the Board 
make its decision in a contested case. 

In an uncontested case, there is no occasion for the Board to make 
very many findings of fact because the parties don't stipulate to many 
facts. 

However, it is indispensable that at least evidence or facts be 
stipulated with respect to the jurisdiction of the Board. We call 
that facts relating to the commerce of the employers involved. If no 
commerce is involved or no industry in commerce or industry whose 
operations affect commerce is involved, the Board would not have 
jurisdiction under the Act. 

Senator Mundt. As to enforceability, I think there isn't much dif- 
ference ? 

Mr. Constantine. There is no difference at all. You could be just 
as much in contempt of a court order based upon a stipulated record 
as you would be on a court order after a bitterly contested hearing. 

Senator Mundt. On page 2378 Mr. Rauh referred to a stipulated 
decree. Is it correct to refer to such a decree as stipulated ? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes, I think so. I think so. It is more common 
to call it a consent decree, but it is correct to refer to it as a stipulated 
decree. 

Senator Mundt. Consent decree or stipulated decree can be used 
interchangeably ? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. On 2378, Mr. Rauh refers to a petition of the 
United State Court of Appeals for enforcement of the NLRB order 
as a "stipulated petition." Can parties stipulate as to the contents of 
a petition filed m a court of appeals for enforcement of an NLRB 
order ? 

In other words, what control does a respondent, whether an em- 
ployer or a union, ever have over an NLRB petition for enforcement 
of its order in the courts ? 

Mr. Constantine. Well, I don't believe, from what I know of our 
practice, that respondent has any control over the contents of the 
petition. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9919 

That is entirely the responsibility of the Board. The Board has 
delegated that to the general counsel, but, nevertheless, it is our re- 
sponsibility, as I understand it, and we have a section which prepares 
those petitions. I am not aware that that section discusses the contents 
of a petition with anyone other than the Board or the general counsel. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Rauh refers to a stipulated enforcement decree 
as perfectly enforceable. That is correct, is it not? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes. That is the same as the stipulated decree 
you referred to a while ago, or a consent decree. I assume by enforce- 
able you mean enforceable in a court of appeals, because it also is en- 
forceable in the sense that the Board may enter an order based upon 
it, but our orders are not self-enforcing, and if the parties don't want 
to comply with them we are compelled to obtain enforcement by a 
court of appeals. 

It is perfectly enforceable in the court of appeals. That statement 
is correct ; yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. On pages 2379 and 2380, as I was continuing this 
discussion with Mr. Rauh, he said, and I quote Mr. Rauh again, "A 
stipulated order, written with the labor board and the union together, 
pointing out that the union should not violate the Taft-Hartley." To 
what extent do respondents who are, for all practical purposes, you 
have said, defendants in a legal sense in NLRB unfair labor proceed- 
ings, to what extent do respondents participate in the writings of 
the orders of the Board ? 

Mr. Constantine. I am not aware that they do any of the writing 
of the orders. That, is the function of the regional office. Of course, 
when they issue a complaint in the regional office, a respondent may 
indicate to what extent lie would be willing to settle the case, and if 
that is acceptable to the regional office, the regional office, of course, 
can put that into the stipulated record. But I am not aware that the 
order is written by the respondent. That is entirely the responsibility 
of the regional office, subject to review by the National Labor Rela- 
tions Board. 

Senator Mundt. Now I want to swing over, Mr. Constantine, to the 
particular letter that the chairman wrote you about the case known in 
NLRB files as No. 13 CC 110. In his letter, and the chairman was 
kind enough to supply me with a copy of it, he asked that you familiar- 
ize yourself with that file, if you were not already familiar with it, 
or that the chairman send somebody here who was familiar with that 
case, 

Are you familiar with the NLRB case known as 13 CC 110? 

Mr. Constantine. As a result 

The Chairman. Let a copy of that letter be printed in the record at 
this point. 

Senator Mundt. Do NLRB orders merely "point out", in view of 
Mr. Rauh's quotation, that respondents should not violate the Taft- 
Hartley Act? 

Mr. Constantine. Board orders ? They do more than that, Senator. 
They are the equivalent of what you would call a mandatory injunc- 
tion in equity practice. They command that the respondent, whether 
he be an employer or a union, cease and desist from engaging in certain 
conduct. That is what we call the negative part of the order. And if 
there is anything to be done in addition to that, then they also com- 



9920 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 

inand that the respondent, whether an employer or the union, do the 
affirmative part. The typical case against an employer of an affirma- 
tive order would be requiring employer to reinstate an employee who 
has been illegally discharged. 

Senator Mundt. The word "require", it seems to me, would be more 
appropriate than "point out." 

Mr. Constanttne. Yes : I think that is a fair statement, Senator. 

Senator Mundt. How does such a stipulated order differ from any 
other order of the NLRB ? Are they all the same ? 

Mr. Constanttne. Except for the fact that in contested cases the 
Board makes more findings of fact there is no difference. Certainly 
there is no difference from the point of view of a court of appeals 
which comes to review those for enforcement purposes. 

March 20, 1958. 
Hon. Boyd Leedom, 

Chairman, The National Labor Relations Board. 
Federal Security Building South, 
Washington, D. C. 

Dear Judge Leedom : The Select Committee on Improper Activities in the 
Labor or Management Field has asked me to invite you or a qualified repre- 
sentative from your agency, designated by you, to appear before that com- 
mittee and give testimony in connection with a case decided by the National 
Labor Relations Board. 

The case the committee has reference to is NLRB case No. 13-CC-llO and 
the decision of the Board as reported in 116 NLRB 267. 

The committee would like for you or your designated representative to 
bring along the public records and documents from your files in that case. 
The committee might be interested in asking some questions in connection 
with those records. 

The committee would deeply arrpeciate your cooperation in this matter, and 
if you would let me know if this invitation is acceptable to you, we shall 
advise you of the time for your appearance. 
Sincerely yours, 

John L. McClellan, 

Chairman. 

Senator Mtjndt. What was your answer ? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes. I was directed to familiarize myself with 
it by the Chairman of our Board, who had received a letter from the 
chairman of your committee, Senator. 

Senator Mundt. Have you brought with you the official file of the 
NLRB containing the public record in this case ? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes, sir; right here. 

Senator Mundt. Have you examined the documents in that file 
and are you familiar with their contents and significance? 

Mr. Constantine. I have examined them. I would say I am 
fairly familiar with them. 

Senator Mundt. Who were the respondents, the so-called defend- 
ants, in that case ? 
Mr. Constantine. There were several, Senator. May I look at 
the file to tell you ? I can't remember all of them. 

Senator Mundt. Surely. 

Mr. Constantine. Originally there was a charge against several, 
but they didn't include them in the complaint because there was an 
amended complaint. Do you want that original charge? There 
was no proceeding taken under that, but, rather, the amended charge. 

The parties are, the respondents are, as the case finally ended up, 
after the amended charge : Local 833, UAW-CIO. 

Senator Mundt. Local 833 ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES' EST THE LABOR FIELD 9921 

Mr. Constantine. 833, UAW-CIO. That is one party. Interna- 
tional union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement 
Workers of America, UAW-CIO, that is a second party. Local 2, 
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, 
AFL. I think that is now AFL-CIO as a result of the merger between 
the AFL and CIO. But at that time it was just the AFL. That is 
a third party. Milwaukee County District Council No. 48, AFL. 
That is a fourth party, or a fourth respondent. And Local 139, Inter- 
national Union of Operating Engineers, AFL. That is the fifth 
respondent, There are five respondents, to answer your question, 
Senator. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

Is is true that the term "respondents" in an NLRB proceeding refers 
to the parties who have been charged with violating the Taft-Hartley 
Act ? Is that a proper interpretation of the term ? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes ; and it may refer either to an employer or 
to a labor organization, which we loosely call the union. 

Senator Mundt. Whoever is being charged with violating the act 
becomes known in your terminology as the respondent ? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. So these five were the respondents in the instant 
case? 

Mr. Constantine. In the case you referred to as 13 CC 110. 

Senator Mundt. What were respondents charged with in the com- 
plaint of this case ? 

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

Mr. Constantine. I would like to refer to the I.TAW International 
as the UAW and Local 833 as Local 833 without giving their full 
designation. The complaint alleges that UAW and Local 833 on 
July 5, 1955, engaged in mass picketing at the entrance to the dock 
where a vessel, known as /. S. Fossmn, was berthed. 

Senator Mundt. Mass picketing ? 

Mr. Constantine. I am sorry ? 

Senator Mundt. Mass picketing ? 

Mr. Constantine. Mass picketing. And by said picketing and by 
other conduct, including threats, violence, orders, directions, instruc- 
tions, and appeals, engaged in and induced or encouraged the em- 
ployees of Buteyn and of other employers to engage in strikes or 
concerted refusals in the course of their employment, to use, manufac- 
ture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on goods, articles, 
materials, or commodities, or to perform services with an objective 
of forcing or requiring Paper Makers, Hammel, that would be Ilam- 
mel & Gillespie, and Buteyn, or other employers or persons to cease 
using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the 
products of Kohler, or to cease doing business with Kohler and with 
other employers. 

I could summarize that for you in lay language, Senator, by mean- 
ing that on or about July 5, 1955, respondents UAW and Local 833 
engaged in secondary boycott against Kohler by mass picketing and 
by threats, violence, orders, directions, instructions, and appeals. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Constantine. I haven't finished. 

Senator Mundt. I know. That is the first two. 



9922 IMPROPER ACTIWTIEIS IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Constantine. On or about July 7, 1954— that conduct is al- 
leged to have occurred at the entrance to the dock in Sheboygan, I 
don't think I mentioned that, Sheboygan, Wis. 

It then says that as a result of this conduct the ship was unable to 
unload at Sheboygan and proceeded to Milwaukee. That is merely 
descriptive. It is not a violation. The next alleged violation by UAW 
and Local 833 is that on or about July 7, 1955, upon the arrival of the 
Fossum at the port of Milwaukee, UAW and Local 833 picketed the 
entrances to the said port, and that is alleged to constitute a secondary 
boycott at Milwaukee, Wis. 

(At this point, Senator McClellan withdrew from the hearing 
room.) 

Senator Mundt. The hrst was Sheboygan and the second one was 
Milwaukee? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes. There is no allegation of violence with 
respect to the picketing at Milwaukee. There is as to Sheboygan. 
That is all I see with respect to July 5 and July 7. 

Now, still staying with Local 833 and the UAW, there is a further 
allegation that on or about July 25, 1955, UAW and Local 833 pick- 
eted the tracks, right-of-way, freight trains, and other facilities, of 
CNW, Chicago & Northwestern, in and near Sheboygan, Wis., with 
banners reading u This freight is for strike-bound Kohler Company." 

That is all that I find here. 

Senator Mundt. Those are the three different areas of the case? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes, as to UAW and Local 833. The other re- 
spondents are charged as follows: And that would be the operating 
engineers, the Milwaukee District Council, and the Municipal Em- 
ployees Union. 

On or about July 7, 1955, Local 2, Council No. 48, and Local 139, 
who represent the employees of the city of Milwaukee, engaged in, 
and, by orders, directions, instructions, and appeals, induced or en- 
couraged the employees of the city of Milwaukee and of other em- 
ployers to engage in strikes or concerted refusals in the course of their 
employment, to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise 
handle or work on goods, articles, materials, or commodities, or to 
perform services with an object of forcing or requiring the city of 
Milwaukee, Wis., and other employers or persons, to cease using, 
selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products 
of Kohler, or to cease doing business with Kohler and with other 
employers. 

Again, I can put that in lay language which would be substantially 
accurate, perhaps 99.99 accurate, that local 2, Council No. 48, and 
Local No. 139 are alleged to have engaged in a secondary boycott at 
the port facilities of the city of Milwaukee against Kohler by orders, 
directions, instructions, and appeals. 

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

Mr. Constantine. It does not allege that they engaged in picketing 
as one act of the secondary boycott. 

Senator Mundt. What does the General Counsel of the NLRB do 
before he issues a complaint of this type alleging the Commission of 
an unfair labor practice in violation of the Taft-Hartley Act? 

Mr. Constantine. Not only a complaint of this type, Senator, but 
any complaint does not issue until a thorough investigation has been 
made of the allegations in a charge. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 9923 

You will recall I said that the Board cannot act until a charge has 
been filed by some one. 

Senator Mundt. As I understand it, then, a charge is lodged against 
a company or against a union, and then the NLRB makes a thorough 
investigation of the facts, and, based on those facts, makes a finding 
of an illegal act or fails to make a finding of an illegal act, whichever 
way the facts indicate ? 

Mr. Constantine. Well, I wouldn't say they make a finding. They 
decide that if there is enough evidence of illegal conduct, they will 
issue a complaint so that the Board can have the case before it. 

The General Counsel, you might compare to the prosecutor. 

Senator Mundt. I understand. But was the entire complaint con- 
tested in this case ? 

Mr. Constantine. Not the entire complaint; no, Senator. Some 
of it was. 

Senator Mundt. What part of the complaint actually was contested ? 

Mr. Constantine. The part that I just read to you with respect to 
Local 2, Council No. 48, and Local 139. That is, the State and •em- 
ployees union, Council No. 48, and Local No. 139, which is of the 
Operating Engineers. 

Senator Mundt. The part of the complaint alleging unfair prac- 
tices against Local 833 and against the UAW was not contested ? 

Mr. Constantine. It was settled. It was contested in the sense 
that a settlement constitutes a contest. They didn't let the case go by 
default. But there was no formal hearing. It was not contested. 
It was settled. 

Senator Mundt. It was not contested, it was settled. On page 2383, 
Mr. Rauh testified that the NLRB decided in the contested part of 
the case that the railroad and municipal employees are not employees 
within the meaning of the secondary boycott of the Taft-Hartley 
Act, and, consequently, that was not pursued further. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Constantine. I have the question before me. May I look at 
it, Senator, please ? 

Senator Mundt. Yes, you may. 

Mr. Constantine. That is substantially correct. Actually, there 
were no railroad employees involved with respect to the contested 
part. But the statement is correct. 

Senator Mundt. In substance, it is correct ? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes; that in the contested part, the Board did 
so decide. 

Senator Mundt. On page 2381, Mr. Rauh said, 

The Kohler Co. has never suggested that we were violating the law. 

Is the Kohler Co. — I am sorry. I jumped to page 5. I should 
still be on page 4. 

Let me ask you: What part of the case was settled instead of being 
contested ? That was just the part relating to what ? 

Mr. Constantine. The part relating to the UAW and Local 833. 
That part was settled. 

Senator Mundt. That part was settled. 

On page 2380, Mr. Rauh stated 

It is perfectly clear that we, 
meaning the UAW, 



9924 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

it is perfectly clear that we agreed to something that we wouldn't have had 
to. 

Does the NLRB decision in the contested part of this case support 
that statement by Mr. Rauh ? 

That is on page 4 of the series of questions that I handed you. 

Mr. Constantine. Well, that involves a question of law, Senator. 
I want to answer the question, and I shall, but I would like to point 
out that anything I say on questions of law, of course, is my own 
personal opinion, and I have no authority to commit the Board. 
The statement is: It is perfectly clear that we agreed to something 
that we wouldn't have had to. 

That depends on whether the Board decision or the court decision 
is the one you want to go by. The Board in the contested part de- 
cided that with respect to employees of dockworkers, you couldn't 
have a secondary boycott, and to the extent that the stipulated 
record or the consent includes that, he is correct. But the consent 
or the stipulated record, as I read it, includes also conduct at 
Sheyboygan. 

That conduct, according to the allegations of the complaint, in 
my opinion, is as classical or as typical of secondary boycott as you. 
can find. 

Senator Mundt. At Sheboygan ? 

Mr. Constantine. At Sheboygan. 

Senator Mundt. Let me see if I understand that now. I believe 
that you have said that the union's conduct at the Sheboygan dock 

Mr. Constantine. As alleged in the complaint. I don't know if 
that is true or not, Senator. I am going by the allegations of the 
complaint. 

Senator Mundt. The union's conduct at the Sheboygan dock, as 
as alleged in the complaint, in preventing the employees of the 
Buteyn Construction Co. from unloading the ship carrying the clay 
to the Kohler Co. wasn't in any way exonerated or excused, either 
in fact or in law, in the contested part of the case which the NLRB 
decided in favor of the three unions which are not affiliated with the 
UAW. Is that correct? 

Mr. Constantine. I think so. To put it differently, Senator, and 
this is strictly my opinion : If that part of the allegation of the com- 
plaint had been established in the contested hearing so that there had 
been no settlement, I honestly believe, and I have no doubt in fact, that 
the Board would have found a secondary boycott with respcet to that, 
and I know of no court decisions which would have overruled the 
Board. 

I think that is a typical classical case of a secondary boycott. Now 
with respect to the other finding of the Board, the Board goes one 
way and the only courts that I know of go the other. 

There is room for argument either way. I express no opinion as 
to which view T is correct. As Solicitor, I am bound by Board decisions. 

Senator Mundt. Does this decision in favor of the three unions in 
any way at all diminish the validity or the effectiveness of the Board's 
case and its cease-and-desist order and the consent decree of the court 
with respect to the Buteyn Co. and other employers, as that term is 
defined in the Taft-Hartley Act? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES! IN THE LABOR FIELD 9925 

Mr. Constantine. I don't think so, Senator. Or to put it differ- 
ently, if the part relating to Buteyn in the settlement had been con- 
tested, the Board would have entered an order finding a violation and 
still would have dismissed the other part, which it ultimately did 
dismiss. 

So I do not read the decision of the Board in the contested case, 
which is in 116 NLRB, as in any way affecting the settlement if the 
settlement were to be reopened today and reexamined. 

Senator Mundt. Let me ask it this way : In your opinion, is there 
any decision of the NLRB or the courts which would legalize the con- 
duct of the UAW at the Sheboygan dock as set forth in the NLRB 
complaint in this case ? 

Mr. Constantine. I am not familiar with any, and I doubt if there 
is any. I am quite sure that that conduct, as alleged in the complaint, 
states a cause of action, to put it in the language of private practice. 

Senator Mundt. Isn't it correct, Mr. Constantine, that provisions of 
this consent decree are so broad and so sweeping that they prohibit 
the UAW from engaging in any secondary boycott any place, any 
time, not only against the Buteyn Co. but against any employer doing 
business with the Kohler Co. ? 

Mr. Constantine. May I look at the decree. Senator ? 

Senator Mundt. You may. 

Mr. Constantine. I think I can answer you better by knowing 
the precise terms of it. The answer to your question is that it is so 
worded, yes. 

It proscribes in lay language a secondary boycott against the Kohler 
Co. anywhere in the country. 

Technically it forbids any picketing of any employer. Or in any 
other manner inducing, or encouraging employees by threats, violence, 
orders, directions, instructions, or appeals, engaging in a strike or 
inducing or encouraging the employees of any employer to engage 
in a strike except at Kohler. 

Senator Mundt. Except at Kohler ? 

Mr. Constantine. There is nothing in the act that prevents the 
union from picketing and striking at Kohler. 

Senator Mundt. It wouldn't be construed as a secondary boycott 
at Kohler. 

Mr. Constantine. If there is anything illegal about it, it would 
have to be because it violated some other provision of the act. But the 
strike itself without more, or picketing without more, is lawful, so 
long as it is confined to the premises of the Kohler Co. 

Senator Mundt. On page 2380, Mr. Rauh said this, and I will quote 
him: 

The decisions of the courts, since the time we agreed to this stipulation, have 
indicated that we are not in violation, and in fact, we wouldn't have had to 
agree to it. 

I would like to ask you, sir, what court decisions are there, either 
before or since September 1955, the date referred to by Mr. Rauh, 
which would sustain that statement ? 

Mr. Constantine. Senator, I am not aware of any. There are very 
few decisions on the subject. They just don't agree with the Board. 
However, I would like to point out that there are three groups of 
decisions, because in the secondary boycott there are three parts 

21243— 58— pt. 25 2 



9926 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

which involve the interpretation of the word "employee." The Board 
has not interpreted the word "employee" the same in each part. In 
order to have a secondary boycott, you have to have, first, a union or 
a labor organization; second, the union must engage in a strike or 
induce or encourage employees to engage in a strike; and, third, an 
object of the conduct must be to force or require one employer to 
cease doing business with another employer or person. 

Now, let's take the first part, Senator, as to what constitutes a labor 
organization. You can't have a labor organization unless at least 
some of the members are real honest-to-goodness employees as defined 
in our act. So if you have a union whose members are all agricul tural 
employees or all city employees or all railroad employees, the Board 
has taken a position that that is not a labor organization. 

I only know of one court decision on that, and that is the District 
of Columbia Court. It went along with the Board on that. I think 
that is the DiGiorgio case. 

The next is to induce or encourage employees of any employer to 
engage in a strike. 

Again you have the question of what constitutes employees. The 
Board has taken the position that employees of a railroad or of a 
farmer or of a municipal corporation are not employees within the 
meaning of the act. That is why they decided in the contested part 
of this case that there was no violation at the dock in Milwaukee be- 
cause employees induced there were employees of the city of 
Milwaukee. 

I know of no court decision that supports the Board. The only 
ones, and they are very few, hold that you can find a secondary boy- 
cott. Those cases are from the Fifth Circuit. 

Senator Mttndt. That you can find ? 

Mr. Constantine. You can. 

Senator Mttndt. In other words, in those cases, the court is more 
severe or more strict than the Board in their interpretation ? 

Mr. Constantine. I don't know whether you would call it more 
strict or more severe. They just disagree with the Board's interpreta- 
tion of the act. 

Senator Mttndt. They are more embracing. 

Mr. Constantine. Yes; I think that would be a little more ac- 
curate. The third part of it is where an object of this conduct is to 
force or require one employer to cease doing business with another 
employer or person. 

Again you have this problem, because you might have a perfectly 
lawful labor organization, I mean a perfect labor organization, under 
our act, inducing, without doubt, employees, but you would have a 
problem as to whether an object was to have an employer to cease 
doing business with another employer where the Government is 
involved. 

At first, in that type of case, the Board took the position that the 
Government, any government, whether it is the Federal Government 
or State government or subdivision of the State government, was not 
an employer or person, so that although you had the first two elements 
of a union engaging in a strike or picketing a secondary employer, you 
did not have the third element or requirement of one employer ceasing 
doing business with another. I think that is the Schneider case. 



IMPROPER ACTFVTTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9927 

Later on, the Board was asked to reexamine it by Genera] Counsel 
Bott, and the Board adhered to its original position. 

More recently, however, it was again asked to reexamine it, and the 
Board, as of that date, took the position that a Government, whether 
the United States Government or a State government or municipality, 
rould be an employer or person within the third segments, but not the 
first two segments. 

Senator Mundt. The third category is not involved in the case Ave 
are now discussing. 

Mr. Constantine. No ; nor is the first one. As I read it, it is the 
second one. That is, there is no question of the labor organization. 
No one made an issue of that, as I recall. The question was whether 
they induced or encouraged employees within the meaning of the act. 

Senator Mundt. That takes care of the court proceedings. 

Is there any support in the NLRB decision for the statement of 
Mr. Rauh, that decisions of the Board had indicated that they were 
not in any violation ? 

Is there any support in the NLRB decisions for the statement of 
Mr. Rauh on the UAW activities directed against the Buteyn Bros, 
or any other employer as defined in the Taft-Hartley Act ? 

Mr. Constantine. As I read the allegations of the complaint, 
Buteyn is an employer. It is not a Government corporation, nor is 
it a government. 

Senator Mundt. It is a construction company. 

Mr. Constantine. Nor is it a railroad nor is it a farmer, who, by 
the act, are excluded from the definition of employer. The com- 
plaint also alleges, without identifying, "or any other employer," 
meaning that there were other employers unidentified whose employees 
were induced. 

So the answer to your question, Senator, is that with respect to 
Buteyn, and anyone who is admittedly an employer, the settlement 
would stand today, even if they had reopened it and contested it, as 
I see it. 

Senator Mundt. On page 2381, Mr. Rauh said, and I will quote him : 

The Kohler Co. has never suggested that we are violating the law. 

Mr. Constantine, is the Kohler Co. the only party or person who has 
a right to make a suggestion of that kind ? 

Mr. Constantine. No, Senator; but I don't quite understand from 
Mr. Rauh's statement when he says, "Has never suggested that we 
are violating the law," at what stage of the proceeding he is talking 1 
about. 

A charge may be filed by anybody. Certainly, the victim of the 
secondary boycott is not the only one who may suggest or file a charge. 
For example, in this particular case here, it was not Kohler but it was 
someone else who filed the charge. Kohler could have if it had 
wanted to. 

Later on, after the decree had been entered by the court of appeals 
pursuant to the stipulated record or consent agreement, anyone, 
I suppose, may come in and tell the Board that the decree is being 
violated, and the Board would then investigate it if it thought that 
it was worthy of investigation. So the answer to your question is 
Kohler is not the only party or person who has a right to so suggest. 



9928 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I suppose anyone can, and we often do have people come in telling 
us that there is a violation. 

Senator Mundt. It would seem that way to me, from your descrip- 
tion of the way that the Board under the law operates. It wouldn't 
be limited to Kohler. 

Mr. Constantine. Anyone can file a charge. 

Senator Mundt. On 2387, Mr. Rauh stated : 

The law as it exists today would have supported us if we had decided to 
fight this order. 

As I gathered from your earlier statements, that statement by Mr. 
Rauh was unsupportable. I would like to have your opinion on that. 

Mr. Constantine. I would like to break that down, Senator, because 
it comprehends more than just one part of the decree. I assume it 
comprehends the whole decree. When he says the law as it exists 
today, if he is referring to court decisions, I know of no court decision 
that would support him. If he is referring to Board decisions, the 
Board decision supports him with respect to the Milwaukee incident, 
but they do not support him with respect to the Sheboygan incident. 

There is one more thing I would like to say. With respect to the 
Chicago & North Western incident, the Board decisions would sup- 
port him, but the court decisions would not because the Fifth Circuit 
has not accepted the Board's interpretation of the words "railway 
employee." Have I answered that ? 

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

Senator Mundt. Yes. 

On page 2386, Mr. Rauh said, and I will quote, "we," meaning the 
UAW, "stipulated we would not do it, even though the courts of 
appeals have held that we could." 

I would like to have from your records or from your knowledge 
what courts of appeals support Mr. Rauh's assertion that they could 
if they wanted to. 

Mr. Constantine. I am not quite sure what he means by the 
word "it," 

The quotation reads, "We stipulated we would not do it". I assume 
he refers to the allegations of the complaint, to the extent that they 
affect the UAW and 833. On that basis, Senator- 
Senator Mundt. I can maybe make that clearer by pointing out that 
Mr. Rauh is the attorney for the UAW. So he probably would be 
speaking for them rather than municipal employees or railroad em- 
ployees, or people who are not employed there. 

Mr. Constantine. I assume he means that, because the word "stipu- 
lated" could only refer to the record that I am familiar with it. I am 
not aware of any courts of appeal decisions that would support him 
except the DiGiorgio case. 

And that does not precisely involve the conduct now under consid- 
eration, as alleged in the complaint. 

If there are any, I just don't know them. 

Senator Mundt. To the best of your knowledge, at least, you can 
say that there are, at least, no court of appeals opinions? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes; that is it, Senator. I don't know of any,, 
and I don't think there are any. 

Senator Mundt. In these hearings, Mr. Rauh has repeatedly empha- 
sized that the stipulation in the uncontested part of the case expressly 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FTELD 9929 

provided that the UAW did not admit any guilt, and that the stipu- 
lation was not to be admitted as evidence in other proceedings. 

Does this necessarily differentiate this consent order from NLRB 
orders in contested cases? 

Mr. Constantine. No, Senator. It is not unusual in settlement 
cases to have a provision that the party, respondent, does not admit 
by the settlement any guilt, and it is not unusual to provide that it 
shall not be admitted as evidence in any other proceeding. 

But that, in my judgment, doesn't differentiate it from any other 
NLRB order in a contested case. The Board's order, if enforced by 
the court of appeals, is just as outstanding as any other order. 

Senator Mundt. Is it not true that even in many contested cases 
decided after a full hearing, where the Board requires the respondent 
to post a notice that he will not commit any of the prohibited unlaw- 
ful acts, the courts do not permit the Board to require the offending 
party to admit guilt in the notice ? 

Mr. Constantine. That is true. There are not many cases on that. 
But in the early days of the act the courts would not require that an 
employer — they were mostly employer cases— who was under an order 
of the Board to post a notice stating that he would cease and desist 
from engaging in certain conduct, was not required in that notice to 
say that he admitted that he violated the law or admit guilt. 

The no-posting requirements of the act, or, to be more exact, of the 
Board's decisions, because I don't think the act provides for that, the 
Board has provided for it and the courts have upheld us on it, are a 
provision designed to require an employer or a union to post a notice 
that he will refrain from this particular type of conduct, so as to 
give all employees notice that he will not engage in it. 

Senator Mundt. If a respondent fails to comply with the consent 
decree in a settlement case, does his position differ significantly from 
a respondent who disobeys a decree in a contested case ? 

Mr. Constantine. No. No, Senator, the same principles in deter- 
mining whether the respondent is in contempt are applicable to both 
cases. We have had cases where a respondent, whether an employer 
or a union, have failed to comply with a consent decree, or stipulated 
decree, as you referred to it a while ago, and in determining whether 
the conduct called to our attention constituted contempt there was no 
different principle involved. 

Senator Mundt. Let me ask you a question rather hypothetical in 
nature. Let us assume that a mythical company, let us say the XYZ 
Co. in California, which is not mentioned in this decree, and which 
was never involved in this proceeding in any way, should find itself 
picketed by the UAW, or any other union, because it is working on 
Kohler Co. products, and the pickets are calling upon the employees 
of the XYZ Co. to strike or to refuse to handle these Kohler products. 
Assuming a case like that, could the NLRB, after the investigation of 
this situation, proceed directly against the UAW for contempt of the 
decree in the circuit court? 

Mr. Constantine. May I take a look at the decree, Senator? 

Senator Mundt. Yes. 

Mr. Constantine. Thank you. 

The decree is so worded that the answer to your question is that the 
NLRB could proceed directly. 



9930 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Let me point out to you what I mean by that. 

Senator Mundt. That they could proceed directly? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. Now go ahead. 

Mr. Constantine. The decree provides that the UAW and Local 835 
shall not picket Buteyn, the city of Milwaukee, the Chicago & North- 
western Railway Co. or any other employer. That is broad enough to 
comprehend anybody. It also provides that Local 833 and the UAW 
shall not in any other manner, including threats, violence, orders, 
directions, instructions or appeals, engage in a secondary boycott, w T ith 
respect to the employees of Buteyn Construction Co., the city of 
Milwaukee, the Chicago Northwestern Railroad, or any other em- 
ployer, other than Kohler. 

Senator Mundt. In other words, as I understand, the NLRB would 
not have to initiate a new proceeding from the beginning with a new 
charge and new complaint and hearing before the Board in order to 
prosecute the UAW for contempt, even though the XYZ Co. had never 
been involved in the case which was settled ? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes, that is true, except when you say initiate a 
new charge perhaps you mean investigate a new charge. We don't 
initiate charges. 

Senator Mundt. Well, maybe I better say you would not have to 
initiate a new proceeding. 

Mr. Constantine. Yes. In that respect, the decree gives a little 
more protection to what we call the public policy of the act in this 
respect : If someone called to our attention or the Board's attention 
the fact that there was conduct indicating the violation of the decree, 
and the Board investigated and found that there was such a violation, 
it could, without more, petition the court for a finding in contempt, 
whereas if that same person came in and there was no decree and re- 
fused to file a charge, there was nothing the Board could do. 

Senator Mundt. Could any more effective remedy have been afforded 
this mythical XYZ Co. had this not been a consent decree but a nor- 
mal decree resulting from a contested case in which the XYZ Co. had 
sought to initiate a completely new proceeding before the NLRB ? 

That is my final question. You will find that listed on page (). 

Mr. Constantine. I don't think it could give any more effective 
remedy by proceeding in a separate complaint case or separate charge 
and complaint following it. 

The only difference between the two is that in the separate case the 
XYZ Co. you referred to would be mentioned or identified specifically. 
But you don't have to have them identified specifically. 

A decree providing that the union shall not engage in secondary 
boycotts with respect to the employees of A, B, and C, or any other 
employer, in my opinion embraces any other employer. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, there may be some other members 
of the committee who have questions on this point. If not, those are 
the questions I wanted to ask. I have a statement I wanted to make 
based on the replies, but some other members of the committee may 
have some questions. 

Mr. Constantine. I would like to add, as a result of a conference 
with Mr. Silverberg, that, of course, the Board does not have to go in 
on contempt if it desires to process the complaint. The reason for that 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9931 

is this: The General Counsel has the final say as to whether he will 
issue a complaint or not, as to whether he will call certain facts to the 
attention of the Board. 

If, rather than proceeding in contempt, the General Counsel decides 
to issue a complaint on those same facts, there is nothing the Board 
can do. But your question, as I understood it, was can the Board 
do it? 

Senator Mundt. Right. 

Mr. Constantine. The answer is yes. 

Senator Goldwater. I have just one question. 

You referred to Mr. Silverberg. Who is Mr. Silverberg? 

Mr. Constantine. Mr. Silverberg is the Director of Information 
for the National Labor Relations Board. He is sitting right here at 
my right, Senator. 

Senator Goldwater. How long has he been associated with the 
NLRB? 

Mr. Silverberg. 21 years, Senator. 

Senator Goldwater. Is it customary for the Director of Public 
Relations to attend hearings and sit on the side of counsel? 

Mr. Silverberg. Well, there haven't been too much occasions, 
Senator. 

Senator Goldwater. I wondered what the purpose would be. 

Mr. Silverberg. Well, the Chairman asked me to accompany the 
Solicitor. 

Senator Goldwater. The Chairman asked you ? 

Mr. Silverberg. That is right. 

The Chairman. The Chairman of the Board. 

Senator Goldwater. I understand. 

Senator Mundt. May I say, Mr. Chairman, that the letter of the 
chairman to the committee to the Chairman of the Board didn't ask 
for Mr. Constantine. It asked him to send up such people as he 
thought would be helpful in answering the questions which I had posed 
and with regard to the cases we had stipulated. 

So the selection of these two gentlemen was made by the Chairman 
of the Board. 

The Chairman. Do you wish to ask this gentleman any questions?' 
If so, he should be sworn. 

Senator Mundt. No. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to take this much time 
with these questions, but I feel this goes to a very important point in 
these whole hearings, and it is very important that we get this record 
straightened out from the best possible testimony that we can find, 
because I submit that on the testimony we have had from the UAW 
witnesses to the effect that the union had no responsibility for or took 
no part in any attempt to prevent the clay boat from unloading at the 
Sheboygan dock on July 5, 1955, the testimony of Mr. Constantine is 
overwhelmingly persuasive to the contrary. 

Mr. Constantine's testimony and the public records to which he re- 
ferred establish in my opinion beyond any doubt the following points : 
Number 1, that the picketing activities at the Sheboygan dock, and 
particularly those picketing activities which prevented the Buteyn 
Construction Co. from unloading the clay boat for Kohler resulted 



9932 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

in many days of testimony before our committee because of the result- 
ing activities which we have called the clay boat incident, resulted in 
charges being filed with the NLRB alleging that both the Interna- 
tional UAW and Local 833 UAW had violated the secondary boycott 
provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act by attempting to prevent such 
unloading. 

Two, the General Counsel of the NLRB, following the usual proce- 
dure in such cases, investigated those charges and found sufficient 
evidence of the truth to justify the issuance of a formal complaint, filed 
against both the local and the international union, in contrast with 
several other secondary boycott charges against the UAW elsewhere 
which were informally settled prior to the issuance of the complaint. 
The point at issue being here whether there was a formal complaint, 
and the evidence overwhelmingly supports that fact. 

Three, rather than air all of the detailed facts in the case which 
would emerge in a full-dress NLRB hearing, the union entered into 
a formal settlement agreement, the results of which are practically 
the same as if the NLRB had found the UAW guilty after a full 
hearing, and has been sustained in its decision by the courts. 

Four, that there is now outstanding against the international UAW 
and Local 833 a judicial decree which threatens exactly the same pen- 
alty based on the same procedures, which would have resulted if the 
UAW had contested the case and had lost it. 

Five, that the favorable NLRB decision secured by the three other 
unions affiliated with the UAW, dealt with a factual situation 
that did not involve the picketing activities at the Sheboygan dock, 
nor the Buteyn Construction Co. and its employees. 

Six, contrary to the assertions and statements of Mr. Rauh, speak- 
ing here for the UAW, all of the decisions of the NLRB and of the 
Federal courts, hold that the type of activities carried on by the UAW 
at the Sheboygan dock and against the Buteyn Construction Co. and 
its employees as alleged in the NLRB complaint, are violations of 
the secondary boycott provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act. 

Finally, I think it is important that the testimony we have just 
received demonstrates clearly that the attorney for the UAW, Mr. 
Rauh, in his statements to this committee on this matter, and his 
previous responses to me, both while testifying as a witness when he 
was sworn and in commenting informally when he was not testifying 
as a witness and was unsworn, was either designed to mislead the 
members of this committee and to mislead me who asked the questions, 
and to mislead the American public, or else, speaking charitably, he 
was speaking with complete assurance on the matter with which he 
was not informed and on which he did not have the facts. 

For that reason, I thought we should go direct to whoever in the 
NLRB had the records, had the files, had the facts, so the record could 
be based on evidence rather than mere statements of opinion. 

I want to thank the Chair for making available this witness from the 
NLRB. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

The committee will stand in recess until 1 : 30. We will resume 
hearings at that time in the Caucus Room. 

(Whereupon, at 12 : 15 p. m. a recess was taken until 1 : 30 p. m. of 
the same day, with the following members of the committee present : 
Senators McClellan, Mundt, Curtis, and Goldwater.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9933 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

(The committee reconvened in the Caucus Room, United States 
Senate, with the following members present: Senators McClellan, 
Gold water, and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Call the first witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Herbert V. Kohler. 

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

The Chairman. Mr. Kohler, will you be sworn, please, sir? 

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. Kohler. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF HERBERT V. KOHLER, ACCOMPANIED BY 
COUNSEL LYMAN C. CONGER 

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

Mr. Kohler. My name is Herbert V. Kohler. I live at Kohler, 
Wis. I am president of the Kohler Co. 

The Chairman. Do you have counsel representing you ? 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Counsel will be identified as Mr. Conger, for the 
record. 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How long, Mr. Kohler, have you been President of 
the Kohler Co.? 

Mr. Kohler. Since 1937, sir. 

The Chairman. Since 1937. 

Pardon me. I believe you have a prepared statement that you 
wish to read ? 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The witness has not conformed to the rule of the 
Senate with respect to submitting his statement 24 hours in advance. 
For that reason, the witness asked yesterday, or his counsel did, that 
we defer hearing this witness until tomorrow, to give him the opportu- 
nity, bacause he hardly got notice in time that the committee would 
like to hear him today to give him the opportunity to comply with 
the rule of the Senate. 

I suggested that if the witness would appear today, I would ask 
the committee to waive the rule with respect to 24 hours. 

I observe here that you have a very brief statement. It contains 
only five pages of typewritten matter. I ask the indulgence of my 
colleagues on the committee, in this instance, to waive the rule, so that 
we may proceed. 

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

The Chairman. Do I hear objection to the Chair's request? 

The Chair hears no objection. 

Therefore, Mr. Kohler, you may proceed to read your statement. 

Mr. Kohler. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee : 

The purpose of these hearings, as I understand it, is to inquire as 
to the need for legislation to deal with improper activities in the 
labor and management fields. 



9934 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

It has been our endeavor to give the Senate committee the fullest 
cooperation by supplying information as requested and by sworn 
testimony on matters within the knowledge of company personnel. 
Nothing occurs to me that I would now wish to add in this respect. 

I concur in the statements of position and policy that have been 
made by Mr. Conger and others who have spoken for the company 
officially. 

The concern of the committee, I assume, is with broader interests 
of the American people — not with this particular dispute between 
Kohler Co. and the UAW, as such. 

Obviously, I speak from the viewpoint of one of the parties. We 
have been concerned, naturally, to protect the interests of the company. 

But I believe that some of the stands we have taken have served 
in the public interest and specifically the interest of people em- 
ployed in American industry. 

The issue which more than any other, in my opinion, precipitated 
this strike was compulsory unionism. We do not believe that people 
should be compelled to become or remain members of a union. The 
arguments pro and con are so well known that I shall not repeat them ; 
but I think that many of the abuses this committee has exposed in its 
investigation would not happen where union membership is voluntary. 

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

Mr. Kohlek. There is no so-called right-to-work law against the 
union shop in Wisconsin, although by way of contrast we do have a 
law which my brother signed as Governor years ago, outlawing yellow- 
dog contracts. We have not questioned the union's right to make such 
a union-shop proposal or demand. 

But we believe it is also beyond question that the company was right 
to reject the demand, in view of our convictions on this subject. 

Wisconsin does have a law against the use of mass picketing, force, 
and coercion to prevent people who desire to go to work from doing so. 

To my mind, the right to work, free from such tactics, is self-evident. 

According to testimony heard here from union sources, those voting 
for this strike were not only a minority of the company's employees 
but a minority of the union's claimed membership. 

But waiving that question, those desiring to work, no matter how 
much or how few in number, had that right, not merely as a matter 
of law, but as a matter of morals and of sound American principle. 

The picketing was illegal from the very first hour. It seems to me 
the evidence has left no doubt that it was deliberately so organized 
and directed. 

The purpose during the nearly 2 months of mass picketing was not 
to protect the jobs of the strikers which certainly nobody was then 
trying to take, but to prevent the nonstrikers from working at their 
own jobs. 

The union argument seems to be — and it has been openly so ex- 
pressed — that in a strike situation, the company has no right to 
operate, nonstrikers have no right to work, and the union's view as to 
the merits of the dispute is conclusive and binding upon everybody. 

Carried to its logical conclusion, this would mean that when a strike 
is called, the company must close its plant and lock out those em- 
ployees who want to work; and eventually the company would have 
to give in on union shop and any or all other demands or else be forced 
out of business. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9935 

That would amount, not to bargaining in good faith, but yielding 
whatever the union saw fit to demand and insist upon. It would take 
only one to make a bargain, and that one would be the union. 

Kohler Co. and the UAW failed to reach a second contract. The 
union called a strike, as it had a right to do. The company took the 
strike, as it had a right to do. Speaking for ourselves, I can say that, 
as we viewed the matter and as we still view it, we did not let ourselves 
get involved in so serious a conflict for trivial reasons. 

The union first resorted to trial by combat. Only after mass pick- 
eting and force had failed did they seek a legal remedy by preferring 
charges of unfair labor practices. 

The findings of the trial examiner on those charges favored the 
union on some points but sustained the company on what seems to me 
the most important issues. He found that the strike was not caused 
by any failure of the company to bargain in good faith. He also 
found that the stand of the company with respect to bargaining 
during the period of mass picketing was warranted by the unlawful 
conduct of the union. 

I mention this, not with the thought that this committee is pri- 
marily interested in the labor board proceedings (which are still not 
concluded). 

But it highlights the UAW attitude of assuming to judge the merits 
of a dispute in which it is an interested party, to take the law into its 
own hands, even before resorting to the legal process that is available 
to it, and to employ coercion, not alone against the company, but 
against fellow workers who prefer to think for themselves, and 
against the community itself. 

It seems to be an attitude that whatever end they choose to pursue 
justifies any means they choose to employ. 

When law enforcement and public order are broken down, I submit 
that the public is being coerced. 

The responsibility of the union and its officials, including those of 
the International, for the unleashing of mob rule on the picket line 
seems beyond dispute. 

Their responsibility for the home picketing appears equally fixed. 

This is true also as regards assaults upon individuals, the bowling 
alley riot, the clay boat riot. 

In the light of all the evidence, it is hard to see how reasonable 
people could be in doubt about the responsibility for the vandalism. 

The UAW has dwelt at these hearings upon various company 
•actions as justification for UAW violations of law. Many of their 
accusations against the company have been in the form of stump 
speeches and hearsay, not to characterize them any further. Insofar 
as the accusations have any pertinence at all to the real issues, the 
evidence is before the labor board. 

To complain to the Board, if the union felt aggrieved, was proper 
enough. But for the union to take the law into its own hands was not 
proper. And the commission of unlawful acts, in most cases not 
against the company primarily, but against individuals and against 
public order, can scarcely be defended or even rationally explained. 

One specific allegation against the company is that we have em- 
ployed strikebreakers. I do not wish to bandy words or definitions as 
to strikebreakers. I suppose that could be at least in part a legal 
question. 



9936 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

We did not solicit people, to take jobs, although our attorneys tell 
me that we would have had a legal right to do so. 

When we needed help and qualified applicants asked for jobs, we 
hired some of them to help operate our plant. We could have limped 
along or gone out of business— but I thought we had a right of self- 
preservation, and we chose that rather than surrender. 

Our problem was not just the shortage of help caused by the fact 
that some of our employees were out on strike. It was largely the 
fact that many others, terrorized by the abuse and threats, the home 
picketing, the assaults and the night-riding vandalism, were staying 
away, although they wanted to work. 

We hired permanent employees, and the union had public notice of 
that fact. 

And may I add that we stated our position, not as a threat, but as 
our answer to a union threat that these people would later be thrown 
out in the street to make room for returning strikers. 

May I also add that whenever we have had jobs available, strikers 
applying for reinstatement have met with no discrimination. They 
have been reinstated provided they had not engaged in serious un- 
lawful conduct. 

There remains the matter of the boycott. The legal problems in- 
volved I do not consider myself qualified to discuss. 

The purpose of the boycott has been to strangle the company inta 
submission and wreck its business, making it an example to all Amer- 
ican industry. If the union accomplishes its purpose, the only al- 
ternative will be to do as the union says or be destroyed. 

The public is being told by the union, in effect, if you are not for us 
you are against us. It is the same thing the clergy in Sheboygan 
County were told, and the bar association, and the medical society 
and virtually everybody in the community. 

People who sell Kohler products and those who install them,. 
municipalities, school boards, hospitals, even community chests, have 
been given the same alternatives. 

Wherever painful legal consequences threaten, the union always 
backs off fast; but like the vandalism, this is a hit-and-run affair, sure 
to break out somewhere else. 

The effort of the union has been to hurt the company by hurting 
innocent third parties. Whatever harm we have suffered in par- 
ticular localities has been offset by business we have gained because 
of the widespread indignant reaction to these tactics. 

The typical American will have a tendency not to buy products of 
a company which in his judgment is bad. But he does not take 
kindly to attempts to pressure him against his judgment. 

The real harm is to people whose business or occupation is carried 
on in a limited area where a particular sale or job under attack may 
be of critical importance. 

It is a salutary thing to expose dishonesty and racketeering and this 
committee deserves the commendation of the American public for the 
job it has done in that respect. 

But there is an even graver problem when people are deprived of 
their civil rights to work at their jobs or conduct their business 
peacefully, according to their own judgment, and whole communities 
live in a state of fear and apprehension. 

Thank you, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9937 

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Kohler. Could you, in elaborating 
-on your statement, now state specifically what you consider to be the 
improper practices that the union has engaged in since this strike 
began, either those which are in violation of existing law or those 
which you believe are improper and wrong and should be prohibited 
bylaw? 

You refer in general terms here in your statement to things. 

Mr. Kohler. Well, the mass picketing, sir, for the first 54 days. 

The Chairman. I beg your pardon ? 

Mr. Kohler. The mass picketing. 

The Chairman. Mass picketing for the first 54 days ? 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. What else? 

Mr. Kohler. The home picketing. 

The Chairman. The what? 

Mr. Kohler. The home picketing, the picketing of homes by large 
masses of people. The vandalism, individual cases throughout the 
county, vandalism and violence to persons and property. 

The Chairman. Vandalism and violence ? 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. We will put that under one. 

Mr. Kohler. And then the boycott in which innocent third parties 
are being coerced, and the public, of course, which is being coerced 
every time there is violence, every time there is disorder, which can- 
not be controlled by the authorities. 

The Chairman. I have four. Let's see if you can name another. 

One is mass picketing. 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Two is home picketing ? 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Three is vandalism and violence and four is boy- 
cott. Is there any other that you would regard as an improper prac- 
tice, labor practice, on the part of the union, either the local union or 
the international, or both ? 

Mr. Kohler. May I consult my counsel, sir ? 

The Chairman. Yes, you may. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kohler. The importation of goons from without the State, 
men such as Gunaca and Vincent. 

The Chairman. The importation of goons 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. — from out of State. That is five. Is there any 
other? 

Mr. Kohler. I think that covers it, sir. 

The Chairman. Those five, then, you would state all of their ac- 
tivity in which the union has indulged during the period of this strike, 
these five that I have listed here as you have named them, constitute 
what you regard as improper practices, for which the union is and 
should be held responsible ? 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, insofar as it violated the law now, 
if they do, they are improper, and if the law is not adequate to cover 
and include these practices that you have mentioned as of now, then 



9938 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

you think they should be declared improper, and the Congress should 
legislate against them ? 

( The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Kohler. I would think so, yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I am just trying to get this in its.proper perspective. 

Now, may I ask you this : You have, of course, followed these hear- 
ings, and you have been very well identified, I am sure, with this 
unfortunate labor dispute from its inception. You know of the many 
charges that have been made against the Kohler Co. by the union in 
the course of this controversy. 

Are you in position to say, or do you now concede, that the company 
has at any time engaged in an improper labor practice? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. You would not concede that the company has at 
any time engaged in an improper labor practice ? 

Mr. Kohler. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you contend that you have at all times bargained 
in good faith? 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Have you ever refused to bargain in good faith ? 

Mr. Kohler. No, sir. 

The Chairman. It is not the function of this committee to under- 
take to settle a strike. However, it may have been an unjustified hope 
but I think we have entertained at times a. faint hope that may be, 
as a result of these hearings, we could bring out facts that would be 
spotlighted in public opinion and thus induce, possibly, the parties 
that are involved to again review their position and undertake to 
make further concessions, insofar as according the hope that there 
might be some progress made towards a final settlement of this dispute. 

Has anything occurred during the course of these hearings that 
has causecl you or your company to in any way review its position 
and reconsider the position it has taken in the past with respect to 
the issues at controversy ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kohler. No, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, I will use this term for both sides, 
I am not trying to single you out, you are just as adamant now with 
respect to the position you have stated here in your opening statement, 
and the position you have maintained from the beginning, as you have 
been at any time ? 

Mr. Kohler. We are maintaining our position. 

The Chairman. You are not now willing to yield on any point 
where there is disagreement, and an issue between you and the union ? 

Mr. Kohler. We are willing to negotiate at any time with any 
union that represents our employees. 

The Chairman. It seems to me in this matter of bargaining and 
negotiating, to say you will do it in good faith I would think carries 
with it, or should carry with it, the implication that — 

We will sit down with you at the bargaining table, review our position, take 
into account further and give consideration to the position you maintain, or 
the demands or requests you make. In other words, we will go to the bargaining 
table to start afresh and take a new look at the problem. Maybe we have been, 
wrong. Let's look over and see. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9939 

That, to me, is bargaining in good faith. But to take a position 
"I am not going to budge. This is the limit. I am going no further. 
I will go to the bargaining table but I will sit there like a stone wall 
with deaf ears, I will pay no attention," to me, is not bargaining in 
good faith. I am trying to determine whether either side is ready 
to sit down at the bargaining table and again bargain in good faith, 
or if you have reached the point on both sides, or either side, where 
you take a position "We have gone the last mile, the last foot, the 
last inch, we are going to make no further concessions; it is either 
this or nothing else." 

Have you reached that position '? 

Mr. Koiiler. I would say we have not reached that position. But 
I would not foretell the answer. 

The Chairman. I don't say you could foretell until you sit down 
and bargain. But are you still ready and willing to sit down at the 
bargaining table with the union and its representatives, and again 
review your position with them, and take into account and try to 
consider their point of view in the hope or with the view that you may 
possibly reach some amicable settlement ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that Mr. Kohler 
could give an answer to that. He is the head of the company. We 
have already heard from Mr. Conger. Your question is very direct. 
Does he have to have advice of counsel in answering that question? 

The Chairman. We have been very generous here in letting them 
consult counsel. 

Mr. Kohler. Mr. Chairman, I think I have answered that. We 
will go to a bargaining table with open minds. But I will not give 
you the answer now. 

The Chairman. I don't mean you can. I didn't say you could. 

I am trying to find out if you would go to the table with an open 
mind. In other words, I am trying to find out very frankly whether 
either side or both sides are bargaining in good faith. 

Just attending a bargaining session doesn't necessarily mean it is 
in good faith. 

Mr. Kohler. I don't know how to answer that, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, would you yield for just one brief 
question ? 

The Chairman. Yes, I will yield. 

Senator Curtis. My question is this, and maybe you will want to 
consult your counsel. Would it be lawful for you to bargain with 
an organization that did not represent your employees ? 

Mr. Kohler. I think 

Senator Curtis. I am not saying whether they do or not. But is 



aw 



that a question of 1 

Mr. Kohler. I think it is, sir. 

Senator Curtis. If a bargaining agent comes to you and says "We 
represent your employees," if they do not, you have no right to bar- 
gain with them, do you ? 

Mr. Kohler. That is my understanding, sir. 

Senator Curtis. It is against the law, isn't it ? 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. I see. 



9940 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. The Chair is going to defer any further question- 
ing. I was trying to get this thing in focus, get it in proper perspec- 
tive, so that as we move along we would know fundamentally, basic- 
ally, exactly what your position is. 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Senator Kennedy ? 

Senator Kennedy. I would like to follow what the chairman has 
said. As I understand it, Mr. Kohler, would you or would you not 
sit down and sign a contract on any terms with the UAW ? 

Mr. Kohler. Well, I think that the UAW must prove somehow 
that it represents the majority of our employees. 

Senator Kennedy. In other words, would you sit down with them 
today or not and sign it on any conditions ? 

Mr. Kohler. I think they must prove that they represent the ma- 
jority of our employees before we would make a legal contract. 

Senator Kennedy. As you know, the trial examiner, and you made 
reference to him, stated very clearly in his report, at page 133 : 

At all times, on or after June 11, 1952, the union has been the exclusive bargaining 
representative of respondent's employees in the aforesaid unit 

Mr. Kohler. Could I consult my counsel ? 

Senator Kennedy. The point I am making is that the examiner 
makes the statement that the UAW is the representative of the em- 
ployees for bargaining purposes. 

Mr. Kohler. We have given them notice, though, that we question 
their majority. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kohler. On February 12 

The Chairman. The Chair will make this observation, and you can 
bear it in mind. Mr. Conger has been sworn, he has been a witness, 
and any time that he answers a question that may be asked, he will 
answer it as a witness. 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. I was trying to get a date. Could I have 
him answer that % 

The Chairman. As to the date, if you do not recall. 

Mr. Kohler. We notified the National Labor Kelations Board that 
we questioned the majority of the union. That was February 

Mr. Conger. As of February 12, 1955. 

Senator Kennedy. What has happened, of course, Mr. Kohler, is 
that an election was held and the UAW was chosen as the bargaining 
unit. Then they went on strike, and since that time you hired other 
employees who are not members of the union. 

The National Labor Kelations Board trial examiner found that the 
UAW was still the bargaining unit for the employees. You have 
stated today that you do not accept that, and for that reason, therefore, 
you would not sit down and bargain with the UAW as the representa- 
tive of the. employees. Is that a correct statement? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. Then you would not sit down with the UAW 
and bargain with them as a representative of the employees, is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Kohler. We do not think that the UAW now represents a 
majority of our employees. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR HELD 9941 

Senator Kennedy. In other words, you would not sit down with 
them, even though the trial examiner found that they were the repre- 
sentatives of the employees, is that correct? 

Mr. Kohler. I would have to consult my counsel. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Kennedy. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that we are not 
discussing a legal question, but a question of opinion. 

I know the great influence Mr. Conger has had on all of these nego- 
tiations. Personally, I consider that he has been one of the difficulties 
of the matter. Now the head of the company, who has responsibility 
can't even answer whether he would be willing to sit down, without 
appealing to his counsel. 

Mr. Conger. Mr. Chairman, may I interpose? The witness is being 
asked a question that does involve legal consequences, and I think he 
is entitled to talk to counsel on it. 

The Chairman. The Chair is going to permit him to consult counsel. 

Senator Kennedy. Would you be willing to sit clown ? 

The Chairman. I try to be rather generous in it, liberal. But, of 
course, the Avitness primarily should answer himself. I appreciate 
that it may be, and the witness may state, if he desires, that primarily 
he has turned this matter of management and administration of the 
affairs with respect to this controversy over to his attorney. 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you are relying upon him and have relied upon 
him in the past ? 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Senator Kennedy. What I am asking you, Mr. Kohler, is whether 
you would be willing, once again, and I want to get it clear 

Mr. Kohler. May I interrupt you, if you please ? 

Senator Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Kohler. The trial examiner is not the last word in the matter. 

Senator Kennedy. That is correct. 

Mr. Kohler. We have taken exception to his findings. 

Senator Kennedy. All I am asking you is your opinion. I am just 
quoting the trial examiner as at least a disinterested party. I am ask- 
ing you in order, if we could, to see if some accommodation could be 
reached on a very long and lengthy strike, whether you would be 
willing to sit down with the union as the bargaining agent for the 
employees. 

I gather from what you have said that you would be unwilling, then, 
is that correct ? 

Mr. Kohler. It certainly would be to no purpose. We could not 
come to no conclusion, if it would be illegal to make an agreement with 
a minority interest. 

Senator Kennedy. Why is it illegal to make an agreement with the 
bargaining representative of the employees ? Why it is illegal ? What 
action has been taken by the employees 

Mr. Kohler. It is a legal question, sir, which I would refer to 
my counsel. 

Senator Kennedy. What action has been taken by the employees 
which has displaced the UAW as the bargaining representative? 

21243— 58— pt. 25 3 



9942 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kohler. Well, men have quit, men have died, new men have 
been employed: It certainly disposes the working force differently. 

Senator Kennedy. What action has been taken, legal or any other 
action which has been taken, which would formally indicate to you 
that the UAW was no longer the bargaining agent ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel) 

Mr. Kohler. I would like to refer that to my counsel, sir. 

Mr. Conger. We raised that issue, Senator, in the answer to the 
NLRB proceeding, that due to the change of employees, the lapse 
of time, we did not believe that this union any longer represented 
the majority of our employees. We submitted proof on that, that 
matter is now before the Labor Board for decision. I do not believe, 
Senator, you were here the other day when I drew the distinction 
between making a contract with this union and making a possible 
strike settlement. It is possible to negotiate a possible strike settle- 
ment without negotiating a new contract. 

We did that with the A. F. of L. in 1934, and would be willing 
to try it again. 

Senator Kennedy. What is it you would be willing to do, Mr. 
Conger, or Mr. Kohler ? 

I understand you were not willing to sign a contract, but what 
would you be willing to do ? 

Mr. Kohler. Make a settlement. 

Senator Kennedy. With the UAW? 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. What area do you feel that there is of disagree- 
ment between you and the UAW ? 

I understand the compulsory unionism and union shop has been 
dropped. 

What is the area of disagreement now, and what would be the 
terms on which you would settle it ? 

Mr. Kohler. It seems to me that is a matter for our bargaining 
committee. 

Senator Kennedy. You wouldn't want to describe it to this com- 
mittee ? 

Mr. Kohler. I would rather not try to settle a strike here. 

Senator Kennedy. Could we ask you when you would be willing 
to sit down? In other words, the committee has spent 5 weeks on 
this matter, and I think it would be of interest to the committee to 
know what are the areas of disagreement now separating the com- 
pany and the union. 

Mr. Kohler. May I ask the Chairman, is this within the functions 
of a senatorial committee ? 

The Chairman. It is not the function of the committee to try to 
settle a strike, but there is great public interest in this, and since 
we are into the matter of trying to determine what improper prac- 
tices may have occurred in connection with the strike, we thought, 
as I spoke a while ago, or we were hoping possibly by spotlighting 
this situation, that it might bring the people involved closer together, 
and hold out some hope at least of renewing negotiations and ulti- 
mately working out a peaceful settlement. 

Mr. Conger. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest 

The Chairman. May I say this, Senator Kennedy : 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9943 

Each side, both the Kohler Co. and the union, have field state- 
ments and they are now a matter of record with respect to what each 
contends are remaining issues between them. 

Senator Kennedy. The purpose of my asking the question is to 
ask one of the major participants, Mr. Kohler, what are the issues 
which are separating the participants in this strike, and I think that 
is a valid question as it has engaged the attention of this committee 
for many weeks. 

I would like to know what it is that is at issue today between you 
andtheUAW? 

Mr. Kohler. We have presented that. 

The Chairman. The witness may answer. 

Mr. Kohler. At the insistence of the chairman, we submitted this 
memorandum of unresolved issues prepared by the Kohler Co., by 
our staff. 

There is the statement : 

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. 

Senator Kennedy. The first issue is the question of the strikers, 
whether you would hire them back or not, is that correct, and you 
say you cannot hire them back, or at least you cannot give any 
guarantees of hiring them back under existing conditions ? 

Mr. Kohler. We say we will hire them back, and we will not 
discriminate against them, sir. We will hire them back if jobs are 
available and if they have not committed any acts, illegal acts or 
illegal conduct. 

Union security : The union's original demands were for a union shop which 
would have required every employee to join this union, whether he desired 
or not. 

On August 10, 1954, they changed this demand to maintenance of member- 
ship. In the later stages of the bargaining, the union has taken inconsistent 
positions, in announcing publicly that they had dropped their union security 
demands while still arguing for them at the bargaining sessions. 

The NLRB trial examiner, after hearing all of the evidence, commented 
that whether the union had dropped its maintenance of membership demands 
what left uncertain 

and I quote : 

On the entire record. 

Seniority: During June of 19o4, agreement was reached on this subject 
due to company concessions. Then the union raised the question of interpre- 
tation of the contract provision relating to lay off which had been in the old 
contract and which the union had previously accepted. This was despite the 
fact that there had been no lay off of any Kohler employee for 17 years. 

Insurance: The union demanded increased hospitalization benefits. The 
company offered increased benefits which were acceptable to the union. The 
remaining issue was who should pay for the increased benefits. The company 
offered to pay the entire increased cost of the benefits for employees, but the 
union insisted that the company also pay the entire increased cost for depend- 
ents of employees as well as for 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. 



9944 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

That is in quotes. 

On August 10, 1955, it changed its demand to 10 cents per hour general wage 
increase, plus 5 cents per hour for so-called skilled workers. Prior to the 
strike, the company had offered a wage increase of 3 cents per hour, and an 
additional 3 cents per hour for incentive workers, and 10 cents per hour for 
hourly paid workers was offered in July of 1955. 

These increases were put into effect after their rejection by the union. 
The company also put into effect a wage increase of S and 12 cents per hour 
January 1, 1957. 

We have no information as to the union's present wage demands. 

Senator Kennedy. You cover a period there of 4 years. I under- 
stand your first offer was 3 cents, and that was Judge Murphy's 
testimony which indicated that Mr. Conger was unwilling to move 
ahead of 3 cents in any way. 

Mr. Kohler. That is right, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you say that Mr. Conger says that is right? 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. In your memorandum of August 5, to Lyman 
Conger from you, you say : 

In the circumstances I do not believe we should make any concession beyond 
the offer already made, which as I recall it would give an increase of 3 cents 
effective August 23, but in the circumstances I would make no further con- 
cession, holding to the principle which you time and time enunciated, and which 
were agreed, after a strike vote is taken under no circumstances would we make 
any concession. 

The way you would include these wage increases they cover a 4-year 
period of time and were not offered at the time that you and the union 
were bargaining. 

Mr. Conger. Could we have the date of that memorandum you are 
reading from? 

Senator Kennedy. August 5, 1953. 

Mr. Kohler, did you read Judge Murphy's testimony before the 
committee about the difficulties of getting the company to bargain 
collectively? 

Mr. Kohler. I presume that I have read it. I was present at the 
time Judge Murphy came to us and offered his services as mediator. 

Senator Kennedy. Have you read his testimony before the com- 
mittee on his experiences ? 

What I am asking you, Mr. Kohler, is whether you have read or 
heard of the testimony given by Judge Murphy reporting on his 
experiences in trying to settle the strike before this committee on 
March 7, 1958. 

Mr. Kohler. We appreciate his good offices, but we felt he was un- 
realistic, and neither the company nor the union, as far as I know, 
agreed that he had a proper estimate of the situation. 

Senator Kennedy. Judge Murphy said, and he is quoting, 

Did you have some conversations with the union officials, representatives of the 
union ? 

Without going into quite that much detail, is that correct that you had a 
conversation with the union at a later time? 

Judge Murphy. I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time did they indicate to you that they would be will- 
ing to give up virtually all of the other issues that still remained in question then 
themselves, between themselves and the company, if they could get an increase 
of more than 3 cents, of something more than 3 cents? 

Judge Murphy. That is generally a correct statement, Mr. Kennedy. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9945 

Mr. Kennedy. There was also going to be the question of how many strikers 
would be rehired, but except for that issue, the union was willing or ready to 
concede that time on all the other issues ; is that right? 

Judge Murphy. That is a correct statement. 

Mr. Kennedy. What they wanted was something a little better than the 3 
cents. 

Judge Murphy. That is right, even if it is only called a face-saving gain. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they were willing to concede even back in September of 
1954 on almost all the major issues ; is that right? 

Judge Murphy. Yes, of course ; you are avoiding the return to work thing. 

Mr. Kennedy. With the question of the return to work of the strikers being 
left to settle, is that right? 

Judge Murphy. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time, then, did you go back and meet with the company? 

Judge Murphy. I did. 

Senator Kennedy. Then Judge Murphy relates the conversations 
with Mr. Conger, and he relates then that Mr. Conger stated : 

Judge Murphy. Well, he didn't tell it to me alone. I don't know who was 
present. But Mr. Conger made this statement along the same line when many 
people were present: That the strike in 1934 had resulted in 20 years of labor 
peace, and they expected that this strike would bring about the same result. 
At one time, Mr. Conger made the statement that they were going to teach the 
union a lesson. 

Now Judge Murphy's reputation is high, and I think he was a 
neutral party, and he indicates quite clearly through his whole discus- 
sion that the company refused to bargain as far back as 1954, and the 
only matters left in dispute in part of the statement that you made 
as to the union compulsory union membership, the only issue in 1954 
that was left was whether they would get something more than 3 
cents, possibly 5 cents, and the matter to be negotiated of the return 
of the strikers. 

Now it seems to me that that doesn't separate you very far from 
the union unless you were, in Mr. Conger's words, attempting to 
teach them a lesson or unless your experience in 1934 in which you 
discouraged any international union from representing your workers 
at all for 20 years, whether that was the reason why you felt you 
did not want any international union representing your workers at 
this time. 

Do you have any comment on that, on Judge Murphy's testimony ? 

Mr. Kohler. I think the judge was not realistic. I have a high 
opinion of the judge as a person, and a man of integrity, but I believe 
that the union did not agree with him either, and Mr. Ruskin said 
he did not have a proper estimate of the situation. 

May I check with my counsel on that ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. I have no thought or I never have had any 
idea of teaching anybody a lesson. I mean the law exists, and we 
are trying to obey the law, the union went on strike, and we decided 
to accept the union strike. 

Now, that is the "lowdown." 

Senator Kennedy. Now, Mr. Kohler, I want to go through this. 
You read the article in Life Magazine, did you, about the Kohler Co., 
and about the strike ? 

Mr. Kohler. Not recently; it is a pretty villainous article, as I 
remember it. 

Senator Kennedy. Villainous ? 



9946 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kohler. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. Well now 

Mr. Kohler. I haven't read the article for a long time, but I think 
they got some of the pictures out of the ashcan. 
Senator Kennedy. Well, some of the quotes are : 

The one Old World condition that the Kohler workers at last found intolerable 
was the Prussian variety of discipline maintained in the factory, discipline based 
on fear, demanding a sacrifice of personal dignity that finally became too great. 

Mr. Kohler. Senator, that is just absurd. 
Senator Kennedy. These quotes are all through the article. 
Mr. Kohler. If you quote them, I will say "yes" or "no." Nobody 
ever talked to me about that article. 
Senator Kennedy (reading) . 

In July of 1934, there was a riot outside the gates of the plant, which was 
quelled with tear gas and gunfire, resulting in the death of two men and wounding 
of 28 others, all strikers or spectators, and the AFL union was broken. 

Is that true or false ? 

Mr. Kohler. That is false. 

Senator Kennedy. Why ? 

Mr. Kohler. In this sense, that the independent union outvoted the 
AFL 2 to 1, in a Government-supervised election. 

Senator Kennedy. What I am talking about is this : Then the local 
union, or this union, represented the employees for the next 20 years ; 
is that correct? 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. What I want to ask you is about this: Were 
all of the actions of the detective agencies which Mr. Conger hired, 
was that done with your approval, including paid informants ? 

Mr. Kohler. There was so much vandalism that when Mr. Conger 
proposed to hire detectives to find out who was doing this vandalism, 
I acquiesced. He and I had an idea that our lines were being tapped, 
and we just wanted to find out what Ave could. 

I agreed with the point of a detective agency. He handled all of 
their reports and I did not cover the details on it. 

Senator Kennedy. Do you know 7 the detective agency did more than 
check whether your lines were tapped? 

Mr. Kohler. I did not receive the reports at the time, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. Do you know, yourself, Mr. Kohler, as of today, 
that the detective agency did more than check whether your lines were 
tapped ? 

Mr. Kohler. I think they conferred — I can only go to the record. 

Senator Kennedy. Now, Mr. Kohler, you are head of the company, 
and you are the responsible man, and it is the Kohler name involved ? 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. I know you have given Mr. Conger wide latitude, 
but are you not prepared to tell me today "yes" or "no" whether you 
know whether the detective agency did more than find out whether 
your wires were being tapped ? 

Mr. Kohler. The reports were not made to me directly. 

Senator Kennedy. You had no idea what the detective agencies 
were doing? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9947 

Mr. Kohler. The detective agency was in close contact with the 
police, the Sheboygan police, and with the FBI ; am I correct in that ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Koiiler. Well, the Sheboygan police, and they did nothing that 
I understand the police were aware of. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you inform the police that you had paid 
informants in the strike kitchen, and so on, hired by the detective 
agency ? 

Mr. Kohler. I did not know of that at the time. 

Senator Kennedy. Did you know about the surveillance of Mr. 
Burkhart, the head of the union, and the fact that the detective agency 
was responsible for securing a policeman to raid Mr. Burkhart's 
home ? 

Mr. Koiiler. I did not know that, sir, until after it happened. 

Senator Kennedy. Until recently or sometime ago? 

Mr. Kohler. Well, I presume after the time it happened. 

Senator Kennedy. You did not know it was going to happen? 
That report was made to Mr. Conger and discussed quite thoroughly 
in the report, but you left those matters to Mr. Conger? 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

(At this point the following members were present: Senators 
McClellan, McNamara, Kennedy, Mundt, Curtis, and Goldwater.) 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Conger conducted the negotiations with the 
union ? 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. In the Life article, it said that — 

Today the strike could be settled on these terms: A standard arbitration 
clause in the contract, set up a mechanism for rehiring strikers within a reasona- 
ble time, and arbitrate the 89 special cases. Thus it seems that Herbert Kohler 
has gained an edge over big labor which in recent years has not been in the 
habit of losing arguments. 

If that was a fact, if the union would accept a standard arbitration 
clause in the contract, and a mechanism for rehiring the strikers 
within a reasonable time, and arbitration of the 89 cases, would you, 
as Life says, sign a contract with the UAW ? 

Mr. Kohler. Not on that basis. 

That is so badly stated that I couldn't pass on it here, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. You wouldn't. Let me ask you: Would you 
sign a contract with the UAW which provided for the rehiring of 
the strikers as vacancies become in the company ? 

Mr. Kohler. Without discrimination, surely, certainly, if they had 
not been involved in illegal picketing or illegal activities. 

Senator Kennedy. Who would make the judgment on that? 
Would you agree to arbitration of that, on whether they were engaged 
in illegal picketing ? 

In other words, you mean any one that took part in the mass picket- 
ing you would not hire back ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Kohler. We named 91, and those 91 we would not take back. 

Senator Kennedy. You would hire back the other workers, though, 
with priority, is that correct ? 

Mr. Kohler. Well, as jobs would be available. 

Senator Kennedy. So that you would agree to. 

Mr. Kohler. In fact, we have hired men without discrimination. 
I think I told you that. 



994S IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Kennedy. Why, then, wouldn't you agree to these three 
conditions here which at least Mr. Wallace of Life says the strike 
could be settled on, standard arbitration, mechanism for rehiring the 
strikers, and arbitration of the 89 cases ? 

Would you agree to sign a contract with the UAW on that basis ? 

Mr. Kohler. No. Say them one at a time and I will talk to you. 

Senator Kennedy. All right. Would you put in a standard arbi- 
tration clause in the contract ? 

Mr. Kohler. What is a standard arbitration clause ? 

Senator Kennedy. I would think it would be to arbitrate disputes 
arising out of conditions of work, discharges, and so on ? 

Mr. Kohler. Well, we will discharge — we will arbitrate the appli- 
cation and interpretation of a contract. We camiot arbitrate dis- 
cipline. When a man comes to us for employment, it is a mutual 
agreement. If he quits, we cannot arbitrate his quitting, can we ? 

Senator Kennedy. No. 

Mr. Kohler. So we feel that we have to decide if he is no longer 
desirable as an employee, that he can be discharged. Actually, our 
own record, as against the national average, is excellent. 

Senator Kennedy. I am going to be through in just a moment. I 
noticed in your paid lunchtime in the enamel shop in the report of 
unsolved issues, the union demanded a 4-percent increase in the piece 
rates of the enamel shop to provide pay for eating lunch. The com- 
pany's position was that the demand was a thinly disguised demand 
for a 10-cent increase. The company offered two 10-minute lunch 
periods without pay. 

Is that the proposal for the enamel shop ? 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. We have heard a good deal of testimony about 
the working conditions in the enamel shop. 

Mr. Kohler. They are excellent, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. They are excellent ? 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir ; as are all the places in the Kohler Co. 

Senator Kennedy. How much time do they get for lunch now ? 

Mr. Kohler. The time the men are there are 8 hours ; they are con- 
tinuous shifts. That is why the problem comes up. The item is put in 
to the furnace and there is a waiting time. 

Senator Kennedy. How much is the waiting time ? 

Mr. Kohler. Well, it is not 4 to 5 minutes. 

Senator Kennedy. Were you suggesting they should eat 

Mr. Kohler. Just a minute, please, sir. 

Actually, men can put in their so-called 8 hours work in about 7 hours 
and 35 or 30 minutes. 

They do it right along. This lunching time is calculated in their 
production rate. That is all considered. It is all part of it. It is a 
continuous operation. 

Senator Kennedy. It is an 8-hour day, Mr. Kohler. How much 
time do you give them for lunch ? 

Mr. Kohler. They can easily take their lunch during those 8 hours. 
I have worked in the enamel shop myself, and I have done as much. 

Senator Kennedy. In other words, then, they have no lunch hour, 
no lunch period. You give them two 10-minute periods without pay 
for lunch, but you do not give them a paid half hour for lunch in the 
enamel shop ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9949 

Mr. Kohler. No, sir. We don't pay them for lunching. 

Senator Kennedy. Do you get two 10-minute periods without pay 
as one of the proposals or not ? 

Mr. Kohler. They are paid by the piece. They are there 8 hours. 
They can make good pay in those 8 hours, and they have ample time 
to eat their lunch. 

Senator Kennedy. What, between putting the material into the 
furnace and taking it out ? 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

Senator Kennedy. How long a period is there between that ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kohler. Depending on the piece, around 4 minutes, 2 to 4 
minutes. Well, that occurs consistently. Come out there, I will take 
you around myself. 

Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. I have just a few questions. 

What about the conditions in the plant and the seniority ? Do you 
have women working in the plant ? 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And what if they are going to have children and 
want to come back? 

Do they come back to their own jobs ? 

Mr. Kohler. Well, we will take them back. We would not dis- 
place anybody to take them back. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do they lose their seniority when they are going 
to have children ? Don't you know that, Mr. Kohler ? 

Mr. Kohler. I can't answer that. There are many, many details. 
I have many responsibilities. I don't know whether you realize that. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is a responsibility to your workers, I think, 
that you also have. 

Mr. Kohler. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the situation as far as the children ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Conger. May I suggest that the documentary evidence is in on 
that in the contract ? 

The Chairman. The witness is being cross-examined. He may 
answer, if he knows. 

Mr. Kohler. I couldn't answer that, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you check and find out? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kohler. If they come back within 2 years, they get their full 
seniority back. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it written in their contract that they have to get 
their actual full seniority ? Is it in the contract that they automati- 
cally get their full seniority ? 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And do you have to take them back within 2 years ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kohler. I don't quite understand your question. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can the girl always get her job back within 2 years? 
Is that written in the contract ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



9950 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kohler. No. We don't guarantee her job. We will try to take 
her back. 

Mr. Kennedy. But there is no guarantee of that ? 

Mr. Kohler. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you aware of what Mr. Conger, and I wouldn't 
go into it — are you are of what Mr. Conger is supposed to have said 
about these women working in the plant ? 

Mr. Kohler. I think it is untrue. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you aware of what he is supposed to have said ? 

Mr. Kohler. I have heard some 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you look at this affidavit signed by two 
people ? 

(The document was handed to the witness.) 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kohler. I believe that is untrue, all of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't think that is true? 

Mr. Kohler. I do not, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. But the situation is, is it not, the facts are, that if 
a woman does have a baby, she is not automatically entitled to get 
her seniority? 

Mr. Kohler. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you say that Mr. Conger's description of that 
is not true ; is that right ? 

Mr. Kohler. Absolutely. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that correct, Mr. Conger? 

Mr. Conger. That is absolutely correct. That thing is a smear 
from beginning to end. I never made any such statement or any that 
could be interpreted as such. 

The Chairman. Has that document been made an exhibit? 

Mr. Conger. I don't believe it has. 

The Chairman. Let me see it and see what we are talking about. 
May the Chair see it ? 

Senator Goldwater. Might I ask the counsel if that was delivered 
by mail? 

Counsel ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me? 

Senator Goldwater. Was that delivered by mail ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't believe so. 

Senator Goldwater. It was delivered by hand ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe so. 

Senator Goldwater. At the table here? 

Mr. Kennedy. It has been in the committee's possession for about 
10 days. 

The Chairman. The Chair recalls this document now. It has never 
been made an exhibit. It contains language that is unprintable in 
a decent record, and, therefore, it will not be received as evidence. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Senator McNamara, 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Kohler, in your five points that you listed 
as what you consider improper activities, the fifth point was dealing 
with goons from out of State. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. You make a distinction between goons from 
out of State and goons within the State? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9951 

Mr. Kohler. A goon is a goon, to me. 

Senator McNamara. Well, you itemized goons from out of State. 

Mr. Kohler. I am making a distinction between a goon and a 
legitimate union representative. 

Senator McNamara. Which category does a detective and a labor 
spy fall in ? 

You make the distinction. 

Mr. Kohler. Not in any, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Were some of these detectives brought in from 
out of State? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, I think they were. 

Senator McNamara. You think that is quite proper? 

Mr. Kohler. Well, he wasn't any goon. 

Senator McNamara. I am sure you have a point there. I suppose 
when you are talking about goons, you are talking about goons gen- 
erally, in State, out of State, company goons and union goons, is that 
right? 

Mr. Kohler. Well, we had no goons. 

Senator McNamara. I am sure you, for the record, have no goons. 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Mr. Kohler, do you now have a welfare or 
insurance plan in effect for your workers? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. How long has it been in effect? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kohler. 1917, for the life. 

Senator McNamara. Is it a participating plan or does the company 
pay all the expense ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kohler. The man participates in the expense. 

Senator McNamara. The management pays the expense ? 

Mr. Conger. You misunderstood him. He said the man partic- 
ipates. 

Senator McNamara. The employee contributes to it? 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Do you have a retirement plan in effect now ? 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Totally paid by the company ? 

Mr. Kohler. No, sir, the company pays about two-thirds. We 
offered to make the union's maximum our minimum. 

Senator McNamara. Are your employees paid for legal holidays? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kohler. Six of them, sir. 

Senator McNamara. Six legal holidays ? 

Mr. Kohler. Yes. 

Senator McNamara. That is all the questions I have, Mr. Chair- 
man, thank you. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman ? 
The Chairman. Senator Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater. First, I would just like to keep the record 
clear. When the suggestion was first made that this committee 
proceed into the investigation of the UAW-Kohler strike, the greatest 



9952 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

objection raised to this investigation was the fact that we might 
become a strike mediation board, and repeatedly it has been stated 
that it was not the position of this committee to attempt to settle 
this strike. 

I concurred wholeheartedly at the time with that feeling, expressed 
by members of this committee, and I still do. I just wanted to get 
that record straight. 

Now, Mr. Kohler, I have sat through 4 or 5 weeks of these hearings, 
and I think that a definition is in order for the American public, 
because I don't think the American public understands what a 
strike is. 

I want to ask you questions and have you comment so that we 
might get into the record what a strike is. 

To begin with, do you agree that a strike is a legitimate needed 
and proper weapon of a union organization ? 

Mr. Kohler. If a participant leaves his employment and just does 
not report to his job, I think it is a legitimate field of activity, yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. And do you 

Mr. Kohler. I would object — I would not in any way want to take 
away the American workmen's right to strike. 

Senator Goldwater. That was going to be my next question. 
Namely, that this right to strike must be protected. 

Mr. Kohler. I believe so, yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. We are in agreement there. Am I correct in 
assuming that a strike is called so that the union organization can 
win a point or points ? 

Mr. Kohler. I presume so. 

Senator Goldwater. A strike is usually called only when the union 
feels that it has sufficient strength to win the strike. Am I right 
or wrong ? 

Mr. Kohler. I think so, yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. I think you are right. 

Mr. Kohler. In this particular case, the union called a strike, 
having won an election by some 2 percent, I believe, two-something. 

Senator Goldwater. Yes, sir. 

(At this point, Senator Kennedy withdrew from the hearing 
room.) 

Senator Goldwater. So the strike, for all intents and purposes, 
has been lost by the union that has called it. Am I right or wrong? 

Mr. Kohler. Well, I feel a little modest about that. I think they 
have lost, yes, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. So when it is suggested that you negotiate 
with an organization that does not represent the majority of your 
workers, the suggestion goes to the point that you violate the law. 
Am I right? 

Mr. Kohler. I would think so, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. I want to reiterate this, because I think the 
American people should realize what striking is for. Striking is to 
win a point for labor, and it is a perfectly legitimate, proper tool of 
labor, and we should protect it forever as a right of the American 
working person. 

Mr. Kohler. I believe so, sir. 

Senator Goldwater. But the union has some responsibility in strik- 
ing, and when a union calls a strike, when it does not have sufficient 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9953 

membership or strength to win the strike, they have been, in turn, 
derelict to the members of their own union in my judgment. 

I wanted this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to clear up what striking 
is, and to point out that this has been a contest between the manage- 
ment and labor in which it is getting increasingly apparent from these 
hearings that management has won. 

I want to reiterate that I agreed at the outset that this committee 
should not be an arbitration or mediation board. I still agree with 
that. I think we should abide by the time-honored American custom 
and habit of allowing labor and management to settle their own dis- 
putes with the striking being a determining factor or the losing fac- 
tor. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. You have one statement in your prepared pres- 
entation, Mr. Kohler, which could carry an implication either way. I 
would like to have you straighten it out for the record. On page 1 
you say '"There is no so-called right-to-work law against the union 
shop in Wisconsin, although by way of contrast we do have a law 
which my brother signed as governor years ago outlawing yellow-dog 
contracts." 

That could imply that you do not approve of yellow-dog contracts 
or that you do, and I would like to have } T ou state for the record what 
your opinion is. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Kohler. Well, my brother, when he was governor many years 
ago, outlawed the yellow-dog contract, and I certainly concur in his 
belief, in his opinion, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You concur in that belief that yellow-dog con- 
tracts should be outlawed ? 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. I wanted that straightened out one way or an- 
other because it could be interpreted either way in the statement. You 
had used the contrast with the right-to-work law. 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. We have had an awful lot of testimony, Mr. 
Kohler, about an enamel shop, and to this particular country boy from 
South Dakota whose only experience with bathtubs is using them, I 
don't know why a worker in an enamel shop shouldn't be as much 
entitled to lunch as a worker in an automobile factory or someplace 
else. Is there something peculiar about working in an enamel shop 
which makes it difficult for a man to take lunch, and, if so, what is it? 

I would like to have somebody point out to me why all of this con- 
troversy developed about an enamel shop. Apparently you were let- 
ting other men in other sections of the plant eat lunch, because we 
have had no protest about that, but we always get protests about these 
poor fellows going hungry in the enamel shop. 

What is there about an enamel shop, if anything, that makes it dif- 
ficult for a man to get something to eat? 

Mr. Kohler. A man should have time for lunch. He has and he 
does, and he has done it for many years. 

Senator Mundt. What is all this argument about? 

Can you explain it to a farmer who has never been in an enamel 
shop ? 



9954 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kohler. They want a 4-percent increase in wages in the enamel 
shop. That is what they want. 

Senator Mundt. All right. They want an increase in wages in the 
enamel shop, but what about the lunch business? Why can't they have 
lunch? 

Is there something about an enamel shop % 

Mr. Kohler. It is a continuous process, sir. There are 8 hours — 
three 8-hour shifts, and the furnaces go on. 

You can't put them on and put them off. 

Senator Mundt. You have to have a man working all the time \ 

Mr. Kohler. Continuously, sir, yes, sir. It is interrupted, it is in- 
termittent, and many men have been there many years and have lived 
long and happy lives under those circumstances. 

Senator Mundt. In other words, am I correct in understanding you 
to say that in this enamel shop process, you have to have a man there 
for 8 hours, who has certain functions to perform; sometimes he is 
working and sometimes he is watching? 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And he has to snatch a bit to eat while he is 
watching ? 

Mr. Kohler. Well, he doesn't need to do much snatching. While 
he is waiting, he lunches. 

Senator Mundt. Is this a common practice in the plumbing indus- 
try, or do you have some peculiar, unique system of fabrication, 
whereby you have a different procedure or process ? 

Mr. Kohler. As far as I know, the process is similar. It is com- 
mon to all manufacturers of bath tubs of enameled bath tubs, who 
make them of cast iron. 

Senator Mundt. In other words 

Mr. Kohler. This is not a unique situation, sir. 

Senator Mundt. In other words, wherever they make bath tubs out 
of cast iron and put enamel on it ? 

Mr. Kohler. And where enamel is a drying process, this is the 
arrangement, sir, where they operate three 8-hour shifts. 

Senator Mundt. So really the controversy resolves around how 
much pay they get or how long they work rather than whether they 
have lunch or not ? 

Mr. Kohler. I think that is it, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Because it is a continuing process ? 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. On this matter of the trial examiner of the NLRB, 
if I understand your testimony, it is that the trial examiner's report 
is not a final finding of the NLRB unless the findings of the trial 
examiner, whether for you or against you still have to be adjudicated 
by the national Board ? 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. So you don't want to proposition any final deter- 
mination of bargaining or settlement on something still in process of 
adjudication by the NLRB ? 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9955 

Senator Mundt. And until they have ruled, you have no official 
finding, no terminal finnding, as to whether or not the union is, in 
fact, a bargaining agent for the plant ? 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir, that is it. 

Senator Mundt. I was interested in your description of goons, and 
the fact that you say a goon is a goon, no matter where he is, no mat- 
ter for whom he works, or where he lives. I would like to ask you 
a question about goons. Is it your opinion, Mr. Kohler, that violence 
would not have occurred in this current strike had they not im- 
ported international UAW representatives from outside the State ? 

Mr. Kohler. It is hard for me to say that, sir. I have a little hunch 
that that is true. 

Senator Mundt. You have what ? 

Mr. Kohler. I suspect that that is true, that that violence was 
planned and directed from the outside. But there might have been 
some violence if they had not come. 

Senator Mundt. Obviously, it is something you couldn't say as a 
matter of fact, but just as a matter of opinion I am trying to find out 
from you whether in your opinion the importation of strike leaders or 
strike workers from outside tended to precipitate the violence. 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. Those goons, the fellows who run the picket 
line, not only were there to keep the men who wanted to work away 
from work, but they directed their efforts to keep the union men in 
line. There was coercion there, as far as I could see, and I observed it 
for 54 days. 

Senator Mundt. Coercion of the union men themselves ? 

Mr. Kohler. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Kohler, you stated that the propositions set 
forth by Judge Murphy were not acceptable or satisfactory either to 
the Kohler Co. or to the union. I want to call attention to the fact 
that the record bears this out. Senator Kennedy questioned Judge 
Murphy for some time, just as reported here. 

As he finished, I called attention to the fact that in the NLRB hear- 
ing, at page 1412, Mr. Mazey testified as follows and I quote : 

The meeting was opened by Judge Murphy who began to state that he thought 
the basic differences between the union and the company were what the issues 
in dispute were at the time, and as I recall, Judge Murphy said that the question 
of wages, a general wage increase, the question of arbitration on return of 
strikers to jobs, were the three main issues that were keeping the union and the 
company from reaching a settlement. 

I am still quoting Mr. Mazey. 

I disagree very sharply with Judge Murphy. 

There is a little more there, but it is already in the record, in our 
transcript at page 1543 and 1544, so it can be referred to. That con- 
versation took place on about September 28th or 29th, 1954. 

After I finished, Judge Murphy said : 

You are refreshing my recollection very well, and I am quite sure that in real 
substance the statement was made by Mr. Murphy at the court house in She- 
boygan, 



9956 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

That bears out your statement that it was not satisfactory to you that 
the time. 

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

Senator Curtis. I merely brought that up to clarify the record 
here. I have deep respect for the opinion of everyone at this com- 
mittee table. For my part, I would not ask either side to submit to 
any procedure to force a settlement. I believe that the freedom of 
contract is very basic and necessary in the interest of the working 
people of the country, because if a committee or an agency of Gov- 
ernment can compel a settlement or a contract that is satisfactory or 
favorable to the union, that same Government agency can, at a later 
time, force a settlement or a contract that is unfavorable to labor. 

I just do not believe the Government should have that power. I 
think the freedom of contract is something that is precious to the 
workmen, as it is to management. 

I wish to ask a question, and then I will be finished. The purpose 
we are holding this investigation is to determine what extent violence 
is occurring in our labor-management field disputes. While we have 
had no admissions, there is considerable evidence pointing as to who 
was responsible for many of the acts complained of, except the acts 
of vandalism in people's homes, which happened at night. I want to 
ask you: Did Kohler Co., any officer, any employee, any agent, or 
any other person acting in their behalf, in any way or manner pro- 
mote, take part, finance, or instigate these acts of vandalism that 
were committed on people's homes in the nighttime ? 

Mr. Kohler. We did not. 

Senator Mundt. What would you have done to anybody in your 
company if you had found them doing it? 

Mr. Kohler. We would have thrown him out on his ear. 

Senator Mundt. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Are there any other questions ? 

The Chair hears none. Do you wish to make any further state- 
ment before you leave? 

Mr. Kohler. No, sir. Thank you very much, sir. 

The Chairman. Are there any other witnesses for today? 

Mr. Kennedy. No, I believe not. 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much, sir. 

You are excused. 

The committee will stand in recess until 11 o'clock in the morning. 

(Whereupon at 3 : 03 p. m. the hearing was recessed, to reconvene 
at 11 a. m., Thursday, March 27, 1958, witli the following members 
present: Senators McClellan, McNamara, Kennedy, Mundt, Curtis^, 
and Goldwater.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 1958 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities in the 

Labor or Management Field, 

Washington, D. C. 

The select committee met at 1 : 30 p. m., pursuant to Senate Reso- 
lution 221, agreed to January 29, 1958, in the caucus room, Senator 
John L. McClellan (chairman of the select committee) presiding. 

Present: Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Sena- 
tor Irving Ives, Republican, New York; Senator John F. Kennedy, 
Democrat, Massachusetts; Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat, 
North Carolina ; Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota ; 
Senator Carl T. Curtis, Republican, Nebraska; Senator Pat 
McNamara, Democrat, Michigan ; and Senator Barry Goldwater, Re- 
publican, Arizona. 

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. 

(At the time of the reconvening, the following members were pres- 
ent: Senators McClellan, Curtis, Mundt, Ives, Goldwater, Kennedy,, 
and Ervin.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Before we begin, the Chair will make this observation or announce- 
ment. It is quite probable that during the proceeding this afternoon, 
the committee hearings will be interrupted by rollcall votes in the 
Senate. That will necessitate our having to recess briefly until the 
members of the committee can go over and vote. 

We shall plan to run the hearings this afternoon rather late. If 
it appears that we can conclude with the principal witness this after- 
noon, we may continue even later than we now contemplate. 

If we find we cannot conclude with the principal witness scheduled 
to be heard this afternoon, it may be necessary for us to go over until 
tomorrow. 

But it is hoped that Ave can expedite the further testimony during 
this series of hearings and bring them to an early conclusion. 

All right, Mr. Counsel, call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Walter Reuther. 

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

Mr. Reuther. I do. 

21243— 5S— pt. 25 4 9957 



995S IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

TESTIMONY OF WALTER P. REUTHER, ACCOMPANIED BY JOSEPH 
L. RAUH. JR.. COUNSEL 

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

Mr. Reuther. My name is Walter Philip Reuther. I am the presi- 
dent of the United Automobile Workers Union. I reside in Detroit, 
Mich. 

The Chairman. You have counsel representing you? 

Mr. Reuther. I do, sir, Mr. Joseph Rauh. 

The Chairman. Thank you. We are all acquainted with Mr. Rauh. 

Do you have a prepared statement, Mr. Reuther ? 

Mr.* Reuther. Mr. Chairman, 5 weeks ago, at the request of your 
start', I was asked to submit a prepared statement, which I did. I 
would like at this time to submit that for the record. Your commit- 
tee was given copies of this some 5 weeks ago. Then I would like 
the privilege, if I may, to make a few observations orally. 

The Chairman. The statement, as I recall, was submitted quite 
some time ago. It was not placed in the record at that time because 
the witness was not heard. I think the witness' request should be 
granted. The statement should be printed in the record at this point 
in full, and the witness given an opportunity to highlight his state- 
ment if he so desires. 

Is there objection? 

The Chair hears none and it is so ordered. 

Statement Prepared by Walter P. Reuther, President, United Automobile, 
Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers Union of America for 
Presentation to the Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in 
the Labor or Management Field 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, 1 appreciate very much this 
opportunity to appear before your committee on the matter of the Kohler strike 
and boycott. 

I, and the other witnesses representing the UAW who are here with me, appear 
here voluntarily. We have not been subpenaed. We have not been compelled 
to attend or to testify. 

In fact, we have, on a number of occasions, requested this opportunity. We 
shall testify fully and freely without resort to the fifth amendment or any other 
constitutional privilege because we have nothing to hide. 

Not only has the UAW cooperated with every request of this committee to the 
utmost of our ability, but the UAW in advance of the creation of this select 
committee of the United States Senate urged by executive board action on Janu- 
ary 18, 1957, that such a committee be established for the purpose of investigat- 
ing into corrupt and improper practices in the fields of labor or management — 
copy of this resolution is attached. Officers and members of the UAW have 
been available to your investigators and documents or records have been opened 
or made available, all in an effort to give your committee the full facts concerning 
the activities of the UAW. 

THE UAW IS A CLEAN UNION 

Before I discuss the matters specifically before your committee today, however, 
I should like to make clear at the outset, that the UAW is a clean, democratic, 
honest, and effective trade union. 

We do not claim that our union is perfect, for no human institution made up 
of imperfect human beings can be perfect. We do claim, however, that we learn 
from our mistakes, that we attempt to correct any errors and that we constantly 
try to achieve a more perfect union. 

Our union, made up of approximately 1,500,000 members in the United States 
and Canada, consists of more that 1,200 local unions, which are governed by 
their members and more than 40,000 local union officers ranging from shop 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9959 

stewards and committeemen to local union presidents, all of whom are demo- 
cratically elected by the membership. 

The members of each local union also democratically elect the delegates to the 
TJAW International Union conventions, which are held every 2 years. The more 
than 3,000 duly elected delegates from the local unions determine the major 
policies and programs as well as elect the international officers and regional 
directors who comprise our executive board. 

Between conventions, the policies of our union are implemented by the UAW 
international executive board. This international executive board consists of 
the president, secretary-treasurer and 4 vice presidents elected from the union 
as a whole, and 19 members elected as regional directors by the respective geo- 
graphical regions of the UAW throughout the United States and Canada. 

The leadership of the UAW with the full support of the rank and file member- 
ship has actively supported the efforts of the AFL-CIO to cleanse from its 
ranks, the corrupt leadership of those who betray the trust to the membership 
and who would use the labor movement as a source for improper activities and 
personal gain. 

Specifically, the leadership of the UAW with the support of the rank and 
file members gave active leadership and support to the efforts of the executive 
council of the AFL— CIO to formulate and implement the ethical practices codes 
which now form the basis of the AFL-CIO's activities in this field. 

The UAW not only gave wholehearted support to the formulation of these 
ethical codes but what is more important, the UAW has lived by these codes, 
and we have during the past years rigorously applied them to our own conduct. 

Every officer of the UAW — from the local level to the international — is demo- 
cratically elected. 

Every penny in dues or initiation fees that has ever been collected by the 
UAW has been spent to advance the interests and welfare of the rank and file 
membership and has been fully and carefully accounted for in detailed reports 
made public and mailed to the full membership. 

The UAW has never had "paper locals" nor has it ever issued "hunting 
licenses" to any individual or group. 

The UAW has always sought to use every penny negotiated in collective 
bargaining for welfare fund purposes to purchase the maximum insurance, 
hospitalization, medical and similar benefits for workers and their families 
and has never permitted brokers or anyone inside or outside of the union to 
misuse these funds which belong solely to the workers and their families. 

The UAW's constitution bars from local union or international office Com- 
munists, Fascists, crooks, or racketeers who would corrupt or subvert the true 
purposes of a free labor movement. 

No UAW officer has conflicting investments in any firm with which our union 
bargains collectively or purchases materials, supplies, or services. No officer 
of our union has ever received a kickback or bribe from anyone. 

No officer of the UAW has grown rich at the expense of the union or the 
membership. No officer of the UAW has charged his personal or private pur- 
chases or gifts or entertainment to the union treasury. No officer of the UAW 
has ever received or accepted expensive or lavish gifts from the international 
union, its locals, or any management source. 

The UAW's financial records and books are audited at least twice a year by 
certified public accountants. These detailed outside audits are made public 
and are available to every UAW member. 

Three trustees elected by the delegates to the UAW convention also supervise 
and check the international's financial procedures. 

Upon learning that the Senate select committee had made a definite decision 
to hold these hearings, I made a private individual decision to request the 
staff of your committee to look into my personal financial affairs. 

On January 27, 1S>58, I wrote Mr. Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel for the 
Select Senate Committee on Improper Activities in Labor or Management, re- 
questing that he assign investigators to check into my personal financial affairs, 
even though at that time, to my knowledge, no one from your committee had 
made an effort to inquire into my personal financial affairs. (Copy of letter 
a ttached. ) 

There are no second-class members in the UAW. Every member, regardless 
of race, color, religion, nationality, sex, ancestry, age, financial status or any 
other factor, has the right to speak freely at UAW meetings, to seek office, 
unless barred by our prohibition against Communists, crooks, and racketeers, 
to criticize his officers at all levels, and to vote in secret elections for his local 
union officers and delegates to international conventions. 



9960 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Nor does the UAW have any "sweetheart contracts" with employers, nor 
have we neglected the essential economic interests of its membership. 

In short, the UAW not only is in full compliance with the letter of the AFL- 
CIO's ethical practices codes, which have been praised by this committee, but 
its constitutional provisions and actual day-to-day practice are in the best 
spirit of those codes. 

Although the UAW did not need the ethical practices code — or this commit- 
tee — to teach us how to be democratic, clean, honest and effective, we were, how- 
ever, in the forefront of the efforts to establish the ethical practices codes of the 
AFL-CIO and to bring about the creation of the ethical practices code in the 
AFL-CTO and to insure their effective implementation. 

Our union has had a long history of vigorous participation by an alert mem- 
bership in all activities of the union. This is the source of our strength. In 
hundreds of UAW local unions throughout the Nation, hundreds of thousands 
of rank and file UAW members met the challenge of both corruption and com- 
munism in our union. 

These rank and file members demonstrated their loyalty and devotion to a 
clean, democratic, and dedicated union by standing up to the Communists and 
the racketeers — they outworked, they outfought, they outvoted the forces of 
communism and corruption to keep their union clean. It is no easy task to 
keep a large union free of corruption and free of Communist penetration, for 
the stakes are high and only through eternal vigilance of the rank and file can 
a union be kept free of these unsavory elements. 

They are even today maintaining this constant vigilance against the encroach- 
ment of these evil forces. 

UAW FIGHT AGAINST COMMUNISM, CORRUPTION, COMPANY SPIES, AND UNDERWORLD 

ELEMENTS 

From its very inception, the UAW and its leadership have fought vigorously 
against the attacks and attempts at infiltration of diehard, antiunion manage- 
ments in league with corrupt politicians and underworld elements. 

The automotive industry and other industrial management groups with whom 
the UAW bargains were responsible for some of the most brutal chapters in the 
history of American labor in its struggle to win recognition. 

The use of industrial spies, stool pigeons, and the employment of underworld 
characters to terrorize workers through physical violence was a common prac- 
tice in the industries' efforts to block the legitimate organization of trade unions 
by the workers. 

An earlier Senate committee report, the La Follette committee, is replete 
with the brutal facts of this tragic history of managements' attempt to block 
the right of American workers to win a fuller measure of economic and social 
justice through the building of free trade unions. We thank God that in the 
industries in which the UAW bargains this sad and tragic chapter in American 
history is essentially behind us. 

As long ago as December 11, 1951, the UAW international executive board, 
many of whose members bear the physical scars of vicious beatings by company 
thugs and gunmen, made clear its intolerance of "racketeer and gangster control 
or influence" in the UAAV. 

We stated clearly that we would not tolerate organized inplant rackets and 
gambling which were robbing our members of hard-earned wages and which 
might result in "corrupting the secondary leadership of our union." 

The leadership of the UAW cooperated with the Special Committee To Inves- 
tigate Organized Crime in Interstate Commerce, commonly referred to as the 
Kefauver committee, in its effort to put an end to inplant rackets and gambling 
and to deprive the underworld of an operating base inside the industries under 
contract with our union. The findings of the Kefauver committee, more than 
a decade after the La Follette committee had completed its investigations, re- 
flected the fact that there still remained a diehard antilabor management group 
who continued to employ either directly or indirectly gangster elements from 
the underworld for the purpose of intimidating and terrorizing trade unionists 
in order to block or weaken their pursuit of legitimate trade-union objectives. 

UAW Public Review Board: (The members of the public review board are 
Rabbi Morris Adler of Detroit, Mich. ; Msgr. George Higgins of Washington. 
D. C, of the Catholic Welfare Conference: Dr. Clark Kerr, president of the 
University of California ; Dr. Edwin Witte of the University of Wisconsin ; 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9961 

Judge Wade IT. McCree, Circuit Court of Detroit, Mich. ; Bishop G. Bromley 
Oxnam of Washington, D. C, former president of the World Council of Churches : 
and Magistrate J. Arthur Hanrahan of Windsor, Ontario.) 

In my report as president of the UAW to the delegates who attended our 
last constitutional convention in April 1957, and to the membership, I recom- 
mended on behalf of the leadership of the UAW, the creation of a public review 
board composed of seven outstanding public citizens from the United States and 
Canada. In my report setting forth this recommendation, I stated in part: 

"The UAW is both democratic and clean and we intend to keep it that way. 
For some time, however, we have been giving consideration to providing a new 
step in the union's internal trial machinery and of reviewing the trial procedure 
at the local level in an effort to insure the fullest possible protection. 

"The UAW is not perfect, but I think it can be said in all good conscience that 
we have tried to the best of our ability to make decisions, with respect to appeals 
within the trial procedure of our union, on the basis of fairness and honesty. 
The leadership of the UAW, while we have had no complaints on the conduct of 
the appeals procedure, does feel, however, that more and more the leadership of 
the labor movement must be prepared to have their stewardship and conduct of 
the affairs of the union under their leadership subject to public review. The 
leadership of the UAW is prepared to have its stewardship reviewed, and we 
are proposing the creation of a public review board for this purpose and to 
further strengthen and refine the internal machinery of our union to insure that 
the justice which comes from the union's internal appeal procedures, meets the 
standards of fairness and honesty consistent with public standards in a free 
society. The leadership of the UAW will propose further to the coming conven- 
tion that the authority of the public review board be broadened to include the 
additional responsibility of acting as a public watchdog in our union to 
strengthen our efforts in our determination to continue to conduct the affairs of 
the UAW in accordance with the high ethical and moral standards for which 
the UAW has stood." 

Based upon the recommendations of the UAW leadership, the UAW conven- 
tion in April 1957, established a public review board. 

The public review board, which has constitutional status, is empowered to 
review, to concur in, to modify or to set aside any decisions of the international 
executive board or the local unions related to any aggrieved member or subordi- 
nate body of the UAW. In addition, the public review board has the obligation 
to deal with any alleged violations of any AFL-CIO ethical practices codes or 
any ethical practices codes adopted by the international union. In such cases, 
the public review board has the right to initiate investigations of its own on any 
allegations that any officer of the UAW is in violation of any one of the AFL- 
CIO ethical practices codes or of the constitution of the UAW. 

Copy of the UAW publication — A More Perfect Union — which outlines in 
detail the functions and the personnel of the public review board is attached. 

UAW FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION IN THE LABOR MOVEMENT 

The policy of the UAW of not compromising with either corruption or com- 
munism was translated into action in the other areas of the labor movement 
where the UAW had affiliation and responsibility. 

When the CIO negotiated the merger agreement with the AFL in 1955, we 
wholeheartedly supported the inclusion in the merger agreement of an anti- 
corruption clause which declared : 

"The merged federation shall constitutionally affirm its determination to 
protect the American trade-union movement from any and all corrupt influence 
and from the undermining efforts of Communist agencies and all others who are 
opposed to the basic principles of our democracy and of free and democratic 
trade unionism. 

"The merged federation shall establish appropriate internal machinery with 
authority effectively to implement this constitutional determination to keep the 
merged federation free from any taint of corruption or communism." 

Under this provision, the AFL-CIO Ethical Practices Committee was created 
after the AFL-CIO was born in December 1955. As a vice president of the 
AFL-CIO, I have joined with President George Meany and the other leaders of 
the AFL-CIO executive council in pressing for the adoption of the six codes of 
ethical practices to govern AFL-CIO affiliates and in taking prompt and decisive 
action against those few leaders who have betrayed their trust to their 
membership. 



9962 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The forthright action of the AFL-CIO convention in implementing the ethical 
codes speaks for itself and clearly demonstrates the determintaion of the- 
American labor movement to rid itself of the small minority of leadership who 
have proven themselves unfit and unworthy of leadership in a free labor 
movement. 

This hearing : This hearing, we understand, has been called not to discuss 
the question of corruption or unethical practices engaged in by the UAW or 
any of its leadership but to review the events and activities as they relate to a 
legitimate strike which has been in progress in Sheboygan, Wis., for the past 
45 months between the UAW and the Kohler Co. This strike of more than 
2,0(10 workers at the Kohler Co. is a struggle of American breadwinners to win 
for themselves and their families both a measure of economic and social justice 
and a measure of industrial democracy on the job through a voice in establish- 
ing wages and working conditions. Kohler workers, by democratic decision, are 
on strike because their employer, the Kohler Co., has denied them both their 
economic equity and a voice in determining their conditions of labor. 

The UAW. its officers and members are prepared to develop before your com- 
mittee the full facts in the 45-inonth Kohler strike. It should be clearly under- 
stood, however, that the full story of the Kohler strike, with all of its many 
ramifications, has been fully explored and reviewed by the National Labor 
Relations Board. That agency has before it for adjudication the union's 
charges that the company has violated the National Labor Relations Act by 
refusing to bargain, causing and prolonging the strike, and coercing and dis- 
criminating against its employees. It also has before it the company's defense 
that the union and its members have engaged in conduct justifying the com- 
pany's action. In the course of a hearing lasting more than 2 years, hundreds 
of witnesses subject to cross-examination gave testimony making up a record of 
more than 20,000 pages, with another 13,000 pages of exhibits. Thus a full and 
public record of the conduct of the parties in the Kohler strike has already been 
made before a properly constituted governmental tribunal. 

NLRB Trial Examiner George A. Downing, who conducted the extensive 
hearings in this case, issued his findings and "interim decision" on October 10, 
1957. A copy of the trial examiner's report is attached to this statement. This 
report was a vindication of the union's position and, most importantly, estab- 
lished that the union began its strike in support of legitimate economic demands 
and that the Kohler Co.. in violation of its legal obligations, prolonged the 
strike from June 1. 1954. through the present by its continuing refusal to 
bargain in good faith. 

The NLRB examiner's report declared : "* * * what the evidence showed was 
that the futility was due to respondent's (the Kohler Co.) deliberate contriving: 
that respondent was bargaining not to reach but to avoid agreement ; that it 
was seeking the union's complete capitulation, not simply for a normal contract 
term, but that pursuant to its announced intention 'to teach the union a lesson' 
(for having called the strike), it envisioned a settlement which would bring the 
company 20 years of labor peace, as had the 1934 strike. Thus, as charged by 
the union at one point during the September meetings, respondent was seeking 
to bargain for posterity, not for the terms of a contract. Instead of bargaining 
in good faith with intent to reach an agreement, respondent was intent on 
penalizing the union for having started the strike : and the penalty was not to 
be simple capitulation on contract terms but the reduction of the union to impo- 
tency as an effective bargaining representative of their employees." 

This finding of the trial examiner, which constitutes under NLRB procedures 
a recommendation to the full Board, is presently before that full Board for its 
decision. The decision of the full NLRB should be forthcoming within the next 
several months and. of course, it in turn will be subject to review by the Federal 
courts. 

We believe that the greatest care should be exercised by this committee so 
that whatever investigation it undertakes in this area will not in any way inter- 
fere with or jeopardize a fair and impartial review by the properly constituted 
governmental agency of the rights of all parties to the Kohler dispute. These 
rights at present rest in the hands of the quasi judicial tribunal designated by 
law as most properly qualified to judge them. We think it vital to a fair and 
just administration of the law that this tribunal be permitted to discharge its 
duty in a wholly impartial atmosphere. Thus, without questioning this com- 
mittee's power to investigate improper activities in labor-managenient relations, 
we strongly urge that this committee respect a proper allocation of governmental 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 9963 

functions and not interfere with the process of the law by seeking to prejudge 
the pending Kohler case or otherwise to invade, under the cloak of investigation, 
the area of adjudication. 

The UAW, during its 22 years of history, has negotiated many thousands of 
collective bargaining agreements with both large and small employers in the 
United States and Canada. The overwhelming majority of collective bargaining 
agreements have been negotiated in an atmosphere of good faith and good will 
on the part of both labor and management and were consummated without any 
interruption in production or any loss of time. It has been the policy of the 
UAW to make every effort possible to avoid strike action, and strike action has 
been resorted to only where workers, by democratic decision in accordance with 
the constitutional provisions of the UAW, have felt that strike action was jus- 
tified in the face of management's refusal to grant the measure of economic and 
social justice to which workers felt that they and their families were entitled. 

The UAW has made a consistent and, we believe, constructive effort to raise 
collective bargaining above the struggle of competing economic pressure groups. 
We have stated repeatedly at the bargaining table that we believe that free 
labor and free management have a great deal more in common than they have 
in conflict and that we can preserve freedom for labor or management only as 
free labor and free management learn to cooperate in preserving our free society 
in a free world. 

We have formulated our collective bargaining demands and we have attempted 
to conduct ourselves at the bargaining table always mindful that we have a 
responsibility to all of the people of our Nation. The UAW, representing ap- 
proximately iy 2 million wage earners, has a responsibility to its membership 
and we have tried to carry out that responsibility. 

We believe, however, that while both labor and management have separate 
responsibilities to their separate groups, they also have a joint responsibility 
at the bargaining table to the whole of our society and to all of the people, and 
that this joint responsibility transcends in importance the separate responsi- 
bilities of either labor or management. 

The UAW has contracts with hundreds of small companies as well as with 
large ones. We are not unmindful of the special problems of smaller concerns 
and our practical collective bargaining over the years has reflected this attitude 
to the benefit of both management and labor. 

W T e have recognized the interrelationship of all economic groups in our society 
and we have made repeated efforts at the bargaining table to protect the equity 
of consumers whom we feel have a right to share in the fruits of our advancing 
technology as do stockholders and wage earners. We gave this socially re- 
sponsible principle practical application in the negotiations in 1945 and 1940 
with the General Motors Corp. when we stated that we were prepared as a union 
to negotiate or arbitrate our wage demands on a basis that would not reflect 
even 1 cent in a price increase to American consumers. We have advanced this 
concept at the collective bargaining table of the interdependence of workers, 
consumers, and stockholders and their right to share in the growing abundance 
made possible by automation and the new tools of technology not only as a mat- 
ter of economic justice but as a matter of economic necessity. 

The members of our union have learned by hard practical experience that 
when the consumer is short-changed and when he is priced out of the market by 
unjustified price increases, that the wage earner and his family are ultimately 
penalized by layoffs and unemployment. 

We have not viewed collective bargaining as an isolated function of labor and 
management. We believe that the test of the soundness of any collective bar- 
gaining decision is to be measured in how it advances and promotes the public 
welfare. 

The UAW has been for more than 2 decades the successful partner with 
thousands of employers in the consummation of legal, voluntarily and democrati- 
cally arrived-at agreements that cover wages and working conditions. Yet 
never in our long experience have we encountered an employer so possessed of 
fear and prejudice against human beings who seek to assert their inherent rights 
and the enjoyment of human dignity as the Kohler Co. 

As was noted in Life magazine just a few months ago : 

"For many years the Kohlers, in running their family business, have been 
sedulous practitioners of old fashioned paternalism or father-knows-bestism. 

"When the grandfathers of Sheboygan came to America, they brought with 
them the memory of the landlord-peasant relationship they had known in 



9964 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Germany. They had rebelled against this relationship in its harshest forms, 
bnt they were not unwilling to accept it in a watered-down version. At the 
Kohler Co., they slipped into it easily and a long time passed before they began 
to think there was anything uncomfortable or undignified about it." 

The Kohler strike is about people. It is about the more than 2,000 Kohler 
workers who resolved democratically to throw off the yoke of industrial feudalism 
so that they too could enjoy the rights, the freedom, and the dignity at their 
work place enjoyed by millions of other workers. 

The men and women of local 833 have served notice on the Kohler Co. that 
it is not living in the Middle Ages, in some remote corner of the world far from 
the mainstream of life. 

The striking members of local 833 are free men and women with God-given 
dignity, with rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the laws of the United 
States of America. 

And no man, even if burdened with the kindliest of intention, as is trans- 
parently not the case here, has a legal or moral right to set himself above the laws 
of society, the laws of elemental human decency, in his attempt to dictate to 
workers what he thinks is best for them. As one striking Kohler worker was 
reported by Life magazine as saying : "Nobody says Herb is a bad-hearted man. 
He's not mean. He just tromps on us out of habit." 

To outline all the pertinent information before this committee would require 
many weeks and even months of testimony by hundreds of persons who are 
familiar with the details of the dispute. This is evident from the fact that 
the hearings before the Labor Board on this very case consumed over 2 years, 
filling more than 20,000 pages of testimony. 

It may be difficult to understand the real basis of the dispute and all the 
events that have occurred since the UAW became the democratically chosen and 
legally certified bargaining agent for Kohler workers, because it is extraordi- 
narily complex. 

In reviewing the facts in this dispute, it is of utmost importance that your 
committee does not get lost in a forest of detail and lose sight of the basic 
issues involved in the strike. It is absolutely essential to fully understand the 
Kohler strike to keep in mind one central, uncomplicated fact — that the Kohler 
Co. forced this strike, has prolonged it and has no genuine desire to settle it. 
The company's purpose during the 45 months of the Kohler strike has been to 
break the strike and to destroy the local union at the Kohler plant. 

In the words of the NLRB trial examiner, the Kohler Co. "* * * was bar- 
gaining not to reach but to avoid agreement * * * instead of bargaining in good 
faith with intent to reach an agreement. Respondent was intent on penalizing 
the union for having started the strike ; and the penalty was not to be simple 
capitulation on contract terms but the reduction of the union to impotency as 
an effective bargaining representative of their employees." As we have stated 
earlier, the UAW does not claim perfection. We do insist, however, that in the 
Kohler situation the UAW made every possible effort to avoid the strike before 
it started and we have made every effort to settle the strike short of total 
capitulation. 

This has been a long, bitter, and costly strike, and it is important that your 
committee not only review isolated incidents which may have taken place during 
the 45 months, but of greater importance to attempt to understand where the 
prime moral responsibility rests for the strike having started and for its con- 
tinuation. Your committee and the public should attempt to consider whether 
it was the Kohler Co. or the Kohler woi'kers and their union who failed to 
conduct themselves in accordance with accepted standards of morality and who 
failed to carry out their economic and social obligations associated with free 
collective bargaining. 

We believe that an objective and impartial review of the facts will demon- 
strate beyond challenge that the Kohler management was responsible for the 
strike taking place and for its continuation. 

The facts will show that the Kohler management refused to negotiate in good 
faith, refused to mediate, and refused every offer of arbitration. If, as charged 
by Mr. Kohler in his speeches and by the propaganda of the Kohler Co., the 
union had made unreasonable and unsound demands upon the company of a 
character that justified the kind of resistance reflected in a 45-month strike, 
then why was the corporation unwilling at any time to submit the merits of its 
contention to an impartial board of arbitration as the union was prepared to do? 

The tragedy of this situation in a real sense lies in the fact, as Life magazine 



IMPROPER ACTrYITiES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9965 

so well pointed out in its article, that one man, Mr. Herbert V. Kohler, who 
exercises absolute control over this company, seems to be completely obsessed 
with the belief that he, almost single-handedly, is defending what he considers 
to be the vanishing frontier of individual freedom. He is so completely ob- 
sessed that he has rejected every reasonable offer to terminate the strike as 
he fanatically defends a system of industrial feudalism completely out of touch 
with the realities of modern labor-management policies and relations. 
Specifically, they are : 

1. That provision of the Taft-Hartley law, as presently interpreted and ap- 
plied by the National Labor Relations Board, which permits an employer, 
motivated, as was Kohler, by a clear purpose to destroy a union among its 
employees, to recruit strikebreakers and simultaneously petition the National 
Labor Relations Board for an election. 

When such an election is held, often within a few months after the outbreak 
of a strike, the strikers are effectively disfranchised from voting in the choice 
of a bargaining agent. Men and women with as much as 30 and 40 years of 
seniority are completely disregarded in this choice, while strikebreakers, often 
deliberately recruited for the purpose of breaking the union, are given the votes 
that morally, if not legally, should certainly remain with those employees 
striking for a modicum of economic justice. 

President Eisenhower and Secretary of Labor Mitchell have both decried this 
particular provision of Taft-Hartley as a union-busting provision. This pro- 
vision, which provides antilabor managements with an effective weapon to de- 
stroy unions, should be abolished. 

2. While the Tart-Hartley Act prohibits intimidation and coercion by an em- 
ployer of his employees, it does nothing to prevent preparation for the most 
violent type of intimidation and coercion such as the Kohler Co. has engaged in. 
As the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board has stated in the Kohler case : 

"There was testimony by the president of the company to the effect that the 
company had equipped and has in its plant a small arsenal. He testified that 
there were clubs and guns provided for in the plant. His testimony also indi- 
cated that either there were tear bombs provided for in the plant, but if not, 
the presence of tear gas bombs would have his approval. 

"With all the legislation on the books today, both Federal and State, aimed 
at protecting not only the rights of employees and employers in labor disputes 
but the rights of the public as well, it seems inconceivable that in a forward- 
looking community in a State as progressive as the State of Wisconsin any 
employer would feel it necessary to resort to self-help by the means of arms, 
ammunition, and tear gas bombs. 

"There is no possible justification for an employer today to restort to the use of 
such means in any strike." [Emphasis supplied.] 

Nonetheless, inconceivable though it may be, Kohler's preparation of an 
arsenal and training of a small army in preparation for what is supposed to be 
peaceful, reasonable, good-faith bargaining, was no violation of any Federal law, 
let alone of any Federal labor code. It certainly should be. 

3. There is a crying need for legislation to speed up the processes of the 
National Labor Relations Board. This strike began on April 5, 1954. The 
union filed unfair labor practice charges almost simultaneously with the com- 
mencement of the strike. 

The recommendation of the National Labor Relations Board trial examiner 
did not come down until October 1957, and the final decision of the National 
Labor Relations Board in this matter can probably not be expected for several 
more months. 

Even then the matter will not have been finally adjudicated, since the Kohler 
Co. could still appeal an unfavorable decision to the courts, thus providing 
further delay before a final decision. In a practical sense, justice so delayed 
is justice denied. 

The nature of the unfair labor practices charges in this case, supported by the 
National Labor Relations Board examiner's findings and recommendations, indi- 
cate the lasting harm of this serious timelag. 

Perhaps if the National Labor Relations Board had been able to make a final 
finding on the company's refusal to bargain at an early stage in this strike, it 
might have done something the relax the company's rigidity. 

In the case of any normal company, it certainly would have provided a sub- 
stantial motivation for sincere good-faith bargaining. Perhaps even with the 
Kohler Co., it might have made Mr. Kohler blush a bit in his circuits about the 



9966 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

country during which he seemed to have infinite time to unjustly and falsely 
denounce the union and confuse the issues of the strike, though he apparently 
had no time to bargain in good faith. 

One way of speeding up these procedures and preventing a freezing of ap- 
proach by the recalcitrant party through the mere lapse of time, would be to 
apply the mandatory injunction provisions of section 10 (1) of the National 
Labor Relations Act to substantial charges of deliberate refusal to bargain. 

For all the vaunted impartiality and equal treatment which Taft-Hartley al- 
legedly gives to both sides of a dispute, there has never been any effort to deny 
the basic injustice and inequity whereby section 10 (1) instructs the National 
Labor Relations Board General Counsel to seek a temporary injunction in Fed- 
eral court whenever a union is charged with violating certain unfair labor prac- 
tice provisions of the act, though no such instruction is contained against any 
company violations, no matter how flagrant or vicious they may be. 

It is true that section 10 (j) permits the General Counsel to seek injunctive 
relief whenever any unfair labor practice charge is filed against any party, but, 
in the 10 years in which the act has been operative, the General Counsels have 
used this power very sparingly, and then usually against unions. Only in the 
most isolated case is the 10 (j ) power used at all. 

Perhaps the reason is the contrast between section 10 (1), which singles out 
certain union offenses and instructs the General Counsel to proceed, and section 
10 (j), which merely permits him to proceed in any case. 

In any event, it would certainly seem that whatever the justification for in- 
structing the General Counsel to proceed against unions in certain types of sec- 
ondary boycott and similar situations, there is at least as much need for the 
General Counsel to be instructed to proceed to seek a temporary injunction in 
flagrant refusals to bargain which provoke and prolong strikes. 

If such an injunction had been sought and granted in this proceeding, it is 
quite possible that this strike might have been settled on some reasonably satis- 
factory basis many years ago. I need not remind this committee of the hard- 
ship and suffering of the thousands of Kohler strikers that such a settlement 
would have prevented. 

4. The Kohler strike has highlighted the definite need for legislation forbid- 
ding the Government from contracting with strike-bound companies. 

In this case, during the very years when the Kohler Co. had been charged by 
the National Labor Relations Board with serious unfair labor practices, the 
company was receiving a large share of its business from the Department of De- 
fense. It is a tragic state of affairs when a company which so flagrantly and 
blatantly violates the public policy of the United States is, in effect, subsidized 
by that same United States during the course of its disregard of public policy. 

In any event, withholding of Government business from strike-bound com- 
panies, particularly those charged by the National Labor Relations Board with 
violation of Federal law, is much closer to true neutrality than subsidization 
of those companies through Government business at the very time they are im- 
porting strikebreakers and violating Federal policy. 

5. Perhaps the most important of our legislative recommendations is that the 
committee give some consideration to the problem produced by the importation 
of strikebreakers by recalcitrant employers, perhaps through amendment and ex- 
pansion of the so-called Byrnes Act (18 U. S. C, Chapter 57, Sec. 1231) dealing 
with the transportation of strikebreakers across State lines. 

You might well examine also the procedures developed by other free nations 
of the world for dealing with this problem, which is so often the provocation of 
and precipitation to violence. 

It is one thing for a strike-bound company to urge its own employees to con- 
tinue working or to return to work. It is quite another — and more reprehensi- 
ble — thing for a company to recruit strangers and strikebreakers in an attempt 
to bust a legal, legitimate strike voted in a democratic manner by the over- 
whelming majority of its employees. 

If, as I am sure it will, the committee gives careful consideration to this over- 
all problem, I believe this hearing, though out of the normal area in which the 
committee has operated thus far. will prove to be one of the most important 
the committee has conducted, and will lead to results which could be every bit 
as beneficial as any legislation the committee might propose to deal with the 
problems growing out of other areas of labor-management relations. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9967 

Resolution on Congressional Investigation of Racketeering and Corruption 
Adopted by the UAW International Executive Board, Jaunary 18, 1957, 
Detroit, Mich. 

Whereas one of the most challenging and compelling problems confronting 
the united labor movement is the elimination from its own ranks of the small 
minority of people in leadership engaged in gangster and racketeering activities 
and others who exploit their positions of leadership in the union for their own 
selfish purposes. 

The American labor movement came into being as an economic and social 
agency through which millions of workers, joining together and pooling their 
strength, their will, and their determination, could find answers to their common 
problems. The history of the American labor movement is rich in its record 
of thousands of dedicated men and women who sacrificed and struggled in an 
effort to implement the principles of human brotherhood and to win for workers 
and their families a fuller measure of economic and social justice. 

The American labor movement can carry out its historic mission and meet its 
broad economic and social responsibilities to its members and their families and 
to the whole of our free society only as it maintains its idealism and keeps the 
values of human service untarnished and uncorrupted. In our free society, hav- 
ing as its prime economic motivation an acquisitive philosophy which too often 
measures success by the acquisition of material wealth, the American labor move- 
ment must be eternally vigilant to guard against having the idealism and human 
motivations of the labor movement corrupted and compromised by the unethical 
standards of the market place. Making a fast buck in the market place may 
mark one as a sharp businessman, but using one's position of leadership in the 
labor movement to make a fast buck is contrary to the basic principles which 
have been the source of the spiritual strength and the common dedication of the 
free labor movement. 

Failure to uphold these high standards will cause the American labor move- 
ment to deteriorate into a narrow economic pressure group and make it incapa- 
ble of discharging its broad economic and social responsibilities measured in 
terms of the needs of our whole society. 

Accordingly, in order to achieve these objectives and principles, the constitu- 
tion of the AFL-CIO states in part that one of its purposes is "to protect the 
labor movement from any and all corrupt influences and from the undermining 
efforts of Communist agencies and all others who are opposed to the basic prin- 
ciples of democracy and free and democratic unionism." 

The practical implementation of this objective means that there will not and 
there must not be tolerated within the leadership of the united labor movement 
either Communists or crooks, for both represent forces which are incompatible 
with both the principles and the objectives of a free labor movement. 

The overwhelming majority of the leadership of the American labor move- 
ment is composed of honest, decent, loyal, and dedicated people, but unfortunately 
there is a small corrupt minority who exploit their positions of leadership and 
power, who are engaged in activities of racketeering and corruption and who 
besmirch and blacken the good name of the entire labor movement. 

The decent people in the American labor movement have a responsibility and 
obligation to protect the whole labor movement from the corrupt and unscrup- 
lous few who, if permitted to go unchallenged, will weaken and destroy the 
American labor movement. 

To effectively implement the principle and the objective of keeping the Ameri- 
can labor movement free of corrupt influences, the constitution of the AFL-CIO, 
which provides for the establishment of the ethical practices committee, states : 

"The committee on ethical practices shall be vested with the duty and respon- 
sibility to assist the executive council in carrying out the constitutional deter- 
mination of the Federation to keep the Federation free from any taint of cor- 
ruption or communism, in accoi-dance with the provisions of this constitution." 

The committee on ethical practices, designated by President George Meany, 
is fortunate to have as its head, President Al Hayes of the International Asso- 
ciation of Machinists; and as members, President Joseph Curran of the Na- 
tional Maritime Union ; President David Dubinsky of the International Ladies' 
Garment Workers' Union; President George Harrison of the Brotherhood of 
Railway Clerks; and President Jacob Potofsky of the Amalgamated Clothing 
Workers Union, all men of high caliber and unquestioned integrity and dedica- 
tion to the ideals of the free labor movement. 



9968 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD- 

The ethical practices committee deserves the congratulations of all those 
who believe in clean and decent trade unionism for the beginning which the 
committee has already made in dealing with the problem of corrupt influences 
within the American labor movement, despite the necessarily limited authority 
at its disposal. 

We believe that the sincere determination that President Meany and the 
members of the ethical practices committee, to move effectively and with dis- 
patch to meet this problem, can be immeasurably assisted by a congressional 
committee conducting an objective and impartial investigation into the incidents 
of labor racketeering and corresponding employer collusion with labor racketeers 
and gangsters. 

A congressional committee has several indispensable assets which the ethical 
practices committee does not have by the very nature of its nongovernmental 
character, namely the power to subpena and to take testimony under oath. 

We believe that close cooperation between a fair and objective congressional 
committee and the committee on ethical practices wotdd make it possible to 
make maximum progress toward exposing corrupt influences within both labor 
and management and taking corrective steps both in the courts and inside the 
labor movement to meet this problem. 

The data gathered by the fair and impartial investigation conducted by Sena- 
tor Douglas' investigative committee has already facilitated the work of the 
ethical practices committee by placing in its hands valuable evidence which it 
could not have secured on its own under oath. 

These limitations on the authority of the ethical practices committee can 
create serious, if not insurmountable, obstacles to the committee's work and a 
fair and objective congressional investigation would be a means of overcoming 
these obstacles : therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the International Executive Board of the International Union, 
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, 
at its meeting on January 18, 1957, urges the AFL-OIO Executive Council at 
its meeting which convenes on January 28, 1957, to give consideration to the 
advisability of urging Congress to authorize an appropriate congressional com- 
mittee to conduct a thorough and exhaustive investigation into corruption and 
racketeering in all phases of American life and to expose without fear or favor, 
corruption in labor, in industry, and all other aspects of the problem; and, be 
it further 

Resolved, That we urge the AFL-CIO Executive Council to assure the Con- 
gress that any such committee bent upon getting the facts and of conducting 
a fair and objective investigation with respect to corruption, racketeering and 
gangsterism in labor, in industry, and in business will receive the full coopera- 
tion of the AFL-CIO and its ethical practices committee. 



January 27, 1958. 
Mr. Robert F. Kennedy, 

Chief Council, Select Senate Committee on Improper 
Activities in, Labor or Management, 
Washington, D. C. 

Dear Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Jack Conway, my administrative assistant, has 
advised me of his conversation with you concerning the forthcoming hearings 
involving the UAW and the Kohler Co. as it relates to the Kohler strike. 

As we have advised Senator McClellan, we are prepared to cooperate in every 
possible way to facilitate a fair and objective hearing of all the facts. I have 
asked Mr. Conway to continue to cooperate with your office and your staff so 
as to make available any pertinent information or data which you may need for 
those hearings. 

In addition to cooperating in every possible way to facilitate your work as it 
relates to the activities of the UAW as an organization, I have repeatedly 
indicated a willingness to have the committee check into my personal financial 
matters. To date, to my knowledge, no one from your committee has made any 
efforts to inquire into my personal financial affairs and I can understand the 
reluctance of the committee to do so in the absence of any question or allegation 
being raised concerning my personal affairs. 

Since as president of the UAW I will undoubtedly be involved in the Kohler 
hearings, I would feel much more comfortable if in advance of the hearings 
you would find it possible to assign a member of your staff to check into my 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9969 

personal financial affairs. I should be most happy to cooperate with such an 
investigation and will make available to your staff all of my personal financial 
records. 

Sincerely yours, 

Walter P. Reuther, 
President, International Union, UAW. 



Resolution No. 131, Kohler and O'Sullivan Boycott 

Two heroic groups of workers have carried on historic battles for long periods 
of time for dignity and economic justice against arrogant and despotic em- 
ployers who have used the worst features of the Taft-Hartley Act to resist the 
legitimate demands of their employees. 

These workers are the more than 3,000 members of the United Auto Workers 
Local 833 in Sheboygan, Wis., who were forced out on strike at the Kohler 
Co. on April 5, 1954, and the 400 members of local 511, United Rubber Workers, 
who have been on strike since May 13, 1956, against the O'Sullivan Rubber 
Corp., of Winchester, Va. 

In the ease of the Kohler strikers, the company was found guilty recently of 
repeated and flagrant unfair labor practices and violations of the Taft-Hartley 
Act throughout the more than 3 l / 2 years of this strike, but still has refused to 
settle the dispute as it has refused every other effort by the UAW and imparial 
persons to negotiate, mediate, or arbitrate settlement of the strike. 

From its original accumulation of an illegal arsenal of guns, tear gas, and 
other weapons in advance of contract termination, through its refusal to bargain 
in good faith and its discharge of the union leaders, up to its most recent 
refusal to settle the strike on the basis of the NLRB examiner's findings, the 
Kohler Co. has clearly indicated its intention to wipe out the union. The 
Taft-Hartley law has been toothless in the face of Kohler's defiance. 

In the case of the 400 members of the United Rubber Workers on strike for 
the last 19 months at the O'Sullivan Rubber Co., that company has consistently 
refused to consider a fair and reasonable contract which would provide a better 
standard of living for its members than the $1.39 average hourly wage paid by 
the company. 

Workers at this company bad clearly evidenced their desire to be represented 
by the United Rubber Workers when they voted in an NLRB election on May 13, 
1956, 343 for the URW to 2 for no union. 

The company hired strikebreakers when the O'Sullivan workers voted 355 
to 2 to strike for a decent contract. The company then invoked the union- 
busting section 9 (c) of the Taft-Hartley law, under which only the scab re- 
placements can vote on whether or not they want the union continued. 

Naturally, with the strikers looking on, but not voting, the scabs voted for 
no union. 

The entire American labor movement has recognized from the outset of both 
the Kohler and O'Sullivan strikes not only that the cause of these workers is 
morally right and economically sound, but that the very life of the labor move- 
ment is at stake if these anti-labor employers are permitted to utilize the 
scheme, tricks and devices of Taft-Hartley to destroy our unions. 

Because of his recognition, the strikers at Kohier and O'Sullivan have had 
not only strong support from the American labor movement, but also have 
benefited from nationwide consumer boycotts of the scab-made plumbware of 
Kohler and the heels, soles and other products of O'Sullivan. 

The legal primary boycotts of these scab-made products is the sole major 
avenue open to the labor movement to show its continued solidarity with the 
Kohler and O'Sullivan workers and the refusal to tolerate 19th century employer 
dictatorship in a 20th century era of human progress : Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That this second biennial convention of the American Federation of 
Labor and Congress of Industrial Organization hereby commends the heroic 
workers at the Kohler and O'Sullivan companies for their courage and determi- 
nation to achieve a better way of life for themselves, their children and their 
fellow Americans. 

This convention calls upon the officers and members of all its affiliated unions 
ro continue to lend full mora) and economic support to the Kohler and O'Sullivan 
strikers in their resistance to economic and legislative feudalism. 



9970 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

This convention of the AFL-CIO emphasizes its renewed support of the con- 
sumer boycott campaigns being waged against these two companies. 

We again call upon Congress to repeal the anti-labor provisions of the Taft- 
Hartley Act which have been so clearly demonstrated in the Kohler and O'Sul- 
livan strikes. 



The KonLER Co. Provoked the Strike, Prolonged the Strike, and Has 
Rejected All Efforts To Settle the Strike 

1. The facts are that during the period of the first contract, while the union 
was striving to help build a new, constructive and peaceful labor-management 
relationship, the company was in fact preparing for war and had secretly pur- 
chased and illegally placed in the plant a sizable arsenal of weapons, including 
12-gage shotguns, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, gas guns with both short- 
and long-range tear-gas shells. 

In addition they had acquired 300 cots, blankets, food and provisions and had 
cut down to "billy" size, a quantity of clubs left over from the 1934 strike. 

The company also had ready for installation gun emplacement towers with 
intricate lighting equipment. 

The earliest possible date under the contract for the company to serve notice 
of contract termination would normally have been December 31, 1954. The 
Kohler Co., however, jumped the gun and on December 12, 1954, served notice, 
terminating the contract effective March 1, 1954, which subsequent events 
showed was the company's declaration of war, for which they had been pre- 
paring. 

2. The facts are that the union, in an effort to avoid a strike, proposed the 
extension of the contract beyond the terminal date which the company had 
imposed, so that negotiations could continue, but the company refused to 
extend the contract even for 1 day. 

3. The facts are that in a further effort to avoid a strike the union, upon 
the contract's termination, requested the Kohler workers to continue to work 
without a contract, hoping that through continued negotiations we could reach 
a settlement and avoid a strike. 

4. The facts are that during the 5-week period when the Kohler workers 
worked without a contract and the union was making every effort to avoid 
a strike, the company stepped up and made more obvious its preparations 
for war, and under the guise of a civilian defense program actually armed 
and mobilized a private army, trained with the use of modern weapons, includ- 
ing machine guns, as revealed in sworn testimony before the National Labor 
Relations Board trial examiner. 

5. The facts are that the company refused to negotiate in good faith and 
that the company went through the bargaining motions not to bargain an 
agreement, but "to avoid an agreement," knowing that ultimately, refusal to 
agree would force a strike. 

6. The facts are that a strike was called on April 5, 1954, after months of 
fruitless negotiations and extreme provocation, and only after Mr. Herbert 
V. Kohler had refused to bargain further, stating in a letter to local 833 : 
"There is no point in further negotiations." 

7. The facts are that the strike was called only after a membership meeting 
attended by more than 2,000 Kohler workers on March 14, 1954, voted to 
reject the company's final offer, in a democratic secret ballot vote in accord- 
ance with the constitution of the UAW, and by a vote of 88.1 percent requested 
strike authorization from the International Union UAW. 

8. The facts are that in advance of the strike the union notified the company 
by letter, setting a strike deadline and at the same time offering to sit down 
with the company and work out an orderly procedure by which necessary 
maintenance personnel and other personnel essential to the protection of 
the safety of the plant could be made available during the period of the strike. 
This sensible arrangement, which has been followed in hundreds of other 
disputes throughout American industry, was rejected by the Kohler manage- 
ment, who continued their program of provocation and the mobilizing of their 
private army, including the actual erection of gun emplacement watchtowers 
with newly installed intricate telephone systems, high-powered searchlights, 
and numerous barricades at strategic points. 

It was in this climate that the strike began and the Kohler workers took 
their place on the picketline, feeling that there was some safety in numbers, 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 9971 

because they remembered that in 1934 the company broke the strike by the 
use of armored trucks, tear gas, and guns, which took the lives of 2 workers, 
and injured 47. 

9. The facts are that after the strike began, the company continued to 
refuse to bargain in good faith ; as the National Labor Relations Board 
examiner found, the company "was bargaining not to reach, but to avoid 
agreement." 

10. The facts are that the company rejected every effort at arbitration, 
including the proposal made by the then Governor of Wisconsin, Mr. Walter 
Kohler, a nephew of Herbert V. Kohler, company president. 

11. The facts are that the union, on several occasions, proposed arbitration, 
including the arbitrator be selected by President Eisenhower or Secretary 
of Labor James Mitchell, and that the union was willing to be bound by the 
arbitration award. 

12. The facts are that Mr. Herbert V. Kohler has repeatedly refused and 
continues to refuse to meet his moral obligations to sit at the bargaining 
table in an effort to resolve the issues in this strike. 

13. The facts are that Mr. Herbert V. Kohler, while refusing to spend 
1 minute at the bargaining table, has, during the 45 months of this strike, 
been engaged in a campaign of villification and misrepresentation against the 
UAW, the democratically chosen and legally certified bargaining agent of 
Kohler workers. 

14. The facts are that when the union had compromised its wage demand by 
a successive scaling down of its proposals, the company, fearful that further 
compromise on the part of the union might make a settlement unavoidable, in 
pursuance of its policy of '•bargaining not to reach, but to avoid agreement," 
summarily and arbitrarily discharged 90 strikers on March 1, 1955, who com- 
prised almost the total leadership of Local Union 833, including the officers, all 
members of the union's executive board, all members of the bargaining commit- 
tee, all members but 1 of the local strike committee, and 5 of the 6 chief 
stewards. 

This mass discharge of the total leadership of the local union was to guaran- 
tee that a settlement would be impossible and that the strike would continue. 

15. The facts are that every time it appeared that the issues in dispute were 
being narrowed and that a settlement might be possible, the company always 
took drastic action to widen the breach and to further complicate the x^ossibili- 
ties of settlement. 

A good example of this, in addition to the discharge of the 90 leaders of the 
local union, is the company's refusal to this date to reemploy strikers upon the 
settlement of the strike, including workers with from 25 to 38 years of service 
with the Kohler Co., as recommended in the findings of the National Labor Rela- 
tions Board trial examiner. 

Both as president of the UAW and as a person, I have weighed the matters 
and the issues involved in the Kohler strike with great care. I have searched 
my own conscience, and I have consulted with many people in the labor move- 
ment, in the religious world, and in public life, and I have asked them what they 
would do if they were in my position, and I have found no person who, knowing 
the facts, felt that our union ought to surrender in the face of the immorality 
of this company, which is in defiance of the law and which is responsible for 
the hardship resulting from this strike. 

These many people, in labor, religion, and public life, with whom I have 
shared this problem, have all fortified our determination to carry on this strike 
despite its difficulties, because to do otherwise would be an act of surrender in 
the face of our moral obligations to the men. women, and children of Kohler 
families who have been forced to suffer the hardships of this prolonged strike. 

To surrender would be to appease immorality and irresponsibility which 
would further encourage these tendencies in the field of labor-management 
relations. 

As stated earlier, and which I now wish to emphasize, it is absolutely essen- 
tial to a full understanding of the Kohler strike to understand one central, un- 
complicated fact: The Kohler Co. forced this strike, has prolonged it, and has 
no genuine desire to settle it. 

In any discussion of the details related to the Kohler strike, it is imperative 
to keep constantly in mind the findings of the National Labor Relations Board 
trial examiner that the company was bargaining "not to reach, but to avoid, 
agreement, that it was seeking the union's complete capitulation." 



9972 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Once this central theme is accepted— and it is a fact— the whole pattern of this 
dispute becomes obvious. There is visible a transparent design on the part of 
the Kohler Co. management to destroy Local 833 of the UAW. It is apparent 
in every act, every public statement, every expressed attitude on the part of 
the few persons responsible for what passes as a "labor relations policv" at 
the Kohler Co. 

VIOLENCE AND VANDALISM 

I shall not attempt at this point, but shall leave to other witnesses the docu- 
mentation of the Kohler Co.'s 60-year record of utter contempt for the human 
and property rights of its employees, its complete and reckless disregard for 
simple human decency, and the public welfare, its unlawful conduct of its labor 
relations, and its cold and deliberate provocation and incitement of its employees 
to bitter resentment and, in a few instances, emotional reactions. 

I cannot let pass, however, the company's allegations that violence, vandalism, 
and illegal activity have been encouraged or condoned by the UAW. 

It would be foolish to deny that there has been violence and vandalism in 
this dispute. The facts show there have been some unfortunate incidents com- 
mitted by individuals on both sides. 

In view of the long history of violence and provocations by this arrogant com- 
pany, both at the bargaining table and outside the plant, it is a tribute to the 
self-control of the Kohler workers and their families as well as a minor miracle, 
that the number of serious incidents in this bitter and emotional dispute have 
been so few. 

UAW FIRMLY COMMITTED TO POLICY OF NONVIOLENCE 

The UAW has been firmly committed to a policy of nonviolence. The UAW, 
its leadership and its membership have been the victims of extreme violence in 
the early days of organization when we first sought recognition and the exer- 
cise of our legal right to bargain with employers in the industries organized by 
our union. 

Almost every major corporation, as the La Follette committee report so vividly 
reflects, employed labor spies and many hired underworld strong-armed squads 
to intimidate, coerce, and victimize by physical violence their employees and 
people actively engaged in trying to encourage workers to self-organization. 

No one is more conscious of the futility of violence than I, because I, and mem- 
bers of my family, and other leaders of the UAW, have on numerous occasions 
been the victims of brutal and unprovoked violence. 

In 1937, I was among a group of union people brutally beaten by Harry Ben- 
nett's strong-arm servicemen on the overpass on gate No. 4 at the River Rouge 
Ford plant. Later that year, my office was bombed and, still later that same 
year, a sound truck of Local Union 174, of which I was president, was blown up. 

In 1938, armed thugs hired by the Ford Motor Co. invaded my home, violently 
assaulted me, threatened my life, and attempted to kidnap me. Only the fact 
that a large number of friends had come to visit me a short time earlier, un- 
known to the thugs, prevented them from carrying out their attempted kid- 
naping and their boast, as they put it, to take me for my last ride and dump me 
at the bottom of the Detroit River encased in cement. 

In 1948, I was the victim of an attempted assassination, shot through the 
window of my own home. 

In 1949 my youngest brother, Victor, also was the victim of an attempted 
assassination. He, too, was shot through the window of his home and was 
seriously injured causing the complete loss of his right eye. 

These acts of violence are sad and tragic chapters in the life of my family, 
and similar acts of violence against other leaders of our union serve as a 
constant reminder of the futility of violence and have strengthened our firm 
belief in the UAW's policy of nonviolence. 

The UAW, as we have stated, is not perfect, for no organization made up of 
imperfect human beings can hope to achieve perfection. UAW members are 
subject to the same human frailties as are other people and, in a few isolated 
situations, have been swayed into ill-considered action under circumstances of 
extreme provocation and emotional tension. 

While UAW members in a few situations have acted contrary to the official 
nonviolence policy of the UAW, in the overwhelming majority of situations 
UAW members have been the victims, not the perpetrators, of violence. 

This has been the case in the Kohler strike. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES: IN THE LABOR MELD 9973 

In the Kohler strike, as in other strikes, the UAW has made a consistent and 
sincere effort to discourage any acts of violence or vandalism. We have re- 
peatedly warned strikers that such acts would only hurt their cause, since vio- 
lence and vandalism settle none of the problems in a strike; they only create 
additional problems. 

In the Kohler strike, the UAW International and the local union have con- 
sistently held to, and implemented, a policy of total opposition to violence and 
vandalism in any form. It is our firm position to use every peaceful, legal 
means to accomplish the UAW's legitimate collective-bargaining ends. 

To implement this policy, the union has taken the following steps during this 
long dispute with the Kohler Co. : 

1. Statements by international officers condemning and disavowing violence 
and vandalism. 

2. Statements by local union officers condemning and disavowing violence 
and vandalism. 

3. Posting of rewards for the apprehension and conviction of those guilty of 
violence and vandalism. 

4. Issuance of mimeographed instructions to all strikers on peaceful conduct 
and full compliance with the law. 

5. Official statements made by responsible union officials over radio and in 
the newspapers urging full compliance with the law. 

6. Compliance and cooperation with all law enforcement agencies at all times. 
The union is submitting a fully documented exhibit which sets forth the spe- 
cific efforts of the union to implement its policy of nonviolence. 

Any impartial and objective study of all the incidents of violence in the 
Kohler strike will lead to the conclusion that most of these incidents were the 
inevitable byproduct of the company's acts of extreme provocation, the intense 
hatred generated by the company's continuous and vicious campaign of anti- 
union propaganda, and its historic pattern of using armed force as an instru- 
ment of labor policy to crush past strikes. 

LEGAL CONSUMER BOYCOTT 

When it became clear that the Kohler Co. was bent on breaking the strike 
in its efforts to destroy UAW Local 833, as the bargaining agent for Kohler 
workers, there was no alternative for the union but to take its case to the 
public. 

From the start, the UAW's consumer boycott was public and open. We made 
no attempt to conceal our boycott of Kohler products. In fact, we gave it 
maximum publicity. 

Except for its Government contracts, Kohler sold primarily to consumers. 
Accordingly, the UAW campaign to boycott Kohler products was directed at 
consumers. Using all forms of advertising, public speeches, and personal con- 
tacts, the UAW attempted to inform the public and union members throughout 
the country of the union-busting attempts by the Kohler Co. 

For example, at the recent AFL-CIO convention in Atlantic City, in Decem- 
ber 1957, a resolution was unanimously adopted by the delegates from all affili- 
ated AFL-CIO unions condemning the Kohler Co. and pledging their full sup- 
port to the UAW boycott of this vicious, unprincipled employer. (Copy 
attached.) 

Our campaign before public bodies and agencies has been equally open and 
forthright. When told the full story of the Kohler Co.'s refusal to bargain in 
good faith, and the company's sordid labor relations history, many governmental 
bodies have refused to purchase the nonunion-made Kohler products. 

In short, the UAW has carried on a legal consumer boycott against the Kohler 
Co. If the boycott had been an illegal secondary boycott, Kohler could have so 
charged the union before the National Labor Relations Board and filed a civil 
suit for damages, since an illegal secondary boycott would have been a violation 
of the Taft-Hartley Act. 

To this date, the company has made no such charge because they recognize 
that the union is acting in full compliance with the law and, in fact, merely 
exei-cising its constitutional right of free speech. 

ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE STRIKE REJECTED BY KOHLER CO. 

The union has tried in every way it could to settle this dispute honorably for 
both sides. Outside interests have attempted to help end the strike through the 
21243— 58— pt. 25 5 



9974 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

democratic processes of mediation and arbitration. In each of these instances, 
the union has agreed to cooperate with outside arbitrators, and in each case, 
the company has refused. 

The mayor of Sheboygan tried to settle the dispute. The union agreed. The 
company refused. 

The Common Council of Sheboygan attempted to mediate the dispute. The 
union agreed. The company refused. 

The Governor of Wisconsin, the nepbew of Herbert V. Kohler, offered his good 
offices in an attempt to settle the strike. The union agreed. The company 
refused. 

State and Federal judges in AVXsconsin have tried to mediate the dispute. 
The union agreed. The company refused. 

The Wisconsin Employment Relations Board has tried to mediate the dispute. 
The union agreed. The company refused. 

A subcommittee of the United States Senate has tried. The union agreed. 
The company refused. 

Prominent clergymen of the Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish faiths have 
offered to help mediate the dispute. The union in each case agreed. The com- 
pany in each case refused. 

We have suggested every possible method known in the entire area of labor- 
management relations as a way of settling the strike. The company in each 
instance has refused. 

The union suggested that the Secretary of Labor, James P. Mitchell, appoint 
an impartial arbitrator. The company refused. 

The union suggested that President Eisenhower appoint an impartial arbi- 
trator to settle the strike. The company refused. 

The union has proposed acceptance of the recommendation of the National 
Labor Relations Board examiner as the basis for settling the strike. The com- 
pany has refused. 

Representatives of every segment of American society have tried to settle the 
dispute. Each and all of these attempts, made by these public-spirited citizens, 
have been welcomed by the union, and each and all of these attempts have been 
flatly rejected by this arrogant company. 

The entire pattern of "bargaining" by Kohler fits into the XLRB trial exam- 
iner's categorization of it as "adamancy" which "had not only become part of a 
technique for avoiding agreement," but which "insured a failure to reach one." 

The union started out with a number of reasonable demands, and in the course 
of bargaining before the strike and the first few months after the strike, the 
union conceded substantially on all of these points, and in many cases abandoned 
them completely for purposes of these negotiations. The company made any 
settlement impossible. 

The company during this period has attempted to confuse the issues and inject 
violence into the picture to justify its refusal to bargain and its determination 
to break local 833. The NLRB trial examiner's conclusions exposed this attempt 
of the company for what it was, a calculated, cynical campaign to prevent a 
settlement regardless of union concessions. 

The company has had but one overall purpose in mind since it terminated 
the old contract at the earliest possible date to make any agreement on a new 
contract impossible by throwing new conditions at the union to completely 
destroy the union through importation of strikebreakers and provocation of 
the membership to violence, and finally, to obtain the fondly remembered "20 
years of labor peace" which followed the 1934 shootings and murders, and which 
carried with it memories thoroughly delightful to Mr. Kohler of a completely 
subject and abject group of employees working at low wage rates under some 
of the worst working conditions in American history. 

CONCLUSION 

The Kohler Co. does not want to settle this strike. It does not want to deal 
with a union chosen democratically and legally certified as the collective bar- 
gaining agent of Kohler workers. 

It wants only to destroy local 833 as the Kohler workers bargaining agency. 
It has been found guilty, through due process, of repeated violations of the 
laws of the land. 

It has clearly indicated its total indifference to the orderly processes of 
industrial democracy. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9975 

It has further shown its utter contempt for the rules of decent behavior. 
It has been unconcerned with the harm this dispute has visited, not just on 
the Kohler workers and their families, but on the communities involved. 

It has been contemptuous of those from whatever area of America who have 
tried to bring about an honorable settlement. 

The Kohler Co. has, in short, operated outside the realm of decent behavior, 
and must, therefore, accept the moral responsibility for this strike, for its 
beginning and for its continuation. 

Kohler strikers, the men and women who make up the membership of UAW 
local 833, began their strike against the Kohler Co. in an effort to win a measure 
of economic security and improved working conditions which other employers 
have extended to their employees through the process of free collective 
bargaining. 

The illegal and immoral actions of the Kohler Co. has compelled the Kohler 
workers to continue the strike for 45 long months. They are no longer striking 
to win higher wages and better working conditions. Kohler workers are striking 
to preserve their most sacred property rights, their job rights, through reem- 
ployment, which to date the company has refused, despite the findings of the 
trial examiner of the National Labor Relations Board. 

The overwhelming evidence in this strike clearly puts the strikers on the 
side of justice, morality, and human decency, and they are resolved to continue 
this struggle until the Kohler Co. accepts the letter and the spirit of the law 
of our land. 

To this end, the UAW is pledged to continue to give Kohler workers every 
possible support within our means. 

LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS IN KOHLER STRIKE 

We are pleased to comply with the request of this committee for legislative 
recommendations as a result of our experience in the Kohler strike. These 
recommendations are limited to our experience in the Kohler strike and do not 
reflect our full legislative recommendations on other aspects of labor- 
management relations in the field of your committee's responsibilities. 

We share the belief that to some extent the Kohler Co.'s refusal to bargain 
in good faith has been encouraged by certain fundamental weaknesses in the 
existing Federal labor laws. 

The Chairman. Counsel wishes to ask you a question or two before 
you proceed with your statement. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Reuther, have you had some conversations and 
discussions with the accountant of this committee, Mr. Carmine 
Bellino? 

Mr. Reuther. Mr. Kennedy, I met on a number of occasions with 
Mr. Bellino, and I think large numbers of the staff of our union, 
other officers have, and we turned over to him all of the records of 
the international union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he also request from you your own personal 
finances and books ? 

Mr. Reuther. He did, Mr. Kennedy. I was advised many weeks 
ago that the committee did not intend to go into my personal finances, 
and on January 27, I sent you a letter in which I asked you to go into 
my personal finances, and when Mr. Bellino came to Detroit, I turned 
over to him all of my income-tax returns that we were able to get — 
I think they went back some 12 or 15 years — all of the canceled 
checks, all of the records dealing with my personal finances, because 
I wanted him to go over them very carefully so that the committee 
would know precisely where I stood with respect to my personal 
finances. 

Neither the UAW 

The Chairman. Covering what period of time ? 

Mr. Reuther. Pardon ? 



9976 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Your personal records that you submitted covered 
what period ? 

Mr. Reuther. The total period of the time that I have been asso- 
ciated with the leadership of the UAW, which is some 21 years. I 
have here — I would like, Mr. Chairman, if I might, to put that letter 
and the data attached to it into the record, because it bears upon this 
question. 

The Chairman. Let the Chair see it. Will you pass it up to the 
Chair, please ? 

Mr. Reuther. This is a copy of my letter requesting the committee 
to get into my personal finances, because I understood that they did 
not intend to do that. I wanted very much to have them go into it, 
because we have nothing to hide, and we are prepared to reveal all 
of our personal financial matters as well as the union's financial 
matters. 

That statement, you will find, has a listing of my income; it lias 
a listing of the moneys that I contributed to an educational founda- 
tion, because I do not retain any moneys, and the only source of my 
income is from the UAW. 

The Chairman. Is this a carbon copy of the letter that you sent 
counsel ? 

Mr. Reuther. It is, sir. 

The Chairman. Was it a voluntary letter written of your own 
volition ? 

Mr. Reuther. It was. 

The Chairman. Is there any objection on the part of the commit- 
tee to the letter being placed in the record at this point ? 

The Chair hears none. It, together with the financial statement 
submitted with it, may be printed in the record at this point. 

January 27, 1958. 
Mr. Robert F. Kennedy, 

Chief Counsel, Select Senate Committee on Improper Activities in Labor 
and Management, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. 
Dear Mr. Kennedy : Mr. Jack Conway, my administrative assistant, has ad- 
vised me of his conversation with you concerning the forthcoming hearings in- 
volving the UAW and the Kohler Co. as it relates to the Kohler strike. 

As we have advised Senator McClellan, we are prepared to cooperate in every 
possible way to facilitate a fair and objective hearing of all the facts. I have 
asked Mr. Conway to continue to cooperate with your office and your staff so as 
to make available any pertinent information or data which you may need for 
those hearings. 

In addition to cooperating in every possible way to facilitate your work as 
it relates to the activities of the UAW as an organization, I have repeatedly 
indicated a willingness to have the committee check into my personal financial 
matters. To date, to my knowledge, no one from your committee has made any 
efforts to inquire into my personal financial affairs and I can understand the 
reluctance of the committee to do so in the absence of any question or allegation 
being raised concerning my personal affairs. 

Since as president of the UAW I will undoubtedly lie involved in the Kohler 
hearings, I would feel much more comfortable if in advance of the hearings you 
would find it possible to assign a member of your staff to check into my personal 
financial affairs. I should be most happy to cooperate with such an investiga- 
tion and will make available to your staff all of my personal financial records. 
Sincerely yours, 

Walter P. Reuther, 
President, International Union, UAW. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



9977 



Personal Financial Affairs of Walter P. Reuther, President of the UAW 

When the question of a hearing before an investigation by the select commit- 
tee on the matter of the Kohler strike was first raised, UAW President Walter 
P. Reuther orally and informally asked the committee staff to check into his 
personal financial affairs. 

When Mr. Reuther learned that it was not the intention of the committee staff 
to inquire into his personal finances, he thereupon addressed a letter to com- 
mittee counsel, Robert F. Kennedy, on January 27, 1958 — copy of which is at- 
tached — formally requesting that such an investigation should be made. 

As a result, a committee staff member came to Detroit, was supplied with all 
of Mr. Reuther's personal files, supplemented by the record of his compensation 
from the UAW. All of this material was carefully checked by the committee 
staff member and at the conclusion of this complete check, Mr. Reuther was 
advised that he could assume that his personal financial affairs were proper 
and in order. 

Here is the basic information supplied to the committee staff: 

Mr. Reuther's sole income — with but minor exceptions — since April 30, 1936, 
has been his salary from the UAW. These are the amounts he has been paid 
for each year beginning in April 1936, at which time Mr. Reuther was elected 
as a member of the International Executive Board of the UAW at its first con- 
stitutional convention : 

1947 $9, 115. 64 

1948 10, 000. 00 

1949 10, 000. 00 

1950 10, 000. 00 

1951 10, 913.64 

1952 11, 250. 00 

1953 3 16, 442. 20 

1954 18, 000. 00 

1955 18, 000. 00 

1956 18, 000. 00 

1957 20, 920. 14 



1936 $1, 730. 88 

1937 2, 613. 20 

1938 3, 000. 00 



3,000.00 

3, 000. 00 

3, 180. 00 

1942 J 4, 913. 32 



1939. 
1940. 
1941. 



1943. 
1944. 
1945. 
1946 : 



7, 000. 00 
7, 000. 00 

7, 000. 00 

8, 500. 18 



1 On Aug. 3, 1942, he was elected a vice president of the UAW. 

2 On Apr. 1, 1946, he was elected DAW president. 

3 In December 1953, Mr. Reuther was elected president of the National CIO. 

During this period, for a part of the General Motors strike in 1945-46 and 
the Chrysler strike in 1950, he returned his salary to the union's strike relief 
fund. These have been the only major UAW strikes of lengthy duration since 
the union won recognition from the automotive industry in 1927. 

Mr. Reuther's contribution of his salary to the GM strike relief fund in 1945-46 
was $1,698.06 ; to Chrysler strike relief fund in 1950, $889.24. 

During this period he also served as president of local 174, UAW, as a vice- 
president of the CIO, and, finally, as president of the CIO, without salary in all 
instances. 

He is presently serving as a vice-president of the AFL-CIO, president of the 
Industrial Union Department of the AFL-CIO ; vice-president of the ICFTU — 
the world organization which represents democratic anticommunist labor 
forces — and president of the automotive division of the International Federation 
of Metalworkers, all without salary. 

During this same period, he has also served as a consultant to various Gov- 
ernment agencies or as a member of various Government commissions, a partial 
list of which includes : 

Office of Production Management. 

War Manpower Commission. 

War Production Board. 

President's Commission on the Health Needs of the Nation. 

White House Defense Mobilization Advisory Board. 

Economic Cooperation. 

Economic Cooperation Administration — and successor agencies. 

Advisory committees. 

Special committees for the State Department. 

Congressional Panel on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy. 

Px-esident's Government Contracts Committee. 



9978 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

In most of these cases, provision was made for payment by the Government 
of a per diem for days actually spent at work or in travel in connection with 
these various capacities. This per diem usually amounted to $50 per day. 

Mr. Reuther always declined this per diem. Where travel expenses and hotel 
were paid by the Government for these jobs, Mr. Reuther endorsed these expense 
checks over to the UAW, which had already provided and paid for such 
expenses. 

For a number of years, Mr. Reuther has received and accepted invitations 
to lecture, make radio or TV appearances, and has written articles for which 
honoraria are provided. 

Because he is firmly committed to the principle that he should live on the 
salary paid him by the union and that these honoraria are actually the result 
of his position in the labor movement, he caused to be established on February 
6, 1951, a Reuther Labor Foundation, into which all such moneys are paid 
directly. 

During the 6 years of its existence, the foundation has made contributions 
to various organizations engaged in research, educational, or charitable activi- 
ties compatible with the aims and ideals of the labor movement. 

It is hoped to accumulate enough money in the foundation to provide at some 
future date substantial scholarships to deserving and needy students whose 
educational program is concerned with studies relating to labor's broad eco- 
nomic and social objectives. 

The foundation had received a total in contributions, as of December 31, 
1957, of $13,320.40, plus $851.34 in interest and credit union dividends for a 
total of $14,171.74. 

Of this amount, $4,300.49 has been disbursed in contributions, leaving a bal- 
ance on the aforementioned date of $9,871.25. 

Of the total amount accumulated, $11,290.96 came from payments for Mr. 
Reuther's speeches and writings. 

An additional $2,024.44 was contributed by several UAW staff members who 
had received honoraria for the same kind of work. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Reuther, did you turn over all of your financial 
books and records ? 

Mr. Reuther. My personal financial books? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Reuther. I did. All that we could find. My wife handles our 
finances, and she dug back and I think got checks for 7 or 8 years 
back, canceled checks. 

All that we could possibly find were turned over to Mr. Bellino. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that includes all of your other books and rec- 
ords dealing with your personal finances, is that right? 

Mr. Reuther. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. In addition to your canceled checks ? 

Mr. Reuther. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bellino has gone through those 
books and records and the finances of Mr. Walter Reuther, and is 
available to testify on his findings. 

The Chairman. He may be called if anyone desires. 

Senator Kennedy. I will ask that he be called. 

The Chairman. We will go into that a little later. Let us proceed 
with this witness. If anyone wants Mr. Bellino called, he may be 
called. 

Senator Kennedy. I did ask that he be called and testify to the 
question. 

The Chairman. The witness will be called. But let's proceed with 
this one at the present. 

The witness testified that he had submitted voluntarily all of his 
financial records to the committee. 



IMPROPER ACnrVITTE® IN THE LABOR FIELD 9979 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me if we are going to 
get into this question of finances, I think we ought to hear, briefly, 
from Mr. Bellino. 

Mr. Reuther. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to step aside. I was 
told that the procedure of the committee was that I would be last, 
that you were going to get all the facts in the record and then I 
was going to be called in here. I think that I would much prefer 
that Mr. Bellino testify, and then I would be happy to step aside at 
this time. 

The Chairman. We are going to get started off here quibbling 
about who testifies when and where. I thought you were the last 
witness. I had anticipated you were last. Mr. Bellino, of course, 
or members of the staff, can be called at any time. I was hoping 
we could make progress with you this afternoon, and we could hear 
Mr. Bellino any time. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, I want to sustain you in your com- 
ment on this. I think we should get through with this witness here 
as quickly as we can. I do not think we can make it today, and we 
cannot make it tomorrow, but we will make it eventually. 

The Chairman. I have no objection to proceeding. We can call 
Mr. Bellino around when we want him. We can do that during the 
course of your testimony, so that you can make any comment on 
it that you desire. Is that satisfactory ? 

Mr. Reuther. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Is that satisfactory to the members of the com- 
mittee ? 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I made my request. If the 
chair rules that he will hear him later, I will accept the ruling. 

The Chairman. If there is no objection, we will proceed. You 
may proceed, Mr. Reuther. 

Senator Kennedy. But I will renew the request when the matter 
of finances is brought out in the testimony. 

Mr. Reuther. Mr. Chairman, I should like to note that all of the 
officers and the representatives of the International Union, UAW, 
who have appeared before your committee, both from the local level 
and the international level, have appeared here voluntarily upon the 
request of your committee, and have testified without resort to the 
fifth amendment or any other constitutional privilege. This is in 
accordance with the policy of our union, because we have tried 
to cooperate with the committee because we have nothing that we 
are trying to hide. I would also like to note that unlike some of the 
other unions that were called before your committee, our union 
does not appear here in defense of its activities as it relates to cor- 
ruption or racketeering; that we are here as it relates to a collective 
bargaining dispute between the Kohler Co. and the UAW. 

The UAW is the democratically elected bargaining representatives, 
and we have been legally certified by the National Labor Relations 
Board. 

I would like the record to be very clear that those of us in the 
UAW, both in the leadership and in the membership, are proud of our 
record over the years, of building an honest, clean and democratic and 
dedicated union. 



9980 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

We have fought corruption and we have fought communism with- 
out compromise, and we just don't want to get confused in the minds 
of people why we are down here. Because as far as we are concerned, 
we will not tolerate at any level of our union, any corruption or any 
communism, because we know that they are diametrically opposed to 
the values that we believe in, not only as trade unionists but as 
Americans. 

This is not some new principle that we have just embraced in the 
last period. We have been fighting against communism for many 
years, and we have been fighting against corruption for years. It 
takes eternal vigilance to keep a big labor movement free of these 
unsavory elements who would like to worm their way in and prosti- 
tute the basic purposes of a free labor movement. 

On January 18, the executive board of our union, before your com- 
mittee was created, passed a resolution, urging that an appropriate 
congressional committee be created to help the free labor movement 
deal with the question of corruption. 

We felt at that time that the labor movement, within its own re- 
sources and its own procedures, could not deal with this problem of 
corruption in depth in certain unions, because we didn't have the 
power of subpena, we had no right to bring people and records in, and 
the result was that we knew we couldn't deal with it. 

So that our union has always supported every effort to try to 
build a clean, democratic, and decent trade union movement, and we 
have not tolerated any of these corrupt elements, or those who would 
subvert the labor movement to the service of a foreign government. 

We are proud that we have been able to work with the leadership 
of the AFL-CIO and I think it can be said in all good consicence that 
there is not a group in America more determined to fight corruption 
and racketeering and communism within our society than is the 
American labor movement. 

I was greatly saddened by the tragic headlines that came out in the 
last year because of corruption, because a certain small minority in the 
leadership of the American labor movement had betrayed their sacred 
trust, had used their position of influence not to advance the welfare 
and the well being of their membership, not to make a contribution 
toward facilitating greater economic and social progress for the peo- 
ple of America, but they used their power and their influence for 
selfish purposes. 

We resent that very much, and we are happy to join with the lead- 
ership of the AFL-CIO in cleaning these unsavory elements out of 
the leadership of the American labor movement, 

I come before you this afternoon not claiming that the UAW is 
a perfect organization. We have made mistakes, and we have at- 
tempted to profit by those mistakes. 

No organization made up of imperfect human beings can hope to 
achieve perfection. But I do believe that the record will show that 
we have consistently tried to find out where our shortcomings were, so 
that we could try to overcome them. 

We have been working continuously in this search to try to improve 
our organization and tornake it into a more effective instrumentality 
in the service of our membership. 

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



improper AcmrvrriEs nsr the labor field 9981 

Mr. Reutiier. We have tried to broaden the democratic structure 
of our union. We have tried to encourage the broadest kind of par- 
ticipation on the part of the membership, because you can't have a 
strong, clean, democratic union, excepting as the membership help 
make it that. 

So we have done everything in our power to try to make our union 
a strong democratic union that reflects the hopes and the aspirations 
and needs of our membership. We have been concerned with this 
whole problem of the rights of the individual member. When you 
get big organizations sometimes it is easy, not just a matter of intent, 
but just as a matter of inertia sometimes for the individual to get lost 
in the shuffle. We have been concerned about that problem. So 
we have constantly been trying to evaluate our structure and ask our- 
selves the question, what can we do to try to make our union a more 
responsive, a more responsible instrument in the service of the mem- 
bership. 

We came up at our last convention with an idea. I originally 
thought of it. I discussed it with the leadership of our union and 
then in turn Avith the convention where they adopted it. 

This was for the creation in our union of a public review board. 
This public review board is made up of seven prominent citizens. 
Rabbi Morris Adler, leading Jewish clergyman; Msgr. George F. 
Higgins, director of the Catholic Social Welfare Conference ; Bishop 
G. Bromley Oxnam from the Methodist Church. We have two judges, 
a judge from Windsor, Ontario, and a judge from Detroit. We have 
the president of the University of California on there. We have 
another outstanding professor, Dr. Witte, from the University of 
Wisconsin. Why did we do this? Well, we happen to share the 
point of view that a labor union that is dealing with these broad ques- 
tions, dealing with the welfare and well-being of a lot of men and 
women and their families, ought to be prepared to have its steward- 
ship evaluated and reviewed by a group of public-spirited citizens, 
and if they find that you have made some mistakes along the way, to 
solicit and encourage their help in trying to overcome these. 

So this is the basis upon which we worked this out. 

Mr. Chairman, this is not window dressing for public relations 
purposes. This structure is built into our constitution. It is just 
as much a part of the constitution of our union as are any of the other 
clauses in our constitution. 

It provides, among other things the authority and an operating 
budget with a staff so that these seven public-spirited citizens have the 
right to apply any phase of our constitution bearing upon the ques- 
tion of communism, or corruption, or the application f the ethical 
codes of the AFL-CIO. They can take up a cmplaint by any member, 
by any subordinate body, or they can initiate any investigation that 
they choose to have on their own authority. 

They also go into the question of trial procedures. In our union, a 
worker is tried at the local level. He then has a right to appeal it, 
if the decision goes against him, to the international executive board. 
Under our previous constitution, it went from the executive board to 
the convention. But we found that if you meet every 2 years some- 
times delay does a worker a great injustice. 



9982 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

We found that many times the pressure of time, where we have 
3,000 delegates at our convention, each of whom is democratically 
elected by the membership, that 3,000 people is not the best place in 
the world to conduct a trial. 

The atmosphere is just such that this is not the best way to facilitate 
the democratic processes. Under this setup, if a worker does not get 
what he thinks to be justice, at the local level, he can appeal to the 
international executive board. If he doesn't get justice there, he can 
choose, does he want to go to the convention, which is the highest 
authority in our union, or does he want to go to the public review 
board. If he goes to the public review board, they have a hearing. 
They get all the evidence pro and con, and they have the constitutional 
authority to amend the decision of the executive board, to set it aside 
completely, or to modify it. 

It also has the power, Mr. Chairman, to go into this question of 
trusteeship. 

The Chairman. May I interrupt at this point for clarification 
purposes ? 

How is this review board selected ? 

Mr. Reuther. In the first case, Mr. Chairman. It was selected by 
the executive board, who made a recommendation of the list to the 
convention, and the convention of 3,000 delegates approved it, 

The Chairman. How many are on the board ? 

Mr. Reuther. There are seven people on the board. At each con- 
vention the membership of the public review board must be approved 
by the delegates in convention. 

The Chairman. They are in effect nominated by the executive 
board ? 

Mr. Reuther. That's right. 

The Chairman. And confirmed by the convention ? 

Mr. Reuther. Confirmed by the convention. At the time this was 
created, Mr. Chairman, we were unable to present the seven names 
because the seventh person whom we had asked to serve was Milton 
Eisenhower. 

He regretted that he could not serve because of the pressure of other 
activities, and the result was that at that time we only had 6 people 
and the 6 people were put up. 

The Chairman. That was at your last convention ? 

Mr. Reuther. That was in April 1957. It provides that in the 
event of a vacancy, the vacancy is filled by the membership of the 
panel. 

In other words, if somebody resigns or is deceased, the six remain- 
ing members of the panel would choose the person to fill the spot. 

So that this is something that we can't manipulate or rig, and we 
don't want to. 

This is not window dressing. This is as clearly as you can write out 
in a constitution the right of an impartial group to evalute and 
review and to modify, support, or to set aside a decision made within 
the structure of our union. It has no authority on collective 
bargaining. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt the witness there? 

The Chairman. Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. I would like to get an idea of how many cases come 
before the review board within a year. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9983 

Mr. Reuther. I think as of now they are handling around 15 cases. 

Senator Ives. In a year ? 

Mr. Reuther. The year is not quite up. 

Senator Ives. It is almost a year. 

Mr. Reuther. That is right. I think what will happen, Senator 
Ives, is this. This will make us more careful. This will make the 
local unions more careful. The local unions otherwise might have 
been a little careless, not in terms of' trying to do an injustice to a 
worker, but just that they get a little bit careless in procedures. 

Senator Ives. I am not disagreeing with you at all. I am curious 
about the load the board has. But apparently they can handle that 
many cases, all right. 

Mr. Reuther. They have a full time executive director who is a 
very competent attorney. lie has a staff. He gathers the material. 
Then it is provided that they can set up panels of three people. The 
three people in the Washington area could handle hearings in this 
area to minimize traffic. 

Mr. Reuther. We find it works very well. 

Senator McNamara. May the pamphlet be made a part of the 
record ? 

The Chairman. At the request of Senator McNamara the pam- 
phlet lmvy be made an exhibit 128 for reference only. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 128" for reference, 
and may be found in the files of the select committee. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, for further purposes of clarifica- 
tion, Mr. Reuther, you used the first personal pronoun, we and our. 
When you are talking about this public review board do I under- 
stand that is strictly a UAW instrumentality or does that operate 
clear through the CIO ? 

Mr. Reuther. The CIO is no longer in existence. 

Senator Mundt. CIO-AFL. 

Mr. Reuther. That's right. This is strictly a UAW constitutional 
provision and bears only upon the UAW because it is a part of the 
UAW constitution. It has no bearing upon any other union affiliated 
with the AFL-CIO. As I say, we are proud of our record of fighting 
communism and corruption. You show us in our union where there 
is any corruption and we won't go after it tomorrow. We will go 
after it today yet. You show us where there is something wrong at 
any level of our union — we don't claim perfection — we will go after it. 

This group has the authority to go after it. 

We say this not because we think we are righteous. We just happen 
to believe in these things. We happen to believe that this union 
belongs not to Walter Reuther, not to any of the leadership. It be- 
longs to a lot of working people. They pay for it. It must serve 
their best interests or otherwise we are betraying our sacred trusts. 
Just as we are proud of what we have done, and this has not been 
easy, Mr. Chairman — fighting the gangsters and fighting the rack- 
eteers and fighting the numbers racket boys in the factories is not easy, 
and it takes more than pious declarations and wishful thinking. 

You have to stay up late at night and you have to work with eternal 
vigilance. 

The same thing is true of the Communists. Twelve years ago 
today I was elected president of this union. I went through hell 



9984 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

fighting the Communists in the next year because they had control 
of the executive board. We finally proved that democracy can beat 
communism by outworking it and outvoting it and just staying in 
there early and late and pitching. 

That is how the job was done in our union. We are also proud of 
the fact that in the 20-some years of our union that we have worked 
hard in the collective bargaining business. We have made a substan- 
tial contribution of winning for our membership a fuller measure 
of economic and social justice. 

I worked in the automotive industry. I worked in Ford for almost 
6 years and I know something about the Ford system. 

'Workers there were just nameless, faceless, punch numbers. They 
had no rights and no privileges and they were robbed of any measure 
of human dignity. We have changed that and I think the contribu- 
tion made cannot be measured in economic terms, although we have 
won higher wages and pension benefits and all these other things that 
are essential. 

I think the contribution that we have made in developing a measure 
of industrial democracy, of giving free men and women some voice 
with respect to the condition of their employment, some sense of dig- 
nity and worth and value inside these factories, is our greatest con- 
tribution. We got off to a bad start in collective bargaining in the 
automotive industry, just as many other basic industries got off to 
a bad start. 

The La Follette committee report spells out this sad chapter in 
the history of American labor management relations. We had labor 
spies, we liad stool pigeons and we had the use of underworld char- 
acters and paid muscles and we got pushed around and beaten up and 
I went through some of that and I know. 

We had private detectives and we had private arsenals and tear 
gas. We went all through that. I say, thank God, Mr. Chairman, 
that is a part of ancient history. Thank God that there was the good 
sense and the good will and the sense of moral and social responsi- 
bility on the part of labor management in the automotive industry 
and the other basic industries, so that we have learned to meet this 
problem, not as we did twenty-some years ago, but at the bargaining 
table in the give and take of good will understanding. 

On Tuesday of this week I sat down at the bargaining table with 
representatives of our union and the General Motors Corp. We have 
not had a strike with the General Motors Corp. in 12 years. 

If you want to talk about the pattern of our collective-bargaining 
relationship, just look at the General Motors Corp. We will lay that 
parallel to any comparable group in the free world in terms of re- 
sponsible labor-management relationships. We have differences, Mr. 
Chairman. But this" is why we believe in freedom. The Commu- 
nists get unity by conformity. We in the free world, whether we 
be of labor or management or agriculture or whether you are in 
public life, we have to guard with great jealousy the right of the 
other fellow to disagree because we have to get unity in diversity. 

This is not always easy. But this is the price of human freedom. 
The ability of people who disagree on little things, even though emo- 
tionally they may be deeply involved, to reconcile that the big things 
they have in common are the things that we need to bind us together 
as a free society. 



IMPROPER ACTTIVrriEB IN THE LABOR FIELD 9985 

We have made great progress in General Motors. I would like, 
Mr. Chairman, to just point out, that here are some of the articles. 
This is from Business Week, "GM Contract Heralds Era of Indus- 
trial Peace." This was our 5-year agreement in 1950. 

This was recognized as one of the most advanced developments in 
the history of collective bargaining in America. Here is another one, 
a business publication, "A Peace Treaty Instead of a Truce." That 
reflects the basic development, that we were not trying just to get a 
kind of armed truce, that we were trying to work out a treaty in 
which labor and management began to understand their respective 
relationships and responsibilities within the framework of a free 
society. 

The Chairman. Do you wish the articles that you have just re- 
ferred to made exhibits ? 

Mr. Reuther. I would, Mr. Chairman, along with this editorial 
from the Free Press which came out which says, "General Motors 
Contract Makes Milestone in Our Technological Revolution." 

The Chairman. If you will identify them in order, the first one 
you refer to, the Chair will act on. 

Mr. Reutiier. The first one is entitled "GM Contract Heralds Era 
of Industrial Peace," "A Peace Treaty Instead of a Truce," and the 
final editorial, "General Motors Contract Marks Milestone in Our 
Technological Revolution." 

The Chairman. They may be made exhibits 129, 129-A, and 129-B, 
for reference. 

(Documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 129, 129-A, 
and 129-B" for reference, and may be found in the files of the select 
committee.) 

Mr. Reuther. This was a historic milestone that we used to begin 
to build a more mature, more responsible labor-management relation- 
ship upon. It was translated into Ford, it was translated into Chrys- 
ler, it ultimately spread in other segments of the American economy. 
Many of the things that we pioneered on there, opened the door to 
better labor-management relations in other basic industries. 

In the Ford Motor Co., I will sit down with them next Monday 
morning. That is in the fond hope, Mr. Chairman, that I will be 
through at that time. 

The Chairman. That hope is shared by the committee. 

Mr. Reuther. For 9 years we have not had a strike with the Ford 
Motor Co., although our beginning there was a brutal beginning. 
Just go back to Harry Bennett and his gangsters, where he took them 
out of the penitentiary and put them in his service department. We 
know about those days. 

I say it is to the everlasting credit of Mrs. Edsel Ford and the 
Ford family that they have moved aggressively and courageously to 
clean up that tragic situation that existed when Harry Bennett dom- 
inated that company. So we have made great progress. 

What have we really been trying to do, Mr. Chairman ? 

We have been trying to make our small contribution, along with 
management, in attempting to raise collective bargaining above the 
level of a struggle between competing economic pressure groups. I 
happen to believe that I have a very serious responsibility to the 
membership of my union. I happen to think that the president, of 



9986 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

the General Motors Corp., of the Ford Motor Co., has a grave re- 
sponsibility to the stockholders of those respective companies. 

But what we believe is, and I think that what we have done in the 
automotive industry reflects a mutual comprehension of this fact, 
that while we in the union have a responsibility to our membership, 
and the corporation executives have a responsibility to their stock- 
holders, that, together, the management and the union, have a joint 
responsibility to their stockholders, that, the management and the 
union, have a joint responsibility to the whole of our society which 
transcends in importance our separate responsibilities. 

We could make collective bargaining and economically sound phe- 
nomena and a socially responsible function only as free labor and 
free management understand that their joint responsibility to the 
whole is more important than their separate responsibility to each of 
their separate groups. This is what we have been trying to do. We 
don't do this because we think it is clever public relations. We do it 
because we believe that all of the basic values that we cherish as free 
people, whether it is free management or free labor or free something 
else, that all of these basic values are essentially undesirable in char- 
acter, and that we can't solve our problems in a vacuum, nor can 
management solve their problems in a vacuum; that there are only 
common solutions to these basic problems, and that the only way we 
can find common answers is to work them out at the bargaining 
table in a spirit of good will. 

I have been fighting the Communists for a long while, not only in 
America but all over the world. We are building free trade union 
groups to fight communism, because communism builds its power by 
being able to perfect the techniques by which it forages poverty into 
power. 

We don't believe in the class struggle in America. The American 
labor movement has never believed in the class struggle, because we 
think the class struggle is based upon a struggle to divide up scarcity. 

We think that, instead of waging a struggle to divide up scarcity, 
free labor and free management ought to find ways of cooperating to 
create abundance, and then intelligently finding a way to share in that 
abundance so that we can have more and more, as our tools of produc- 
tion become more productive. So we have been trying to get people 
to understand that if we can't solve our problems in a vacuum, if we 
can't make progress excepting as we facilitate progress for the whole 
community, and if the companies understand that, then collective bar- 
gaining can be a socially constructive force. It can perform a valuable 
function in our free society for all of our people. 

The Communists work on the theory that there is an irreconcilable 
struggle, between labor and management, and that what you need to do 
is to wage that struggle until you destroy management, and you then 
build a classless society. 

The American labor movement has never accepted that philosophy. 
We believe that within the framework of the common denominators 
that we may have in common between labor and management, we can 
accommodate our differences, and that we can somehow work out a 
cooperative relationship to make the economic pie bigger and bigger, 
and then learn to sensibly and sanely and responsibly share in that 
greater abundance, It is different between struggling to divide up 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9987 

scarcity or cooperating to create and share abundance. This is our 
philosophy. 

If you will take our basic collective-bargaining program for the 
last 12 years, since we changed the leadership of our union, you will 
find that time after time our collective-bargaining demands were 
shaped to facilitiate the practical implementation of this basic philos- 
ophy that says labor and management have separate responsibilities, 
but they have a joint responsibility to the whole, which is more im- 
portant than either of their separate responsibilities. 

In this spirt we have worked out 2,600 collective-bargaining agree- 
ments, with large corporations, with small corporations, with corpora- 
tions in the automotive industry, the agricultural implement industry, 
with the aircraft industry, and many other industries. So we ask our- 
selves this question: What is wrong when we can sit down with the 
most powerful corporations in the world, the General Motors Corp. — 
it has over 500,000 employees in the world — and we can work out a 
mature, a constructive, a responsible relationship, even though we 
got off to a bad start ? 

We worked our way out of that. We will disagree at the bargain- 
ing table, but we respect them and they respect us. So we say: How 
come, if we were able to do that, if we were able to do it with the 
smallest company, what is wrong up in Sheboygan ? 

How come we can't work out a collective bargaining agreement with 
the Kohler Co. ? What is the difference there? 

And there is a difference. The Kohler Co. is the exception ; it is not 
the pattern. What is wrong there is quite obvious, Mr. Chairman. 
The Kohler Co. has not recognized either the letter or the spirit of 
the law of this great and wonderful country of ours, because the law, 
both in letter and in spirit, says that management must recognize the 
right of its employees to choose their own bargaining agency. 

In 1897, the Kohler pattern began. I was not around then, and it 
will be somewhat difficult to prove that I was responsible for that 
situation. What happened in that situation? The molders union 
organized the plant, because in those clays there was a great deal more 
foundry work, and they were the logical union. And they struck. 

They struck because the company cut the pay 50 percent, and offered 
the workers a bathtub in lieu of the 50-percent wage cut. There was 
a strike, and the company destroyed that union. 

Then the A. F. of L. organized a federal local union in 1934. That 
was before the UAW came into being, and we certainly can't be 
accused of being responsible for 1934. What happened there? 

The workers were forced to strike because they wouldn't bargain 
with them. They broke the strike in order to destroy the union, 
and they did both. 

The i954 strike took place with these things in the backdrop. 

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the thing we need to keep in 
mind is the central, uncomplicated fact that in the 4 years of the 
Kohler strike, the Kohler Co. is guilty of being in violation of the 
law of this country, which requires them to bargain in good faith 
with the legally certified agency that their workers have chosen. 

The facts are that this company went through the motions of 
bargaining, not to achieve an agreement but to avoid an agreement. 
They did not try to settle the strike: they have been trying to break 
the strike in order to break the union. 



9988 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELI> 

I would just like to point out what the trial examiner for the 
National Labor Relations Board found. He spent a great deal of 
time on this. I think that if any man has demonstrated the patience 
of Job, it is the trial examiner for the NLRB, who spent 2 l / 2 years 
with this case, one case, taking over 20,000 pages of sworn testimony, 
13,000 exhibits. 

What did he conclude ? 

I would like to read from his report, and I will quote the trial 
examiner's report : 

The company "was bargaining not to reach but to avoid an agree- 
ment," and then he went on to say : 

The company was intent on penalizing the union for having started the 
strike, and the penalty was not to be simple capitulation on contract terms, but 
the reduction of the union to impotency as an effective bargaining represent- 
ative of their employees. 

In other words, the trial examiner says this company was going 
through the motions of collective bargaining, not for the purpose of 
arriving at an agreement but for the purpose of avoiding an 
agreement. 

As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, every time it looked like we 
were within a half of an inch of an agreement — and Judge Murphy 
certainly had us almost within a half inch — what did the company 
do? Every time it looked as though just another little half-inch 
movement on the part of the union would bring about a settlement, 
the company did something drastic to see to it that the gap was 
widened. 

When we were within a penny or so of settling it, because of the 
good efforts of Judge Murphy, the company then discharged 96 of 
the leaders, the total leadership of the local union, knowing that 
no union with any self-respect, or any sense of moral responsibility to 
its membership, could settle with all of its leaders discharged. 

Then when it looked like we could even overcome that hurdle, they 
refused to take back 2,000 strikers. 

So here is what I say. I didn't determine that the UAW would be 
the bargaining agency in that plant. I had nothing to do with it. 
The Kohler workers, by a democratic vote conducted by the Govern- 
ment of this United States, they made that decision. Then the Gov- 
ernment of the United States certified our union, Local 833, as the 
legal bargaining agency; the Kohler Co. at that point was legally 
and morally obligated to bargain with our union. This is what they 
are unwilling to do. They have just not been willing to sit down and 
bargain. 

Why? 

Because they are attempting to repeat the pattern that they estab- 
lished in 1897, when they broke the union. They are attempting to 
repeat the pattern that they applied in 1934, when they broke the 
union. They are trying to do that again. 

I was reminded of the very clear definition that was made in this 
area by the President of the United States, Mr. Dwight D. Eisen- 
hower, on September 15, 1952. I would like to read what he said, 
because if he were sitting down today to write a characterization of 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IK THE LABOR FIELD 9989 

the Kohler Co., he wouldn't change a word in what he said then. I 
quote from the President of the United States : 

Today in America, unions have a secure place in our industrial life. Only 
a handful of unreconstructed reactionaries harbor the ugly thought of breaking 
unions, and of depriving working men and women of the right to join unions 
of their own choice. I have no use for those, regardless of their political party, 
who hold some vain and foolish dream of spinning the clock back to the days 
when union-organized labor was a huddled, almost a helpless mass. 

Let us face up frankly to this problem of strikes. The right of men and 
women to leave their jobs is a test of freedom. Hitler suppressed strikes. 
Stalin suppressed strikes. The drafting of strikers into the Army would sup- 
press strikes. But each also suppresses freedom. There are some things worse, 
much worse, than strikes. One of them is the loss of freedom. 

I should like to put this quote, Mr. Chairman, of the President of 
these United States into the record, because I think it characterizes 
the Kohler Co.'s labor-management policy most accurately. 

The Chairman. Did you read all of the quote ? 

Mr. Reuther. This is all I have here ; yes. 

The Chairman. You read all you have there ? 

Mr. Reuther. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, it is already in the record. 

Mr. Reuther. I stand corrected, Mr. Chairman. 

You see, you have had more experience in this than I have. 

I think, Mr. Chairman, that just as a human being, I want you 
to know that I have sat down many, many hours, and I have taken 
to bed with me the Kohler strike. This is a tragic human experience, 
what has been taking place there. 

I think you need to keep in mind that 1934, the violence, the bru- 
tality, the ruthless, needless killing, that was described so eloquently 
by Father Maguire, when 2 people were killed and 47 shot, that this 
is the human background of this tragic chapter that has been enacted 
since 1934; that the bitterness, that the ill will, the fear, the suspicion 
that has been growing deep down within the Kohler workers, came 
out of this tragic background of 1897 and 1934; that this is the emo- 
tional background in which our strike took place. 

Nobody got killed in the strike on the picket line. We were more 
fortunate this time. And yet to try to make it appear that our union 
condones violence does not square with the truth. 

I don't think Mr. William Greene, who was the president of the 
AFL in 1934, and this union was the federal local, directly affiliated 
with the parent body, I don't think he was responsible for the violence 
and the killing. 

The unions have changed. But the pattern of violence has remained 
the same. This time, thank God, we avoided it. Thank God we 
didn't have the kind of killings we had in 1934, although we had 
things that I think were most unfortunate and which I do not for 1 
second approve, because I don't care who is responsible for violence, 
I don't care how severe the provocation, I may attempt to understand 
why it happened, but I will never attempt to justify it happening. 

I say this, Mr. Chairman, because this matter of violence to me is 
not an academic matter. I have had my home invaded twice, once by 
the Ford gangsters when they tried to kidnap me and when they beat 
me up in front of my wife and when they didn't get me out of the room 
because they told me that I was going to wind up on the bottom of the 

21243— 58— pt. 25 6 



9990 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Detroit River with a ton of concrete around me, and the only thing 
that saved me was that a lot of my friends happened to be there. 

I can give you the chapter and the details, because that was the 
period in Michigan when the mayor of the city of Detroit and the 
superintendant of police were in cahoots and on the payroll of the 
underworld, and they both went to Jackson Prison. This is where 
we came from. 

I have been beaten up on the overpass with other union people just 
on public property by the Ford gangsters. I have had my office 
bombed, I have had my car blown up. In 1948 I was shot while sit- 
ting in my own kitchen with my own wif e. 

My brother was shot a year later. So when I talk about violence, 
this is not some academic matter I read in a novel. I have been on 
the receiving end of it. 

When you have been on the receiving end of this kind of brutality, 
when they have invaded your own home, on two occasions, you don't 
have to be a philosopher to conclude that violence is futile, that you 
settle nothing by violence. 

Every problem that existed before there was violence, I don't care 
who was responsible for it, is there after the violence, excepting that 
you have created more ill will and it is going to be more difficult to 
work it out. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I am not attempting, nor will I ever attempt, to 
justify violence. I think that you need to understand that strikes 
do not take place in vacuums. They take place in the real world with 
real people with real problems. 

Many of the things that happened in the Kohler strike are the by- 
product of the pattern of violence that the Kohler Corporation ini- 
tiated in 1897, improved upon in 1934, and put into effect in 1954. 

We knew when we were certified as the bargaining agency in 
Kohler that we had a difficult problem on our hands. But we had 
high hopes that just as we had worked our way out of this jungle that 
was the automotive industry twenty-some years ago, where we got a 
bad start, we had some hope that with patience, good will, we could 
somehow nurse this thing and gradually begin to develop a more 
constructive, more mature, labor-management relationship. 

We signed the first contract, and when the Kohler Co. bought their 
first guns and increased the police force from 4 to 45, we didn't have 
a strike. We took that year and we nursed it and we nursed it and 
we hoped and we prayed that somehow in that year we could establish 
some mutual respect and confidence so that when the second contract 
came up, we could further move ahead together. 

But while we were working and praying for a peaceful relationship, 
this company was preparing for war. No one can dispute the fact. 

This company in that very period was increasing their stock of guns 
and their tear gas, doing all the other things preparatory to war. 

You know a person can make speeches about Detroit labor bosses 
telling workers what to do in Sheboygan, Wis. I want you to know, 
Mr. Chairman, that we would have had a strike in the summer of 1953 
if it were not for the effort made by the leadership of our union, be- 
cause the Kohler workers voted to strike and wanted to strike with the 
first wage opener in the first contract that we had which came up in 
the summer of 1953. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES! IN THE LABOR FIELD 9991 

We had tremendous difficulty in persuading them not to strike. 
We said, "Look, be patient. We know you are being pushed around. 
We know this is difficult, we know your patience is being taxed, but 
please bear with us. Let us nurse this. You cannot make a good 
situation overnight. You have this long history of bitterness and 
antagonism ; it is going to take some time." 

People from our union who were in there were oooed and called 
sell-out artists and everything else, because we attempted and finally 
persuaded the membership not to strike in the summer of 1953. 

We nursed this thing and we nursed it. But to our sad regret 
instead of the company responding so we could build more mature, 
responsible, cooperative labor-management relations, they were pre- 
paring for war. 

Because we didn't give them a chance to take us on by strike with 
the first contract, they got in tear gas and the guns and all the other 
things. 

I would like to read, Mr. Chairman, what the La Follette commit- 
tee in a couple of very crisp short paragraphs said about that this 
company lias done. They have done all the things that the La Fol- 
lette committee report said was Wrong. 

They bought tear gas and guns. They hired spies, they did all the 
things. I would like to read it. 

The Chairman. May I inquire if that is a part of the report on 
the 1934 strike? 

Mr. Reuther. This is the general report in which they are dealing 
with the practices, some 20 years ago, of companies hiring detective 
agencies and of companies having their own industrial arsenals, just 
two short paragraphs. 

The Chairman. It is not related directly to Kohler but a general 
statement ? 

Mr. Reuther. The Kohler Co., was found guilty of those things in 
the La Follette committee report because they were guilty of those 
things back in that period. 

The Chairman. Let me understand you. That is the La Follette 
committee report. What date is it ? 

Mr. Reuther. This comes out of the summary of their report on 
page 135 and 137, of their report, which I think was in 1938 or some- 
where in that period. 

In other words, this is out of their summary report. 

The Chairman. All right. The Chair is just trying to get it 
properly identified so we know what we are talking about. 

Without objection, you may refer to the report and read excerpts 
from it. 

Mr. Reuther. Since the Kohler Co. in this situation hired spies, I 
want to read that section of the La Follette committee report dealing 
with that subject matter. I quote — this is entitled, "Detective 
Agencies." 

The committee finds that strike services are offered by detective agencies and 
employers' associations not so much for the purpose of assisting employers to 
protect property and maintain operations during strikes, but rather for the 
purpose of destroying unions and the processes of collective bargaining. 

No employer who has accepted the principle of collective bargaining in good 
faith can consider using such purposes against his employees. 



9992 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

That is what they say in part against detective agencies. On the 
question of industrial arsenals, I would like to read this paragraph. 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater ? 

Senator Goldwater. I didn't quite understand your answer to the 
chairman's question relative to the fact that if this pertained directly 
to Kohler or if it is associating Kohler with the La Follette hearings. 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Goldwater, what I meant to convey is this : 
This section I am reading is a summary of the general findings of the 
La Follette committee, but in the total material of the La Follette 
committee the Kohler Co. was found at that time to be quily of these 
practices. 

Senator Goldwater. Was it found by name? 

Mr. Reuther. Yes. The Kohler Co. is mentioned by name in the 
La Follette committee report. 

Senator Goldwater. In connection with the facts you are now re- 
lating, in connection with the hiring of detective agencies, the pur- 
chase of private industrial arsenals, and these other bad practices ? 

The Chairman. The Chair may say the whole report is a public 
document and is available to the committee. But as I understand you, 
primarily what you are pointing up is what the La Follette committee 
condemned and you are saying the practices of the Kohler Co. came 
within that condemnation ? 

Mr. Reuther. And are being continued. 

The Chairman. That is the statement of the witness and not of the 
Chair. Proceed. 

Mr. Reuther. This deals with industrial arsenals : 

The possession and use of industrial munitions by employers is the logical end 
of a labor relation's policy based on nonrecognition of unions in opposition to 
the spirit of the national labor law. 

The principal purpose of such weapons is aggression. There use results 
only in violence, embitters industrial regulations, enhampers full settlement of 
industrial disputes. 

The maintenance of arsenals and industrial munitions creates bitterness on 
the part of employees and disrupts normal peaceful labor relations. Their use 
invites retaliatory violence. 

Then the next section is on gas, and I don't go into that because 
here again this company was guilty in that period, and while 99% 
of the companies who were guilty twenty-some years ago have dis- 
continued this practice, to their credit, the Kohler Co. still continues 
in the pattern of labor-management relations which was condemned 
by the La Follette committee. 

The Kohler workers, Mr. Chairman, are really a very reasonable 
and sensible group of workers. They are not really asking for very 
much. If they were ont in front pioneering and trying to blaze new 
trails, I would have suggested to them that they picked the wrong 
employer. 

But they are not attempting to blaze new trails. Actually by 
trade union standards they could be criticized for asking for so little. 

If you take their wage proposition, you don't have to talk about 
General Motors or the United States Steel Corp. Let us talk about 
competitors of the Kohler Co., comparing their wages, and let us 
take a competitor in Wisconsin not very far from Sheboygan, the 
Universal Rundle Co., and large ware enamelers. In Kohler it is 
$2.64 an hour, and Universal Rundle, $3.60 an hour. In Universal 



IMPROPE.R ACTIVITIES ES T THE LABOR FIELD 9993 

Bundle a worker makes as much in 6 hours as he makes in 8 hours in 
Kohler. 

So when the Kohler workers say we think that is unfair, is that 
being unreasonable ? When you look at the working condition in the 
enameling departments, as was pointed out in the labor trade trial 
examiner's report, the temperature ranged from 100° to 200° in heat. 

Look at the equipment they have in the Universal Bundle plant, 
look at the safeguards for health and safety, working conditions, and 
then compare the antiquated setup in the Kohler enameling depart- 
ment and what do you have ? 

You have a 6-hour day with much better working conditions, and 
almost a dollar per hour higher pay. In Kohler you have an 8-hour 
day with no lunch period, with inferior working conditions. 

When free American workers in 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, and 1958 
say to their employer, as the workers in Kohler said to Mr. Kohler 
and the Kohler Corp., "We don't think this is fair. We don't think 
it is fair for us to work for a dollar an hour less, roughly, on this 
kind of a job, under adverse conditions, when your competitor — not 
General Motors but your competitor down the road a little ways in the 
State of Wisconsin — gives us higher wages, better working conditions, 
and you can make almost as much in 6 hours as Ave make in 8." Then 
saying, "You can snatch a sandwich between bathtubs." Is that where 
we are, when we know how to split atoms and put the third satellite in 
orbit? 

Workers in America have got to work 8 hours without a lunch 
period ? I think not, Mr. Chairman. I think that is a part of yes- 
terday. 

I think that any management who thinks that they can inflict that 
kind of thing upon workers, by breaking their strike, and breaking 
their union, is asking for trouble, and I don't know how you can solve 
that, excepting to find some way to get light into the dark corners of 
people's mentality who think that workers are going to accept that 
kind of condition in this tremendous and grand land of ours in 1958. 

You heard Mr. Allan Grasskamp. He was the first witness for 
our union. He is typical of the Kohler workers. He was elected 
as their president of Local 833. He told you the problems. 

Not only do we have substandard wages, not only do we have intol- 
erant, inhuman working conditions, but we have a repressive system 
in that plant. It is a kind of modern industrial futilism that robs 
the worker of something more precious than an adequate wage, and 
that is a measure of self-respect and human dignity. 

I thought the reporter who wrote that article for Life magazine 
captured the spirit of the situation when he said, "Mr. Kohler is not 
a bad man. He just tromps on us out of habit." This is what is 
wrong. Not only are the wages low, not only are the working condi- 
tions inferior and unsafe, but there is this spirit of oppression where 
if you laugh on the job and you have a good clean job on days that 
pays more money you might wind up on the third shift on a low- 
paying job that is a dirty, hot, disagreeable job. 

These are the little intangibles that decent human beings hold in 
great value, and these little things more than the wages originally 
are responsible for the explosive emotional situation in the Kohler 
strike. 



9994 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

It ought to be kept in mind, Mr. Chairman, we didn't cancel the 
agreements. If we were strike happy and we canceled the agree- 
ment, and wouldn't bargain 1 minute after it was canceled, then people 
might with some justification say, "Well, this union is strike happy." 

The company canceled the agreement, not the union. Oh, it is 
true that they said, "We will extend the agreement." Well, when a 
company says we will give you the old agreement without changing 
a comma, that is not collective bargaining. Collective bargaining 
means a willingness to sit down and review the contract and make 
changes based upon the give and take of free labor and free manage- 
ment. 

We said let us extend the contract day by day and continue nego- 
tiating. They said not 1 minute will we extend this contract. 

We worked 5 weeks without a contract. I would think that any 
reasonable person would say, if the union canceled the contract, then 
thev were responsible. We didn't. They canceled it, 

We worked 5 weeks without a contract, hoping and praying that 
somehow we could avoid a strike. Unfortunately, the day came when 
the Kohler workers just were not willing to take it any more. They 
made a decision. 

I didn't vote in that decision. They made a decision. It was a 
democratic decision. There were more than :2,000 workers in that 
meeting and with 1 dissenting vote they rejected the company's pro- 
posal. Then we had a secret ballot vote. Xobody rigged this vote. 
In our union we respect the democratic processes. 

We had a secret ballot. Unfortunately, we experienced what hap- 
pens when human frailty moves in. Some of the people who voted to 
reject the company's offer did not hang around long enough because 
there was delay on the secret ballot and I suppose there is always 
some pressure, the wife to get home for Sunday dinner, and they 
went home. 

So the result was that the actual secret ballot vote did not represent 
the number of people in the meeting or the attitude of the workers. 

This is one of the frailties of democracy. How do you keep tiying 
to keep people to cany their democratic responsibilities. It is true 
in a union. It is true in a church. It is true in politics. If public 
officials could be elected only if they got an absolute majority of 
the total potential vote, we would be without government for many 
years. 

This is the human frailty. I think the workers who went home 
early were wrong. I think they were running out on their respon- 
sibility. But do we go out of business because people are subject to 
human frailties; no. The people who stayed made the decision. 

Seven months later, more than 1,600 voted in a secret ballot and I 
think 26 the other way. So there is no question about it, that this 
strike was a strike authorized by a majority of the Kohler workers 
by secret decision. 

The problem here is this: I am really not concerned about the 
UAW, Mr. Chairman. We will be around whether the Kohler Co. 
licks us or not. We will be around because we happen to be the in- 
strumentality through which roughly a million and a half workers 
and their families get some of their economic work taken care of, at 
the bargaining table. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9995 

I am not concerned about the UAW. I am concerned about the 
company. I am concerned about people. Because there are no values 
in a free world unrelated to people. They are not something you 
put in a vacuum and seal it up and put it in a safety-deposit vault. 
Values to have meaning and purpose have got to be related to people. 

I am concerned about the Kohler workers. I am concerned, Mr. 
Chairman, primarily because here is a conflict of this long duration. 
It will be 4 years in a few days. Four years of bitterness, 4 years of 
ill will, 4 years of hatred feeding on hatred, not only dividing worker 
against worker and brother against brother, but the whole community. 
"What bothers me, Mr. Chairman, is, don't we kind of have to look 
within ourselves as citizens of this great land and wonderful country 
and ask ourselves, is there some deficiency in our social structure when 
the law of the jungle has to run its course for 4 years and a strike is 
still as far from being settled at the end of 4 years as it was the day 
it started ? 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators Mc- 
Clellan, Ives, McNamara, Mundt, Curtis, Gold water.) 

Let me tell you there is not another free country in the world where 
this ugly phenomenon would have been possible. When I talked to 
the people in the Scandinavian countries they are absolutely aston- 
ished. I have talked to management people in the Scandinavian 
countries. In England last summer, they said "We don't under- 
stand how this can be." 

I said, "Well, it is difficult to understand." 

It seems to me we have to find a way in America by which we can 
find a rational, sensible, just, and honorable basis for bringing these 
kind of tragic situations to conclusion. 

Senator Ives. Mr. Chairman, may I break in there? I would like 
to ask Mr. Reuther what his answer is. 

The Chairman. Senator Ives. 

Senator Ives. I have been dealing with this problem for a good 
many years myself, and I must confess I haven't been able to find it. 

Mr. Reuther. Well, I don't claim that I possess any special kind 
of wisdom, but I would like to tell you what I think. I have been 
thinking about this. I know you have. I have had many talks with 
you about this for a long time, and I think you are just as con- 
cerned about it as I am. I think everybody would like this strike 
behind us. I think that what we ought to do in this kind of situ- 
ation — and I generally accept without challenge the philosophy that 
free collective bargaining ought to be conducted by free labor and 
free management, and that therefore we ought to have a policy that 
minimizes governmental intervention, excepting in times of emer- 
gency, and then the very survival of our country is involved and we 
have to meet these emergencies in order to safeguard our very 
survival. 

Senator Ives. That has been my philosophy so far. Go ahead. 

Mr. Reuther. That has been my philosophy. I think, however 

The Chairman. The Chair will interrupt briefly to observe that 
exclusive of time consumed by interruption, the witness now has pro- 
ceeded for 1 hour. 

Mr. Reuther. I am about to conclude, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. It is not the purpose of the Chair to prevent any 
witness from making a full and complete opening statement. 



'9996 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES LX THE LABOR FIELD 

If you say 3^011 are about ready to conclude, very good. 

The Chair will indulge you further. 

Mr. Reuther. I can conclude in about 3 or 4 minutes. Mr. Chair- 
man, you have been most generous and I appreciate that. 

The Chairman. But I believe that is about as long as we have in- 
dulged anyone or anyone has required. 

Mr. Reuther. Well, this is the longest strike we have had, too. 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ives. I think the question I asked Mr. Reuther is rather 
important, and I would like him to complete his answer, if I may. 

The Chairman. Very well, proceed. 

Mr. Reuther. I think the question Senator Ives poses, really, is the 
thing that is germane to what we are trying to do. It is one thing to 
have an academic discussion of a problem, and it is another thing to 
try to bring to conclusion a practical and tragic situation. As I have 
stated, I think free collective bargaining ought to be between the 
parties, and we ought to minimize governmental intervention, because 
when the GoA^ernment begins to encroach, you begin to eat away and 
erode the freedom of everyone. I don't want that, I would rather 
bargain with General Motors than Uncle Sam. 

That has always been my position. 

I think what ought to be done is I think we need to find a way to 
facilitate and expedite the mechanics of the law. I think when it 
takes you 4 years to get a case to the Labor Board, and then they can 
go through the courts, I think that justice delayed 6 or 7 or 8 years 
is justice denied. 

1 think this is an area we ought to get into. I think then we ought 
to do everything possible to try to facilitate collective bargaining 
by mediation, by any help that you can give, in which you try to 
encourage the voluntary acceptance of responsibility. 

I think that both labor and management need to understand this 
simple, basic fact: The only substitute for Government dictation is 
the voluntary acceptance of responsibility. 

If labor and management default in their voluntary responsibility, 
the Government ultimately will move in to fill the vacuum created 
by that failure to carry out voluntarily. So I am for encouraging 
this. 

Senator Ives. May I make an observation there? I will go along 
with you all the way, because that has been my finding right straight 
through. But on the other hand you have a situation here. You 
have situations where one party or the other will not bargain. What 
are you going to do in a situation like that ? 

Mr. Reuther. Here is what we propose, and I will tell you what 
the next step ought to be. We proposed arbitration. It is under- 
standable, unions can be unreasonable, too. The company can say, 
"The demands are unreasonable and if we granted them we would 
put our company in jeopardy." 

I think under those circumstances, the company has a right to take 
a position, a strong and firm position, and when the company takes 
the opposite position, as is the case here, the union is obligated to 
take a firm position. 

I think when you narrow down the thing so that you just have 2 or 
3 things that are keeping you apart, that both parties ought to be 
willing to arbitrate those if they cannot work them out together. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9997 

Senator Ives. Yes. But they aren't. 

Mr. Reuther. I know. We have proposed, as you know, that the 
President pick the arbitrator, and they said "No" to that. We pro- 
posed Secretary Mitchell, and they said "No" to that. We wou ld De 
willing to have your committee, acting not as a committee but as 
individuals, designate one arbitrator, a panel of arbitrators. We will 
take their decision. On Sunday I was on a television program, and 
I said there, and the next day I made a formal communication to Mr. 
Herbert Kohler. 

I would like to put that into the record. And in which I said to 
Mr. Kohler, "Look, we will take the President, we will take Mitchell, 
the Secretary of Labor, anybody he picks, anybody the committee 
might pick as individual members of the Senate, or I offer you a new 
idea. We will take the former Republican Governor of Wisconsin, 
Mr. Walter Kohler, whose father was the president of the Kohler Co., 
who was a part owner of this company," who is a nephew of the pres- 
ent president, "and we will accept him as the arbitrator, because we be- 
lieve that our case is so sound that no one with any element of fairness 
and decency would find against us on the basic questions." 

I have not heard from Mr. Kohler on this proposal. 

Senator Ives. What you are leading up to, and I don't want to pro- 
long this, is this idea of compulsory arbitration. 

Mr. Reuther. That is not true. 

Senator Ives. I know you are not in favor of it any more than 1 
am. Well, that is what the ultimate end is going to be. 

Mr. Reuther. If you will permit me, I will now tell you what I 
think is the answer. 

Senator Ives. All right. 

Mr. Reuther. I think in these kind of situations, just as in situa- 
tions of national emergency, sometimes the Government can play a 
role beyond just saying "We have a hands-off policy." 

I wouldn't want the Government to jump in the first week or the 
first month, but it seems to me at the end of the fourth year, the Gov- 
ernment has some responsibility. I think the President of these 
United States ought to create a factfinding board to deal with the 
collective bargaining issues, and find out can they so clarify these is- 
sues and through that clarification mobilize the moral pressure of 
enlightened public opinion. 

It is one thing for Mr. Kohler to make speeches around the man- 
agement circle, chopping Walter Reuther down as a dangerous labor 
boss. That is simple. It doesn't bother me. It doesn't create a solu- 
tion to the problem. But it is quite another thing for a panel, a fact- 
finding panel, chosen by the President of these United States, to find 
that the Kohler Co. is not being reasonable. 

Senator Ives. May I interrupt you there, Mr. Reuther ? 

Mr. Reuther. I think this might settle this strike. 

Senator Ives. I had the same idea. 

Mr. Reuther. That is not compulsory arbitration. 

Senator Ives. I had the same idea at one time. That was my answer 
to this compulsory arbitration thing, and we created a condition in 
New York where we had boards of inquiry. Perhaps you know 
about it. I don't know whether you do or not. 

Mr. Reuther. I know about it. 

Senator Ives. I can tell you right now that doesn't always work. 



9998 'IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Reuther. I think that in this situation, after 4 years, if the 
President of the United States picks, say, a panel of three prominent 
outstanding Americans who have no axes to grind, and they held a 
public hearing to develop all of these facts, and laid these facts out, 
what about the enameling room, what about silicosis, what about these 
inhuman working conditions, what about the wage inequities, what 
about pensions — you heard this old gentleman here, 25 years, gets $12 
a month. What a disgrace. What a disgrace. 

A company claims to be interested in their workers. I mean, there 
isn't a company in the whole country that thinks that $12 a month pen- 
sion with the cost of living up in the atmosphere is adequate. 

Let a panel of outstanding citizens do that. I think they can bring to 
bear the moral pressure of enlightened public opinion, and that that 
might help at the bargaining table. 

Senator Ives. There is no use carrying this discussion any further, 
because our reasoning seems to be along the same line. We seem to 
arrive at exactly the same conclusion. My only observation is, Mr. 
Ruether, it doesn't always work, and it hasn't always worked there. 

Mr. Reuther. I agree, it isn't automatic, but I do believe in this situ- 
ation we ought to try it. We have tried everything else. 

Mr. Chairman, may I put this letter to Mr. Kohler in the record ? 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 130 for reference. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 130" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the Select Committee.) 

Mr. Reuther. I will conclude, Mr. Chairman. I want to just say 
this not so much as the president of the UAW, but just as a human 
being : I have been wrestling with my soul on this case, I have talked 
to many industry leaders, I have talked to many religious leaders, I 
have talked to people in public life, at the Federal level, at the State 
level. I have talked to top people in Government in Washington. I 
have talked to labor leaders. I have said to them "Look, what would 
you do? Here is a company that has been found to be in violation of 
the law by the National Labor Relations Board. Here are these con- 
ditions in the enamel shop. No lunch period. Here are these inhuman 
and hazardous working conditions. Here are all these things. What 
would you do?" 

And they have said to me "You cannot appease this kind of irre- 
sponsible attitude, and if your union lets down the Kohler workers 
just because it is costing you a lot of money to buy groceries and medi- 
cal care and pay the rent, then we think you will be abdicating your 
basic moral responsibility." 

So we have stayed in there. Frankly, we have not been able to 
find an honorable settlement, 

I tell you frankly, Mr. Chairman, I have been trying for 4 years to 
get Mr. Kohler at the bargaining table. I have not been involved in 
this strike. I know very little about it first hand. My effort has been 
trying to get Mr. Kohler to meet with me and other people at the 
bargaining table. I have failed. I told him I would meet him any 
place. I will come to his office in Sheboygan. I will meet him any 
place, any time. I have been unable to get him to sit down for 
1 minute in 4 years. 

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

Mr. Reuther. I say to you, I am willing any time, any place, to do 
anything in my power to bring this to an honorable and decent settle- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 9999 

ment, so that we can get this bitterness and the ill will and the hatred 
that is dividing the workers in that community behind us, so that we 
can stop this tragic incident. I see in the paper that there were things 
thrown through windows in the last .several days. I think that this 
is sad and tragic. 

I went to the airport yesterday to come down here, and the Detroit 
News is running a series on Dr. Vincent Peale's book on the Life of 
Jesus Christ. It just happened that this chapter dealt with Christ 
driving the moneychangers out of the temple with a whip. 

It talked about how He went into the temple. 

And when He found that these people were in violation of the 
sacred concepts of the temple, He picked up a whip and He drove 
them out. 

It says "In His rightful anger." 

This is what is behind here. The patience of Job would have been 
tested up there. I say, Mr. Chairman, we want to do everything 
humanly possible to settle it, This is not a fight between Mr. Kohler 
and myself. This is a dispute involving more than 2,000 workers who 
are still on strike. The company doesn't deny that. 

I say, Mr. Chairman, America must find the answer to these kind 
of problems, and I think that the test of anyone's policy, whether it 
be the policy of a labor union, the policy of a management, or the 
policy of any other private economic group, the test of the rightness 
or the soundness of your policy is not if you apply it in isolation. 
But what will be the impact of that policy upon the total of the society 
in which we live if that policy were applied universally. 

And if the Kohler Co.'s policy were a general policy, universally 
applied in American industry, we would have chaos. We would have 
the kind of economic and social climate that would be ideal for the 
Communists to exploit. 

We have not had a Communist movement in America because they 
have not been able to exploit the social cesspools of injustice. 

We have made progress, and American workers have shared in the 
great technological progress by higher living standards and better 
working conditions, and a fuller measure of economic and social justice 
and human dignity. This is why the Communists cannot make any 
progress in America, because the free -enterprise system has given a 
share of its wealth and abundance to workers. 

But if you deny workers these things, if you ask them to work for 
$1 per hour less, if you say "You work 8 hours to make as much as 
your competitor pays in 6 hours, and if you can't have a lunch hour, 
and you get $12 when you have worked for 25 years as a pension when 
you are too old to work but too young to die," then you will create the 
climate in which communism can flourish. 

I happen to believe that we can defeat communism in the world, 
because I happen to believe that freemen, whether they be of labor 
or management, or Government, have got enough good sense to find 
a basis upon which they can cooperate, because we have more in com- 
mon than we have in conflict. 

I pray, Mr. Chairman, that there will be some basis upon which we 
can find a way to settle this strike honorably and fairly for both the 
union and the workers and the company involved. 

I thank you for your patience. 

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Reuther. 



10000 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chair will make this observation. I think every member of the 
committee, both as citizens of this country and also as members of the 
United States Senate, deplore the tragic situation that has existed 
and still prevails with reference to this long, drawnout dispute, strike, 
in a segment of our industry. I am sure any member of this com- 
mittee, each member of this committee, would be willing to make any 
possible contribution toward a solution of the problem and toward 
resolving the differences and settling the strike that would be within 
their power to make. 

The committee, however, is not so empowered as such. It has no 
such authority, and all we can do is to make our own comments and 
suggestions, possibly, as individuals, with respect to how a strike 
might be settled. 

However, I do know the public is greatly interested in this matter. 
I wouldn't say, of course, it is a basic industry in the country, although 
I do believe in cleanliness. I am sure the whole country is interested 
in the standpoint of the vital issues that are involved. Therefore, I 
shall not proceed further or propose any solution of the strike at the 
present, as such. 

This committee is charged with the duty of investigating improper 
practices in the labor-management field. While Mr. Kohler testified 
on yesterday with respect to his company's position on the issues that 
are involved, and that preclude or liave prevented a settlement of the 
controversy, I asked him the specific question to name, point out. 
specify, exactly what he considered to be improper practices that 
had been indulged in by the union since the incipiency of this strike. 
He named five. Those are in the record, and I need not repeat them. 

At this time, Mr. Reuther, as president of the UAW, I shall ask you 
to name and specify what you regard as the improper practices that 
the company has engaged in since the incipiency of this strike, or since 
the incipiency of the controversy. 

I may say from the time you began to negotiate for a contract out 
of which this disagreement or strike resulted. If you will, name 
thenl, please. 

Mr. Reuther. Mr. Chairman, I think that the main areas in which 
the company is guilty of illegal and improper practices are the 
following : 

First of all, the most serious thing they are guilty of is that they 
have refused to bargain with our union. They have been found to be 
guilty and in violation of the law by the trial examiner of the Na- 
tional Labor Relations Board. Specifically under that heading the 
company has refused to negotiate with the union for the purpose of 
reaching an agreement. They have merely gone through the motions 
of negotiations in order to avoid an agreement. 

The Chairman. He lists that as failing to bargain in good faith. 

Mr. Reuther. Yes, that is correct. 

The Chairman. That covers the provision. 

Mr. Reuther. That breaks down into a lot of specific things which 
I would like to mention. 

The Chairman. You want to break that down into subheadings. 

Mr. Reuther. That is correct. They were guilty not only of not 
bargaining in good faith to reach an agreement. They were bar- 
gaining in bad faith to avoid an agreement. 



improper AorrvrriEiS in the labor field 10001 

No. 2, they were obviously engaged in an improper activity when 
they were trying to break our union. The Kohler Co. does not have 
a legal right to determine which union represents the Kohler workers. 
Under the law that is a decision which only the Kohler workers can 
make. The Kohler Co. can attempt to beat the union on economics. 
It cannot legally attempt to beat the union with respect to which union 
is the proper bargaining agency for their employees. When they try 
to break the union, they are in violation of the law. 

The trail examiner found the company guilty of these matters. He 
said that the company prolonged the strike, and that they unilaterally 
in violation of it made wage increases. Wage increases that they were 
unwilling to make at the bargaining table, but wage increases which 
they made unilaterally in violation of the law. 

The Chairman. In other words, they gave a wage increase since 
the strike began in excess — is that what you are saying — of what they 
ever offered during the course of negotiation ? 

Mr. KEurHER. That is right, Moneys they put into effect unilater- 
ally. They were unwilling to offer the union at the bargaining table 
as a part of the collective bargaining effort to settle the strike. That 
is illegal. The company also refused to give us certain wage data 
that the law requires them to do. They were found guilty of that by 
trial examiner. 

The Chairman. In other words, they refused to provide you with 
certain data, documents and records to which you felt you were entitled. 

Mr. Reuther. That is correct. Some of these things sort of relate 
to each other. Specifically, the trial examiner found during the 
period when Judge Murphy was involved — this is when we really 
got close. This is when we thought another little half inch would 
put it together. There is no question about it that the company at 
that time when it looked as though we could bring it together using 
the good offices of Judge Murphy, this is where the company ag- 
gressively moved to widen the gap. There was no question about it 
that they were bargaining to avoid agreement and not bargaining 
to reach* agreement. That just further details the thing. 

We think the company was wrong and took an illegal act when 
they discriminately discharged the eighty-odd leaders of our union. 
I think all told there were 93 people in that group. That is the one 
broad category that they were in violation of the law, because they 
were not bargaining in good faith with these specific illustrations. 

The second point, Mr. Chairman, we think that it is an improper 
activity — it may be legal but it is certainly an improper activity— 
within the spirit of the law for a company that is guilty of not bar- 
gaining in good faith, not being willing to bargain to try to reach an 
agreement, for a company under those circumstances to try to dis- 
place the strikers who have designated a union in order to disfran- 
chise them and get another union in their place. We think that 
certainly is an improper activity. 

In this case this is precisely the technique the company was using. 

The Chairman. By employing 

Mr. Reuther. I am not talking about asking workers who worked 
there to return to work. I am talking about displacing strikers by 
people that we would call strikebreakers in order to get a situation 
where they can say, "You don't represent the workers any more." 
This was an improper practice, we think. 



10002 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. We can shorten it and embrace it all by simply 
saying employing strikebreakers. 

Mr. Reuther. No, I would qualify it, Mr. Chairman. I make this 
very essential distinction. If a union were guilty of an unfair labor 
practice, if a union was unwilling to bargain in good faith and they 
were trying to destroy a company by not meeting their legal and 
moral obligations. T would think that a company would have a right 
under those circumstances to defend itself oy hiring replacements. 
But when a company is in violation of the law, when they try to 
displace strikers, that is an improper practice. 

The Chairman. We can say it this way. Employing strikebreak- 
ers under the conditions and circumstances that prevailed at this plant. 

Mr. Reuther. That would be a generalized way of saying it. 

The Chairman. I am trying to make it brief. 

Mr. Reuther. I think you are doing very well. 

No. 3, the company created a small arsenal, bought large quantities 
of arms and ammunition, including gas guns, hundreds of rounds of 
gas shells and 12 antipersonnel riot guns, numbers of shotguns, thou- 
sands of rounds of ammunition and other weapons. 

The Chairman. In other words, you think that was an improper 
practice for the company, to "prepare for war" ? 

Mr. Reuther. I go back to the La Follette Committee findings that 
this is contrary to the spirit of the Labor-Management Relations Act. 
You are supposed to bargain in good faith and not prepare for war. 
We think that is what they were doing. 

The Wisconsin Employment Relations Board has stated and I 
quote — 

It seems inconceivable that in a forward looking community in a state as pro- 
gressive as the State of Wisconsin, any employer would feel it necessary to 
resort to self-help by the means of arms, ammunition and tear gas bombs. There 
is no possible justification for an employer today to resort to the use of such 
means in any strike. 

This is the conclusion, so we think that is highly improper activity, 
and is completely contrary to the spirit of good faith collective bar- 
gaining. 

The Chairman. All right. Are there any others ? I am just trying 
to get them listed. 

Mr. Reuther. No. 4, the company employed informants and de- 
tectives and spies and spent in excess of $40,000 and used those detec- 
tive agencies and spies to carry out what we think are improper 
activities. I would like to list several of the details under this. Here 
again the La Follette Committee found that this was an improper 
practice, contrary to the spirit of the law that requires good faith 
collective bargaining. The spies, as we all know — and I think the 
first thing I list here is a very serious matter, they are all serious — they 
spied on the activities and background of a Government attorney 
while he was involved in the processing of a case before the National 
Labor Relations Board involving this company in this dispute. I 
personally think it is a sad day in America when a company employs 
spies to shadow Government officials while they are carrying out the 
provisions and their constitutional obligations under the law. That 
is precisely what they did. They spied on union activities at our 
strike kitchens, on our picket lines, and they attempted to improperly 
get information at the hotel where some of our people were living. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES' IN THE LABOR FIELD 10003 

They interfered with the United States mail, as their reports will 
indicate. They kept track and invaded the people's privacy by find- 
ing out about long distance telephone calls. They spied on the 
personal lives of strikers and international representatives and union 
officials. On one occasion their paid spies posed as a law enforcing 
agent in an attempt to secure information under false pretenses. 
These are some of the things they did. 

All of these things in our judgment are improper practices and 
are contrary to the spirit of the law that requires good faith collective 
bargaining. 

The Chairman. So you have listed four in general terms. 

Mr. Reuther. That is correct. 

The Chairman. With subtitles. 

Mr. Reuther. Some of them cover a multitude of sins. 

The Chairman. With subtitles. 

Mr. Reuther. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Have you concluded now? Is that your total 
number ? 

Mr. Reuther. For the Kohler Co., these four broad categories, we 
think, encompass the illegal and improper activities of the company in 
this strike. 

The Chairman. The Chair will likely want to interrogate you 
further some time before you have concluded your testimony, but my 
purpose was to try to get this in focus : What the company claimed 
was an improper practice and what you contend has been an improper 
practice on their part, so that we might really have an issue here for 
us to weigh when we come to deliberate and determine whether we 
conclude you are right, they are right, or you are right in part and 
they are right in part, and so forth. Without objection I am going to 
permit the counsel to proceed with interrogation and any Senator, if 
he feels he wants to interrupt for clarification or other purposes, may 
do so. 

Mr. Counsel, will you proceed for the present. In the meantime 
the Chair is going to ask Senator Ives to take the chair for a few 
minutes. Senator Ives, will you preside ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Reuther, you had some representatives from 
the international union who were present there are the negotiations 
after the strike began at Kohler ? 

Mr. Reuther. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were sent up with your knowledge and consent ? 

Mr. Reuther. The international representatives when we organize 
a new local are obligated to assist that local in preparation for the 
collective bargaining and to help them actually in the collective bar- 
gaining. This is a normal procedure each time we organize a new 
local. We send them in. Depending upon the character of the work 
being done, we send in representatives who will be competent in the 
specialized field. 

Mr. Kennedy. After they signed the first contract, Local 833 came 
into existence, then you sent some international organizers in after 
that. Is that the usual procedure ? 

Mr. Reuther. We have two types of international representatives. 
We have people that we call our field representatives in the sense that 
they work out of the national departments — a skilled trade representa- 



10004 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

tive working out a national department — and he would help the local 
union on a skilled trade problem. We have a GM staff personnel at the 
GM department, the Ford national department, who will go out at cer- 
tain levels of the bargaining procedure to help. Then we have in each 
region what we call our service repersentatives. They are the fellows 
who are assigned geographically and who work in a given area in ad- 
ministering the contract and processing grievances and handling the 
day to day problems. You need to always understand that when you 
negotiate a contract, that is not the end. You have to implement the 
contract. You have to make it work. We have field representatives 
who we call service representatives who work at that level. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then at the time when it appears that there is going 
to be a strike or after a strike vote is held, do you have some arrange- 
ments to send up international organizers at that time to assist the 
local union ? 

Mr. Reuther. We don't have a routine procedure. What happens 
is that in each situation the regional director who is directly involved, 
and who is the responsible officer in each region, he would make a re- 
quest for the people that he would think he would need in any given 
situation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do they keep the international advised as to what is 
going on in a particular area ? 

Mr. Reuther. The flow of information depends upon the kind of a 
problem. 

Mr. Kennedy. They are responsible still to the international, are 
they not ? 

Mr. Reuther. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who specifically are they responsible to ? 

Mr. Reuther. It depends on who they are working for. Theoreti- 
cally they are all under my direction, but as a practical matter they 
work under department heads or other officers, depending on the nature 
of the problem. 

Mr. Kennedy. In the Kohler situation who were they responsible to ? 

Mr. Reuther. In the Kohler situation, the people working at the 
level of the situation in Sheboygan if Mr. Kitzman had been there, he 
would have been the top officer and they would have worked with him. 
If the person were working for an officer, he would report directly back 
to that international officer. 

Mr. Kennedy. You kept yourself advised as to what was going on 
and how it was proceeding ? 

Mr. Reuther. No. I will tell you, I was not close to the Kohler 
situation because when the Kohler strike began, it was not a big strike. 
Our union is so large that it has been physically impossible for me to 
be involved in the 2,600 contract negotiations. I involve myself in all 
of the major negotiations. If there is a strike related to one of those, 
then I get very much involved, but I can't be involved in these. There- 
fore, I personally was not very close to the Kohler situation. 

Mr. Kennedy. The international representatives up there in the 
Kohler situation or where you send them in have a position of author- 
ity, do they not ? 

Mr. Reuther. The international representative, he has certain au- 
thority. He cannot supplant the local union. The local union, you 
must remember in our kind of democratic union, has autonomy. This 
was their strike. The international representative obviously was re- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 10005 

sponsible for trying to give them some direction and assistance, but 
he cannot substitute his judgment for their judgment. He can per- 
suade them, but he cannot make the decision for them. Because under 
our constitution they have the constitutional right under their au- 
tonomy to make certain decisions. The Kohler strike was a strike of 
the Kohler workers. They voted for the strike. They had the strike 
committee. The international representatives could not substitute 
their decision for the decision of the local strike committee of the 
local union. For us to do that, we would have had to put the local 
under receivership. 

Mr. Kennedy. If the international representatives find that the 
local people are performing some illegal or improper activity, cer- 
tainly they can take steps to put a stop to that. 

Mr. Reuther. I think they would be obligated to do everything 
they could to persuade the local union to cease any actions that were 
improper. 

Mr. Kennedy. Those international representatives are responsible 
to the international union, are they not? 

Mr. Reuther. They are. 

Mr. Kennedy. And finally and ultimately responsible to you per- 
sonally, as the president of the union ? 

Mr. Reuther. That is correct. Structurally that is the way it 
works out. 

Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time that the strike was going 
on at Kohler, Wis., for a period of 54 or 56 days, there was mass 
picketing going on outside the plant gates. Do you have any explana- 
tion as to why the international did not take steps to end the mass 
picketing when it began ? 

Mr. Reuther. Let me tell you what my understanding of the situa- 
tion was. First of all, Mr. Kennedy, we don't argue with the point of 
view that says 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you just answer the question? Did the inter- 
national take any steps to end the mass picketing ? 

Mr. Reuther. As soon as it was brought to my attention, as soon 
as we had a clear definition that the activities up there were im- 
proper, we ceased them. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you mean? You did not know on the 
fifth of April, for instance, that the strikers were keeping the people 
who wanted to go to work outside? They were keeping them from 
their work. You were not aware of that ? 

Mr. Reuther. I personally was not familiar with the situation on 
the Kohler picket line, but other people in the international union 
were, because I was later advised. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why didn't they take steps at that time? 

Mr. Reuther. All right. Because in the judgment of the people 
who were handling it at that time, and this involved a number of 
lawyers who were working on this thing, they felt that there was a 
doubtful area there and they felt that in view of the fact that the 
Kohler workers had this great fear of what happened in 1034, they 
came in large numbers as a matter of personal security, and that the 
company had challenged the question did the union represent the 
majority «f the workers in the strike. They came out to meet that 
challenge. This whole thing with respect to the company's position 

21243— 58— pt 25 7 



10006 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

was somewhat clouded. When this was discussed, although I was not 
present, I was told — had I been there I may have agreed with what 
was decided — the decision was until this is further clarified we really 
are not involved in any improper activities. When it was decided, 
we moved. I wish the company Avould move as quickly when they 
were found guilty. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are talking about the fact that there were a lot 
of people out there that were in fear and they were all gathered there 
in order to protect one another. I am not talking about that. I am 
talking about the fact that these people were preventing other people 
who wanted to go to work from going into the plant. That specifi- 
cally, not the fact that there were 2,000 people out there. If they had 
opened the gates and let the other people come through, I don't think 
there would be any criticism. I am talking about the fact that they 
kept nonstrikers who wanted to come into the plant and return to their 
jobs out of the plant, and that started on the 5th of April 1954, and 
continued for some 2 months. 

Mr. Reuther. On the question of whether they should have kept 
people out, we have no argument. I think that was an improper ac- 
tivity. The question is, picket lines are not formed in vacuums. 
Picket lines are formed in the real world where real people have 
real problems. I say, Mr. Kennedy, if we are writing a theoretical 
paper, then I agree completely that a worker has the right to strike 
and walk the picket line, and he also has the right to work. I am 
saying you cannot divorce this from 1934. People could not wipe it 
out. People are human beings. I think if I were sitting here today 
and you said to me, would you do that again, I would have made a 
trip to Wisconsin to see that it did not happen. I am trying to ex- 
plain that when this thing came up the union believed — I was not 
there, but the people who made the decision believed that taking all 
these facts into consideration — we were not engaged in improper ac- 
tivity. When we found out we were, we stopped it. 

Mr. Kennedy. I don't understand that. It was not until April 
1954 — the IT AW had been in existence for quite a while — that the 
UAW found out that keeping somebody from their job is an improper 
activity, and that they did not find that out until some time after the 
strike had started at Kohler, Wis. 

Mr. Reuther. The UAW had been in business a long time, but we 
never had one like this before. This is the difference. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is this the first time that the UAW has ever at- 
tempted to keep employees who want to return to work out of their 
jobs? 

Mr. Reuther. I think this sort of thing has happened before, but 
never like this. We have never had one like this before, and I pray 
we will never have another one. One of these in a lifetime is enough. 

Mr. Kennedy. Even at that early time, the explanation and the his- 
tory that you have given of the Kohler plant and the situation there, 
a good deal of it happened and occurred after April 1954. Would you 
feel that there was even provocation right on the first day of the strike 
to keep those who wanted to return to work out of their jobs ? 

Mr. Reuther. I think there was provocation even before the strike 
started. I think in view of the background, the emotionalism, the 
bitterness, the company guns, barricades, and everything, this was the 
climax. We thought the company was not bargaining in good faith. 



IMPROPER AGTIVITIEIS IN THE LABOR FIELD 10007 

This got all confused in the legal thinking up there. In retrospect I 
think they made the wrong decision. They made it and we did not 
know at that time it was an improper activity. When it was found 
to be, we stopped it. 

Mr. Kennedy. I understand you did not know the fact of keeping 
an employee from his job was an improper activity. 

Mr. Reuther. Under the circumstances, because the company did 
not have clean hands, they felt that this somewhat created an area 
of doubt from a legal, technical point of view, and the lawyers argued 
that we ought to test that. This is the way I have been told. I was 
not there. This is what I have been told the way this matter was 
decided. It was not a big council of war to talk about this. It just 
kind of developed up there. This is what the lawyers felt. Based 
upon that, our fellows did not move until the issue was clearly defined. 
Then we moved as quickly as we could. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you first learn about it yourself ? 

Mr. Reuther. Personally ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Reuther. I really could not tell you. I was not close to the 
Kohler strike. My first involvement in the Kohler strike was when 
I tried to hit Mr. Kohler at the bargaining table. I was only up in 
Sheboygan once for the whole period of this strike. I don't even 
remember the date of that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that after the decision was to end the mass 
picketing? 

Mr. Reuther. I am sure it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Also, during your opening statement you made 
rather a point of not condoning violence. I am thinking of the situ- 
ation as far as Mr. Vincent is concerned where you had a man who 
weighed some 225 or 285 pounds beat another man weighing some 125 
or 130 pounds from behind. Did you take any steps against Mr. 
Vincent at that time when that was brought to your attention ? 

Mr. Reuther. I think what Mr. Vincent did was reprehensible. 
I think Mr. Vincent did this union a great disservice. I think what 
happened with Mr. Vincent ought to teach our union that we need to 
do something about this kind of problem. I thought the chairman was 
going to ask me what I thought the union had done wrong, and I 
was prepared to talk about that. I think this might be a good place 
to say it. I think one of the things we have learned from this strike 
is that in a situation where there is a close feeling between local unions 
as there are — Briggs local was very closely involved, because they 
were losing jobs because of the unfair competition of the Kohler Co. 
in the plumbing fixtures field because the Briggs people make the 
Beautyware line. It was logical for the Briggs people to support the 
Kohler workers to get higher wages and better working conditions 
because that indirectly would help them. I think we need to do more 
to exercise a greater affirmative leadership and direction when local 
people come in. Mr. Vincent did not work for the international union. 
He was not sent by the international union. He was not under our 
authority. Technically an international representative had no 
authority over him. I think when people come in under those circum- 
stances, the international union is obligated to see to it that these 
people do not- — to exert more affirmative leadership. I think Mr. 
Vincent hurt, our union no end. I for not one second will defend 



10008 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

what he did, because I think he was wrong. He was punished. He 
should have been punished. Things that we did was to help his 
family. His family didn't make the mistake. I did not think they 
should be punished. But I think we need to have more affirmative 
leadership. This is not easy. 

We have a democratic union. You cannot on the one hand say 
the labor bosses on top run all these things autocratically, and then 
the next minute say you have not got enough control. In a demo- 
cratic union it is difficult because the fellows at the local level, it is 
their union and they have a right to make the decision. I think we 
need to find a way to provide for affirmative direction to avoid the 
sort of tragic thing that Vincent became involved in. 

I also think that these demonstrations in the homes, I do not ap- 
prove of that. I have checked into this. I do not think they were 
organized by the union, but I do not think the union provided enough 
affirmative leadership to discourage them. I think this is another 
thing we have learned on this strike. I didn't think you could win 
industrial disputes in front of people's homes in their neighborhoods. 
I know my home is a sacred place. I know it has been violated by 
the gangsters paid by corporations to come in and shoot me and beat 
me up. I know the underworld would like to have me out of the way 
because we won't let the rackets flourish in our plants. So I feel very 
sensitive about what goes on around a man's home. I think these 
things came out of the climate up there, out of the feeling, and I 
think they did us harm. I think the other thing that we need to do, 
and we learned in this strike, I think local unions have to communicate 
with their people. But I think to have a daily strike bulletin is asking 
for trouble. A guy has to fill it every day. I don't think it makes 
sense. I think these are some of the things our democratic organization 
learns. The important thing is, will we learn from this and try to 
correct it. I think we will. I think we have learned some things. 
I think we have made some mistakes. The point is that when we 
find we are wrong, we are prepared to try to correct them. But when 
the company is found to be guilty as they have been found to be 
guilty, we go on. The law of the jungle — they just think they can 
starve us out. That is the difference. 

Everybody makes mistakes. To err is human, to forgive is divine. 
We know we have made mistakes. But where we try to correct 
them, it seems to me this is the way you learn in a democratic or- 
ganization. I think the Vincent thing was a sad thing. I think that 
we have to do something to avoid a repetition of it because it has 
not happened very often in our union. We would like to try to 
work it out so it would never happen. The fellow was drunk. That 
is no excuse. I don't say that because I don't drink. I just don't 
think anybodv can say, "I slugged a man, I am sorry, I was under the 
influence of alcohol." Nobody has a right to slug anybody no matter 
whether they were drinking or not, in my book. This is not how 
civilized people resolve differences. 

(Members of the Select Committee present at this point were Sena- 
tors McClellan, Kennedy, McNamara, Mundt, Curtis, and Goldwater.) 

Senator Goldwater. To refresh my memory, what was the ques- 
tion? I wanted to inquire what the question was. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10009 

Mr. Kennedy. I Mas asking hini about Vincent and he was ex- 
plaining a number of things that he felt that the union had done wrong. 

Senator Goldwater. What specifically about Mr. Vincent ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe I asked him 

The Chairman. The witness was asked about the Vincent incident, 
and after saying that he repudiated that, he also pointed out some 
other things he thought the union had done wrong. 

Senator Goldwater. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. What I was going to ask, Mr. Reuther, was up to 
this time or up to the period that these hearings began, had you 
criticized Mr. Vincent's behavior? 

Mr. Reuther. No; I had not. I discussed it inside the union. I 
felt very badly about it. I thought the thing to do was to try to do 
everything we could to avoid a repetition and just stirring the thing 
up — there is a lot of bitterness up there and I just thought that was 
not the thing to do. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you criticize the mass picketing or any of those 
things that were going on, or the home demonstrations ? 

Mr. Reuther. As I say to you, there are many of these things that 
I did not know about. That is no excuse. I do not make any excuses. 
1 just say that we have learned a lot of things about this strike and 
you will find that we were going to try to correct them where we were 
wrong. 

We do not claim to be infallible. No one is. Where we have made 
mistakes, we are going to do our best. But the simple facts of life 
are that this company would not meet its obligation under the law, 
and that this company has a record of violence and a record of being 
antiunion so long that you just cannot mechanically control the 
emotions of people. 

While I do not justify anything that was done, although the record 
will show that the union has not been found guilty of violence, I just 
think that this is not right. When I read about these things, I get 
pretty sad, because I can translate it into a personal experience. 

It is one thing to read about somebody else getting shot. It is 
another thing to be shot up yourself, and to have your brother shot. 
It is one thing to lay on a living room floor with a bunch of 300- 
pounders laying on you with blackjacks, and beating on your head. 

I have lived all of these things. Nobody can tell me that this is 
the way a decent, free society has to resolve its differences. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is why during this period of time that there 
has been a long strike and these things were going on, I was ques- 
tioning you if you had criticized the fact that these things were taking 
place, the home demonstractions, the Vincent incident, and, to some 
extent, the mass picketing, whether there had been any criticism up 
to this time. 

Mr. Reuther. Inside the union I discussed this and expressed my 
point of view, but when the company is out there harassing these 
people, doing all the things, it is not an easy thing. I wish I could 
press a button in Detroit and get everybody up there to think that 
the Kohler Co. was doing the right thing, but that is not so easily 
done. That does not justify it. 



10010 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to ask you some questions about the 
boycott and the incidents that took place in Milwaukee, where there 
was picketing of some of the stores which were handling Kohler 
products, whether you knew that that was going on and condoned 
that activity. 

Mr. Reuther. When this matter was brought to my attention, I 
was advised that the question had come up, as it related to the Labor 
Board procedures, and in every situation where the union was even 
accused of being outside of the limits of what is a proper and legal 
consumer boycott the union stipulated in those situations, and these 
alleged improper activities were ceased. 

That is the information that I was given when these matters came 
up. I mean, we were attempting to conduct a strict consumer boycott 
and where people got out of line, and it came to our attention, we at- 
tempted to get it back in line because we were trying to work within the 
confines of what strictly was a primary consumer boycott. 

Mr. Kennedy. The "international organizers, again, that were in 
Kohler and who did have some responsibility that knew, for instance, 
about the "Follow-the-Truck Committtee," which would go into these 
areas and start this picketing of these shops that were handling Kohler 
products ? 

Mr. Reuther. It was my understanding, Mr. Kennedy, that they 
were not picketing, but they were demonstrating for the purpose of 
advertising it. Maybe you start splitting hairs. I am not interested 
in that, really, because it gets no one anywhere. 

The facts are that they were supposed to be advancing a legitimate 
and legal primary consumer boycott. Sometimes people are overly 
enthusiastic and they get a little bit out of bounds. But where we 
found that was the case, we did everything we could to correct it 
as early as possible. 

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

The Chairman. Are there any questions ? 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Reuther, sometime ago when this inquiry 
into the UAW strike versus the Kohler Co. began, you made quite a 
fuss about the fact that you were not being allowed to testify at the 
beginning of the hearing. 

As one of the Senators who resisted your being the first witness in 
this case, I would like to state that the hearings thus far have certainly 
borne out my position. The hearings have gone on for some 20 days, 
during which time we have received thousands of pages of testimony. 

I will admit some of this testimony is rank hearsay and of question- 
able value, but nevertheless, the great preponderance is first-person, 
narrative-type testimony. It is my feeling that your personal appear- 
ance here today will not greatly add or detract from the hearings that 
have been developed so far. 

By your own admission, you have only been to Kohler, Wis., one 
time, and then only on a speaking engagement. You have very little 
firsthand information about the strike. However, as president of the 
UAW, I would like to ask you questions and confine these questions to 
certain policy matters which have arisen concerning the UAW strike 
against the Kohler Co. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10011 

I would like to make it clear that I think your testimony would be 
more valuable after we have had time to go more thoroughly into the 
pattern followed by the UAW in strike negotiations and strikes, and I 
would also be happy to have the opportunity to question you after the 
committee has gone more thoroughly into the question of the Perfect 
Circle strike, and particularly I would like to have a chance to examine 
you on what I consider to be a most important phase of union activities, 
union participation in politics, after this committee has gone into that 
subject. 

At the present, however, we are discussing the Kohler matter and 
I will direct my questions to the information we have received 
during the past i weeks. Not the grievances, not the reason for the 
strike, not the points of negotiation in the contract, but the subject 
of violence as developed from the testimony. 

Mr. Reuther, I assume that, you have familiarized yourself with 
the testimony that has been given this committee thus far? 

Mr. Reuther. In a general kind of way, Senator Goldwater. I 
must confess I have not read all of the transcripts. I just could not 
find that much time. 

Senator Goldwater. But you would feel competent to answer gen- 
eral questions confined to the area in which I, as one Senator, feel that 
you, as president, should have some knowledge? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, I shall do my best to cooperate. At the point 
that I do not feel competent, I shali tell you. 

Senator Goldwater. Thank you. 

It has been brought out in testimony here, that to date, the inter- 
national union has spent something in excess of $10 million in support 
of the Kohler strike. Am I correct in that ? 

Mr. Reuther. In round figures, I think that that is true, for food 
and clothing and other things, essentials for the strikers and their 
families. 

Senator Goldwater. To support the strike, generally? 

Mr. Reuther. To support the strikers. 

Senator Goldwater. If you spent this amount of money for the 
strikers or for the strike, would you not have some control over how 
the strike was conducted ? 

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

Mr. Reuther. We have a strike relief program, Senator Gold- 
water, and this is administered through the financial office of our 
union. The level of benefits, in terms of the number of children and 
all of that, is worked out as a part of a program, and this is admin- 
istered by the financial officer. 

This does not require my approving each payment. This is done 
as a matter of a program and a policy and the financial officer of the 
union, the, financial secretary, then is authorized by the constitution 
to administer the strike relief program. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, Mr. Reuther, the question was: You, 
as president, knowing of the dispersal of this fund in these amounts, 
would you not have say-so or control over the strike? 

Mr. Reuther. The disbursement of the strike relief program flows 
automatically from our strike relief program which is worked out 
in advance, which applied to all strikes, not just the Kohler strike 
and the responsibility for administering that strike relief program 



10012 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

was a constitutional authority and responsibility of the financial of- 
ficer of our union. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you deny that you have any control over 
how the strike was conducted ? 

Mr. Reuther. I do not deny that I am president of the union ; no. 

Senator Goldwater. That does not answer the question. 

Mr. Eeuther. I am the highest officer of the union. 

Senator Goldwater. I know that. I am well aware of that, but do 
you deny that you would have any control over how this or any strike 
was conducted inasmuch as international funds are being used? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, I am a member of the international executive 
board, and we authorized the Kohler strike and at the point we au- 
thorized the Kohler strike we automatically authorized the applica- 
tion of our strike relief program, and at that point automatically it 
was administered by the financial officer. 

That is standard procedure. 

Senator Goldwater. Then your answer would be, as I take it, that 
you, as president and as head of the executive board, having authorized 
the expenditure of these funds, would have control over how a strike 
was conducted. 

Mr. Reuther. No ; the strike relief fund has nothing to do with the 
control over how a strike is conducted. The strike relief program is a 
strike relief program. This determines how much relief a worker 
gets. If he has so many children, he gets more. If he has fewer 
children, he gets less. The two things are quite distinct and separate. 

Senator Goldwater. I cannot quite get the difference. 

Do you mean to say that your union, with the approval of the ex- 
ecutive board, over which you have authority ? and members of which 
are responsible to you, having spent $10 million on a strike that you 
would have no control over how that strike was conducted ? 

Mr. Reuther. I would have certain authority over the general 
conduct of the strike, which would flow from my responsibilities as 
the highest officer of the union. But the question of the administra- 
tion of the strike relief program is quite separate and apart. 

I do not have control over the executive board. The executive board 
has control over me. They are superior in authority to me. So the 
thing, Senator Goldwater, I think you need to understand is that when 
a strike is authorized, it is authorized by the international executive 
board under our constitution only after the workers have met the con- 
stitutional requirements of a secret ballot vote and so forth. 

Then, they petition the international union for authorization. If 
the board in its judgment, after reviewing all the issues, grants strike 
authorization, then automatically — we don't need different action — 
automatically at the point a strike is authorized, at the third week 
of the strikes — the first 2 weeks they do not get any relief — at the 
third week of the strike the strike relief program, which has already 
been worked out, goes into effect automatically. 

The executive board takes no further action ; I take no further 
action, and the officer who administers that is the financial officer of 
the union. 

Senator Goldwater. Any authority over the control of a strike such 
as this one you deny? 

Mr. Reuther. I obviously have the constitutional responsibilities 
as the chief administrative officer of the union. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES' IN THE LABOR FIELD 10013 

You are trying to equate the administration of the strike relief 
program with control of the strike, and I say they are two quite 
separate things. 

Senator Gold water. Have you ever spent this much money on a 
strike relief program before? 

Mr. Keuther. We have never had a company this bad before. 

Senator Goldwater. That is not the answer to the question. 

Mr. Reuther. Then we did not need to. That is the point. We 
have never had the necessity, let me put it that way, because we have 
never had a company so arrogant, so unreasonable, so in complete de- 
fiance of the laws that it took them more than 4 years — because this 
is not resolved yet — to get them to live up to the law. 

Obviously, it costs more money to have a long strike than it does to 
have a short strike. 

S°^ator Goldwater. Would the reporter read the question back? 

(The reporter read the question as requested.) 

Mr. Keuther. The answer to that is obviously no, because we have 
never had a strike this long. 

Senator Goldwater. That was the type of answer I was seeking. 

Do you realize that any time you thought the strike was being 
conducted illegally and you disapproved of that, you could have cor- 
rected the situation by refusing further financial support to the strike? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, Senator Goldwater, if at any time, in any 
strike— we won't limit this just to the Kohler strike — I personally, 
or the executive board of our union feels that local people are involved 
in illegal and improper activities and they do not correct it, we will 
stop their strike relief benefits, but that was not the case here. 

When we learned abut this, the local union did cooperate in carry- 
ing out the decisions of the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board. 
They did cooperate, so there was no need for our saying, "If you don't 
take corrective steps, we will cut your relief off." 

But, if a local union would refuse, then this is one of the things 
that we would do. A strike has to be legally authorized ; it has to 
be conducted according to our constitution, or we are not permitted 
to give them strike relief. 

Senator Goldwater. It is also supposed to be conducted in ac- 
cordance with the law of the State and the land, and when you found 
out that it was not, did you at any time threaten to withhold 
financial support ? 

Mr. Reuther. No ; because as soon as we knew that that was de- 
cided clearly and beyond doubt, the local union complied. The thing 
that makes us sad is the company won't comply with the law. 

Senator Goldwater. I understand that the union appealed this 
case — I mean the case of the cease-and-desist order — of the Wisconsin 
Employment Relations Board, banning mass picketing right up to 
the Supreme Court. Am I right about that ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Reuther. Yes. I think the lawyers can tell you the technical 
reason for that. I was not there. I would be happy to have Mr. 
Rauh tell you why that was done. 

Senator Goldwater. I am not a lawyer and neither are you, and 
I probably would not understand it better than you would, so we are 
talking as a couple of laymen. 



10014 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES FN THE LABO'R FIELD 

Mr. Reuther. I think, Senator Goldwater, if the man who knew 
tried to explain, he would be able to do it. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, we could have a good time then. 

You know what the Supreme Court is, and you answered the 
question. I believe your counsel told you that this question did go 
up to the Supreme Court ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Reuther. I am told that on the issue of preemption only, and 
not on the merits of the case. I do not expect you and I to understand 
that, but that is what he tells me. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, it got up there. 

Did the international union pay for the lawyers and for all the 
costs of handling this appeal ? 

Mr. Reuther. I am sure they did. 

Senator Goldwater. So the international union had a feeling of 
responsibility in this strike % 

Mr. Reuther. There is no question about that, Senator Goldwater. 
We still have a responsibility. 

Senator Goldwater. So you, as the international president, could 
have had some control over that strike, could you not ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, you know, when you use the word "control" 
I am not quite sure where you are standing. It just so happens this 
is a democratic union. The local union strike committee was set up 
democratically by the local union. They voted for the strike. We 
had certain responsibilities for giving the directions and whenever 
we found out clearly and in retrospect you could say, I think, the 
wrong decision was made, but as soon as we knew clearly where we 
were, the local union cooperated wholeheartedly in complying with 
the decision of the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board's decision 
and there was no reason why we had to exercise control, because 
voluntarily the local union cooperated. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Reuther, you would agree, would you not, 
that union leaders in recommending strike action to their membership 
have certain responsibilities ? 

Mr. Reuther. I would say, Senator Goldwater, that when a trade 
union leader recommends to a group of workers that they decide to 
collectively withhold their labor, that that is a very serious responsi- 
bility and should be done with great care. 

I can assure you that that is the way I have been trying to do my 
job. 

Senator Goldwater. Would you agree that this responsibility in- 
cludes an obligation to see that the strike is conducted by legal means? 

Mr. Reuther. I said to you, Senator Goldwater, that we try to 
live within the law because we do not think that we are outside the 
law, and that where our people have been responsible for doing things 
that were improper, we took immediate steps to see that they were 
corrected. 

Senator Goldwater. Would not the responsibility like this require 
that a union official have some elementary knowledge of the laws 
governing strikes, picketing and other forms of union activity in a 
community or State in which the strike takes place ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, the average labor leader does not try to become 
a lawyer, and an economist and everything else. Collective bargain- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10015 

ing gets pretty complicated. You ought to deal with some of the 
actuarial tables in the pension plans. It is just about all you can do 
to keep your reading up to date so that you can talk about these 
things intelligently. 

We do not try to become lawyers on the side. We rely upon our 
legal counsel. That is why we have them, and we pay them pretty 
well. 

Senator Goldwatek. Would you not agree that the responsibilities 
of a union leader at any level would be a knowledge, at least a basic 
knowledge, of some of the laws that would govern the actions that 
would be normally followed by you ? 

Mr. Reuther. I think generally that the average union official has 
:i general knowledge of the laws that bear particularly upon the 
collective bargaining field. But, if we knew all the answers, then we 
could lay off all the lawyers and contribute further to the growing 
unemployment in America, but we don't. We keep them on the 
payroll. 

Senator Goldwater. We do not want to lay off all the lawyers, 
although there are some that probably should be laid off. 

Now, Mr. Reuther, going up the ladder a bit, when an international 
union sends international representatives into the local community to 
help in striking or help in any problem that a local might be con- 
fronted with, do you not think that those international representatives 
should likewise have a more or less basic knowledge of the laws that 
are going to control the activities in which the local might become 
embroiled ? 

Mr. Reuther. I think it is obviously desirable to have everyone 
who works for any organization, whether it be a union or corporation 
or fraternal group to have as broad a knowledge as possible in the 
areas of their responsibility. 

But you must remember, Senator Goldwater, in our constitution it 
only permits us to appoint people as international representatives 
who worked in the factories. 

We are not legally and constitutionally permitted to hire people 
as international representatives excepting people who worked in the 
factory. 

Obviously, we can't say to General Motors, you start hiring a lot 
of lawyers on the assembly line so we can get a few as international 
representatives. 

We have to take workers. We try to give them as much training. 
We have a fellow in the skilled trades group and he will know the 
skilled trades problems, another on occupational diseases will work 
on silicosis, and another on social security. We can't have them know 
everything. 

I think, generally, they ought to have a little knowledge about the 
laws that bear upon collective bargaining. But when we have a mat- 
ter that is very delicate that is in doubt, we rely on our lawyers, as 
we should. 

Senator Goldwater. I agree with you. I was trying to get out of 
you that your international representatives having readied that level 
and that is not a low level — I might say that your international rep- 
resentatives that we have had here are in my opinion rather intelligent 
men. 

Mr. Reuther. I think we have good people. 



10016 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. Would you agree with me that being intelli- 
gent men and having been through the union movement that they 
would be expected to know something about the laws of the State 
or community that they were going into ? 

Mr. Reuther. I think that would be very desirable. 

Senator Goldwater. That would be correct, wouldn't it ? 

Mr. Reuther. That is right. 

Senator Goldwater. You would expect them to do that ? 

Mr. Reuther. I think you would agree, Senator Goldwater, that 
we might pick a fellow, a GM worker, because the staff post that we 
have to fill in the GM department may be the very thing that he is 
really the most competent to handle. He may be a terrific guy in that 
area but he may know very little about some legal question. 

We will pick him to fill that spot. We have fellows, for example, 
who we think are real wizards with a sharp pencil when we are com- 
puting the pension benefits and actuarial tables, who may know 
nothing about labor law but is very good in the field in which we have 
picked him. 

Senator Goldwater. Was not Mr. Gunaca picked because of any 
particular legal qualification % 

Mr. Reuther. Mr. Gunaca was never chosen as an international 
representative. He was asked by his local union to go up there. 

This is the thing I pointed out before. This is an area which I 
think they have to do some tightening up. I don't think the local 
union, even though it was motivated by the best of intentions and 
this local wanted to help out because it meant their bread and butter, 
this is an area — let us not confuse it — neither Mr. Vinson nor Mr. 
Gunaca were international representatives. We didn't send them. 
The local unions asked them to be up there. 

Senator Goldw t ater. They made it clear. They were morale build- 
ers. If these international representatives have people who would 
have no particular reason to be familiar with the laws, wouldn't you 
say that they had a responsibility to secure the advice of counsel of 
either the local or the international? 

Mr. Reuther. That is precisely what they did. This is where this 
problem came up. It was this whole area of what was the law. I can 
sit here and I can act very superior and say, "Well, they were wrong." 

Sure they were wrong. They changed it when they found out they 
were wrong. But the lawyers felt taking into consideration all the 
things involved, the fact that the company was not coming in with 
clean hands, this whole thing, they said, "There is some doubt." When 
this doubt was resolved, the thing was corrected. You can criticize 
them by saying they were wrong, and I think they were wrong. 

This is what happened. I am trying to testify what I was advised 
happened. 

Senator Goldwater. The Wisconsin Employment Peace Act pro- 
hibits in specific terms mass picketing. The law provides it will be an 
unfair labor practice to hinder or prevent by mass picketing, threats, 
intimidation, force or coercion of any kind, the pursuit of any lawful 
work or employment, or to obstruct or interfere with entrance to or 
egress from any place of employment. That is the law in part. 

Mr. Reuther, do you believe it was the duty of your international 
officials who are assisting the Kohler strikers either to be familiar 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 10017 

with this provision of the law or to seek competent legal advice con- 
cerning it? 

Mr. Reuther. I think whenever you are not familiar with the law 
and legal problems involved it is the better part of wisdom to seek 
the advice of a competent attorney, which we did. This is precisely 
what happened. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Reuther, I would like to read trom the 
record of these proceedings some of the statements made by officials 
of your union, both local and international. 

1 now quote on page 61. Mr. Graskamp, president of local 833 at 
Kohler, stated and I quote : 

Mass picketing is not against the law as such. 

Again on page 62 in reply to my question as to what his lawyers 
had told him about mass picketing he said : 

I did not confer with our lawyers on this. 

Again on page 543 Mr. Kitzman — I believe he was an international 
representative — said, and I quote : 

There has been a good deal of reference in this hearing and prior to it on 
the issue of mass picketing. There was mass picketing. No one denies that. 

Again on page 549 the following exchange occurred : 

Mr. Kennedy. The first illegal act that was taken by the union on April 5, 
and no matter what you thought they were going to do, the first illegal act 
was the starting of the mass picketing on April 5, 1954, isn't that correct? 

Mr. Kitzman. It was not illegal. 

On page 551 Mr. Kitzman said, and I quote — first let me say to you 
that I have said this was mass picketing : 

Kitzman. Until the WERB order came along the union did not consider this an 
illegal picket line. 

What I want to ask you, Mr. Reuther, do you agree with Mr. Kitz- 
man's statement that the mass picketing was not illegal until the 
WERB issued its order? 

Mr. Reuther. It was my understanding that this matter was re- 
viewed. As I said earlier, we did not have a big meeting in Detroit 
to get the executive board in on this. 

This was a small local strike compared to our bargaining units. We 
have 350,000 people in one unit. This was just 3,400 or 3,500 people. 
We did not get this involved in a big decision of the executive board. 

I am advised when this matter was raised there was the feeling that 
because of the gray area, the company not having clean hands, because 
of all these other things, that this was not an illegal or improper act 
and when it was so decided by the proper agency the union complied. 

I think they were in error, but this is what they made a decision on. 

Senator Goldwater. These pickets were preventing people from 
getting into the plant. They were picketing, as we saw in the moving 
pictures here — I think they called it belly-to-back — going both ways, 
one line one way and one line the other. They were in violation of 
the Wisconsin law. I think even laymen like you and I would agree 
that the language of that law is pretty clear. 

I want to ask you again, do you agree with Mr. Kitzman's state- 
ment that the mass picketing was not illegal until the WERB issued its 
order ? 



10018 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Reuther. I agree at the time this mutter was up for consid- 
eration and judgment inside the union circles — I was not present — 
that they had reasonable grounds for assuming that it wasn't, and 
therefore until it was demonstrated to be improper they continued 
to do it. 

I said earlier you don't talk about picketing in a vacuum. You 
don't sit down and write thesis to get a Ph. I). degree in the higher 
dynamics of collective bargaining and write about picket lines. 

Picket lines are composed of human beings with real problems. 
These things have to be weighed in terms of all the factors. This 
is what influenced their decision. 

If you were sitting in a classroom discussing an abstract legal 
thing in a vacuum, you might arrive at one decision. 

These people were dealing with a real situation, with real people, 
with a real problem, and they made a judgment. The judgment w T as 
that what they were doing was not improper and when it was found 
to be improper, they stopped it. 

The trial examiner found the company to be conducting illegal 
and improper activities but they have not stopped it. They keep 
going on. 

This is what bothers us. I wish people down here were just as 
much concerned about that. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Reuther, they didn't stop this mass picket- 
ing, did they, when they found out it was wrong ? 

Mr. Reuther. It took 2 or 3 days to get it stopped. There are no 
buttons in Detroit you can push and stop them. 

Senator Goldwater. I thought you said you didn't have any control ? 
What button could you push if you didn't have any control ? 

Mr. Reuther. We sat down. After all, these people are intelligent. 
The local fellows said, "Here is the decision of the State agency. 
This is their finding and we have to comply." That is exactly what 
happened. 

It took a few days before the thing was worked out, but it was 
worked out. After all, when any decision like this is made, you have 
to provide for a little bit of time to work out the normal problem 
when you are dealing with a lot of people. That is what was 
done here. 

Senator Goldwater. You said that we were engaged with a real 
problem here. I agree with you. We have a real problem of a law. 
I don't know when that law was written, but I imagine the law was 
written with the idea in mind of preventing just what happened at 
Kohler, namely, mass picketing, to allow a man who wants to go to 
work to go to work and not be prevented by acts of force. So I 
think that we have a real problem on both sides. 

I can understand your thesis that the activities of picket lines can 
be controlled more by human feelings than can be controlled probably 
by men. But nevertheless in Wisconsin, and in the United States 
law, too, there is provision against preventing a man from going to 
work. 

When the WERB handed down its decision, the union informed its 
membership that the order was not enforceable and would not change 
the picketing in any way. 
Did you hear about that? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES' IN THE LABOR FIELD 10019 

Mr. B-EUTHER. I beg your pardon ? Would you be good enough to 
repeat that ? 

Senator Goldwater. Yes. Would the reporter read back the 
question ? 

(The reporter read from his notes as requested.) 

Mr. Retjther. I heard about that later and when the people realized 
they were wrong, they changed it. I think, Senator Goldwater, this 
is essentially where we are. I say this very sincerely. 

The union, I think, made bad judgments. I think what they did 
was incorrect. They tested it. At the point it was tested, at the 
end of fifty-some days, the union then took steps within 3 or 4 days 
to correct the thing that they were doing that was wrong and improper. 

You are right, the law requires that workers have a right to get 
in and out of a plant if they choose not to be on strike and no one 
has a right to prevent them. I agree with that completely. 

When we were wrong and we were told we were wrong by an ap- 
propriate Government agency, we got in line. Now it is true that that 
law bears upon us just as much as the Labor-Management Act of 
1947 bears upon labor and management. 

The company now has been found guilty of that, but month after 
month after month after month they go on defying it. 

When we were wrong, we corrected it. When they have been 
found to be wrong by an appropriate agency, they go on defying the 
law. 

Don't you think there is an essential difference between the two 
situations ? 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Reuther, so that we can facilitate speed 
here and do away with the necessity of your referring to the com- 
pany every question, let me remind you that I — in fact you were 
on the same program the following week, Face the Nation — I said 
there were skeletons in both closets. 

I went on to explain at some lengths upon how I as employer once 
in my life might have handled this at one time. I can agree and as 
I said before, I think the company has been wrong in some points. 
We are not talking about that. We are not talking exclusively about 
the union or grievances. 

I am just saying that so you don't have to inject the question of 
whether or not the company is doing something illegal or not because 
I am not going to get into that phase of it. 

I am confining myself to your philosophy and your knowledge of 
the general field surrounding the international area. 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Goldwater, would you pardon me just a 
moment. I agree with that generally. But in your Face the Nation 
program you did say something that I think you ought to reconsider, 
because I think it does deal with a fundamental here. 

I would like to quote this short paragraph on page 11 of the official 
transcript of your Face the Nation program. You said as follows : 

Now there again, Mr. Mollenhoff, you get into a basic principle of American 
freedom. Maybe Mr. Kohler doesn't want a union at all, any union. I maintain 
it is his right not to have a union if he can win a strike. 

This is a fundamental question. Only the employees under the law 
of these United States can make a decision whether they want a union 
and which union. An employer cannot make that decision without 
violating the law. 



10020 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I would like to know whether you think under the Taft-Hartley 
law a company can decide not to have a union and destroy that union? 
1 maintain they can't. 

Senator Goldwater. I will tell you what, someday you and I are 
going to get together and lock horns. 

Mr. Reuther. We are together now and I would like to ask you 
right now 

Senator Goldwater. You save that. 

Mr. Reuther. I am asking a fundamental question. 

Senator Goldwater. Wait a minute, Mr. Reuther. You are not 
asking the questions, I am asking the questions. If you want to save 
that someday 

Mr. Reuther. I am seeking advice. 

Senator Goldwater. You come out to Arizona and enjoy the bright 
sunshine and clean air and save it for then. 

Mr. Reuther. If I ever decide to run for the Senate in Arizona and 
you are a candidate, we will debate it out there. But I am not run- 
ning for the Senate in Arizona. 

Senator Goldwater. I would enjoy that very much. Let us get on. 

Mr. Reuther. What about this ? 

Senator Goldwater. I want to ask you some questions on the sub- 
ject that we are on. We will get back to the fact that the union 
informed the membership that the order of the WERB was not en- 
forceable and did not change the picketing in any way. 

Do you think that constitutes a proper regard for law and order? 

Mr. Reuther. There again, I think the lawyers felt that there was 
a procedural matter and they backed away from it. 

Senator Goldwater. I don't think you want to answer it in that way. 

Mr. Reutherr. That is my understanding of it. 

Senator Goldwater. Because the board was properly constituted. 

Mr. Reuther. I would have Mr. Rauh answer that. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Rauh has been wrong quite a few times in 
this hearing. I am asking you. A properly constituted board had 
handed down a decision that the union was operating against the law. 
Then the union informed its membership that the order was not en- 
forceable and did not change the picketing in any way. 

My question to you, as the president of the union, is, does this con- 
stitute a proper regard for law and order? 

Mr. Reuther. I think if it was a procedural thing this might have 
been their first reaction. If they had stayed with it, I think they 
would have been wrong. But they did not stay with it. They changed 
their position. 

Senator Goldwater. It took 3 days ? 

Mr. Reuther. For lawyers that is pretty fast time in my book. I 
have asked for legal opinions sometimes that takes them a month and 
then they give me a document so long I haven't got time to read it. 

I think 3 or 4 days on a hypothetical procedural matter is not an 
unreasonable time. 

Senator Goldwater. Would you consider 3 days an unreasonable 
time if the court told somebody to stop bothering you? 

Mr. Reuther. I have been bothered a lot of times and didn't get 
relief for a long while beyond 3 days. 

Senator Goldwater. You didn't answer the question. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10021 

Mr. Reuther. It depends on what it is. The Kohler Co. had & 
years and they have not complied with the law. It will be 4 years in a 
couple of days. 

Senator Goldwater. Then you feel that the union was in their 
bounds in telling their membership that the order was not enforceable? 

Mr. Reuther. I think that they evaluated the thing improperly and 
when they reconsidered they backed away from that. If they had 
stayed with that position, then I think there would be some validity 
in your position. But we backed away from it. We didn't stay with it. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Reuther, on page 564, continuing with the 
transcript, Mr. Kitzman said, and I quote him : 

But I want to point out, Senator, that there is a big difference between mass 
picketing and peaceful picketing. There weren't any guns in that picket line. 
There weren't any clubs or gas there. All these poor little fellows had was their 
hands and elbows to do a little shoving with, which they did. 

I want to ask you, Mr. Reuther, do you regard a mob of between 
1,000 and 2,000 full-grown male adults having nothing but fists and 
elbows, massed in a solid line, doing a little showing, in Mr. Kitzman's 
work, as a form of peaceful picketing ? 

Mr. Reuther. I am not prepared to admit that this was a mob. 
This was a picket line made up of respectable members of that com- 
munity. They were free American workers who had a legitimate 
grievance with a company which was in violation of the law and they 
were exercising their legal rights to be on the picket line to demonstrate 
the support of their strike. 

It was not a riot. I don't think you could call it a riot. There was 
no property damage. There were no serious incidents there. It is true 
they kept people from going into the plant. It was not. a riot. It 
was not a mob. 

In 1934 they had a riot when they killed 2 people and shot 47. That 
was a riot. But there were no riots in this picket line and there are no 
facts to show that there was a riot. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Reuther, I didn't use the word "riot." I 
used the word "mob." I asked you a question, which I will get back to. 
Do you consider this a form of peaceful picketing? 

Mr. Reuther. I think that when you think of the provocation and 
the record of antiunionism, the fact that this company had broken the 
strike in 1897, broken the strike in 1934, was in violation of the law in 
refusing to bargain in good faith. 

I think, Senator Goldwater, that the Kohler workers are entitled 
really to some appreciation for the great restraint they showed. There 
was no property damage. There were no serious incidents in that 
picket line even though there were thousands of people in it and it 
extended over a 50-day period. 

We don't claim that we have to trim our wings every day. People 
are people. I just say you can't find a strike in the history of America 
where you have this long record of antiunionism, brutality, and op- 
pression on the part of the company that is unwilling to live up to the 
law, where you had that many people involved in a strike for such a 
long period where they have had less incidents than of this kind. You 
can find me none. 

Senator Goldwater. Would the reporter read the question. 
(The reporter read back from his notes as requested.) 

21243— oS—pt. 25 8 



10022 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Reuther. Anything that was not peaceful I would not think 
would be peaceful picketing. I think most of the people on that 
picket line were just making the rounds, exercising their rights. I 
think at the point the people were physically stopped from going in, 
] think the people were wrong in doing that. 

I don't make any excuse for that. I think they were wrong. 

Senator Goldwater. Let me read you the whole question once more. 
I will strike the word "mob." 

Mr. Reuther, do you regard a group of 2,000 full-grown male adults, 
having nothing but lists and elbows, massed in a solid line, doing a 
little shoving, in Mr. Kitzman's words, as a form of peaceful 
picketing? 

Mr. Reuther. I think if physical effort w T ere made to prevent 
people from getting in the plant, that is wrong. 

Senator Goldwater. That doesn't answer my question. 

Mr. Reuther. Why don't it? 

Senator Goldwater. You know why it don't. I have asked you a 
simple question. 

Mr. Reuther. I am asking you. 

Senator Goldwater. You can just say "yes" or "no/' Is it peace- 
ful picketing or isn't it ? 

Mr. Reuther. I think that whenever you do anything that physi- 
cally prevents a person from getting into a plant, that is wrong. If 
you want to call that not peaceful picketing, I would not quarrel with 
that. 

Senator Goldwater. This is a very important part of these hear- 
ings. I think this particular question, to try to develop in a legisla- 
tive way, if we can, a definition of peaceful picketing, is extremely 
important. 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Goldwater 

Senator Goldwater. Please, Mr. Reuther 

Mr. Reuther. Take it easy now. 

Senator Goldwater. I am asking you once again, Do you consider 
this a form of peaceful picketing? 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators 
McClellan, Ives, Ervin, Curtis, and Goldwater.) 

Mr. Reuther. I said before that if people physically prevented a 
worker who wanted to go to work from getting into that plant, that 
that was wrong, and if you choose to call it not peaceful picketing, I 
am not going to split hairs with you. 

Senator Goldw ater. I think you have said that it is not peaceful 
picketing, because you have agreed that the conditions existed, and, 
therefore, we say that this is not a form of peaceful picketing. 

Mr. Reuther. Let me say this, that you will never pass a law to 
take the emotions and the feelings and the sense of Tightness and 
justice out of free human beings in the face of this kind of arrogant 
corporation. All the laws in the world will not stop people from 
i rying to defend themselves. I say that the Kohler workers, I don't 
make any excuse for the violence that w T as enacted away from the 
picket line, I think that was wrong, the union has not been found to 
be responsible for that — but on the picket line, I think the Kohler 
workers conducted themselves really quite wonderfully, considering 
the provocation and the number of people and the bitterness in this 
situation, with the 1934 killings and shootings as a background. 



IMPROPE'R AC'TRTTIEiS IX THE LABOR FIELD 10023 

People are human beings, you know, and you are always going to 
find them acting like human beings. When you have a milk strike, 
did you ever see the farmers turn over the trucks and that? 

I don't think that is right, but they do it. This is when human 
emotion surges forward, and all the laws in the world will not take 
human emotion out of human beings. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, Mr. Reuther, continuing with the trans- 
cript, on page 569, the following exchange occurred : 

The Chairman. Well, of course, we may just as well be factual about it. 
We all know the purpose of holding it at those gates and running crowds from 
one gate to another was not to demonstrate the majority of the Kohler workers 
wanted to strike, but it was to keep those workers who wanted in the plant to 
work out. That is the truth about it, isn't it? 

Mr. Kitzman. Yes, absolutely; yes. 

Then we turn to page 571 and page 572 and Mr. Kitzman said : 

The picket line was established with the purpose, as I pointed out, of adver- 
tising the strike and certainly to see that no one went in and took the jobs of 
the strikers away from them. 

And again on page 573 : 

The Chairman. In other words, during the mass picketing period, you knew 
the people you were keeping out of the plant, keeping away from their work, 
were people that were in the employ of the company when the strike came? 

Mr. Kitzman. Yes, but again, these people remembered what happened to 
them in 1934 when they did exactly that same thing. 

Now, Mr. Reuther, do these statements by Mr. Kitzman sound like 
a description of peaceful picketing to you ? 

Mr. Reuther. I think, Senator Goldwater, that the number of 
people in the picket line does not determine whether it is peaceful or 
not peaceful. I think it is the conduct of the people in the picket 
line. You could have a small picket line that would not be peaceful 
and a large picket line that could be very peaceful. So numbers is 
not the deciding factor. 

It is how they conduct themselves. I think there is no question 
about it that the pickets were there in large numbers for a number of 
reasons, first because they were afraid, because of the 1934 strike and 
the shootings, and, secondly, because the company challenged the 
union saying "You don't represent the majority," and this was their 
way of demonstrating broad support for the strike. I think there is 
no question about it that they felt that this was the way to keep people 
out, and this is where they were wrong. 

We don't run away from that. 

Senator Goldwater. I think you have made a good constructive 
answer there when you said that numbers do not say when it is peace- 
ful or not. 

I have seen picket lines of a few that are violent and I have seen 
picket lines like this that are a mass and at the same time are not 
violent in their nature. 

Mr. Reuther, is there any question in your mind as to who ran the 
strike for the UAW at Kohler ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, I think that the strike was run by the local 
strike committee. I mean, this was their strike and they worked out 
the details. The^y obviously were given help by the international 
union through the people who were assigned there. But it was a local 



10024 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

strike. The local membership made the decision to strike. They 
drafted the demands. We didn't do that. They voted to go on strike. 

It was their strike. They had a strike committee that met period- 
ically and made the decisions and so forth. It was not directed from 
Detroit. Mr. Graskamp could testify to that, that under our union 
the local strike committee is the group that directs the strike. 

Now, we work with the local strike committee and we have a respon- 
sibility to work with them. But it is the local strike committee. This 
is why we think we have a good union, because we have a democratic 
union. Everything isn't done in Detroit. Most of the union work is 
done out in the field where the workers are. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Reuther, let me read you from Mr. Rand's 
testimony on page 3906 of the transcript, where he says : 

Mr. Rand. 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 there in 1956, I think 
it was, and at the time we 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 in this kind of a situation was an easy job. There are many problems 
dealing with the individual strikers, of which we could take days and days to 
relate here ; as a result of this strike, you have many hardships. 

Among the problems that I had was the conduct of the boycott and the various 
phases. It was a very small part of the overall direction that I gave to local 
838. 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. 

Again, on page 3911, Mr. Rand comments on the leadership in this 
controversy, and I quote him : 

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. 

Now, Mr. Reuther, don't you really believe that the international 
ran this strike, or was Mr. Rand telling an untruth? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, it is difficult for me to follow a long quote 
out of a transcript that I am not familiar with, but I think what 
Mr. Rand was trying to say was that he was in charge of those phases 
of the strike where the international had the direct responsibility. 
He talked about related problems, but this doesn't change the fact 
that our constitution requires the local union to have a strike com- 
mittee, and the local union strike committee directed this strike, and 
anything that we did had to be done through the local union strike 
committee which was made up of the leadership of the local and 
other people that the local chose to put on the strike committee. 
So what Mr. Rand had said is in keeping with our democratic struc- 
ture that the local union ran those phases of the strike over which 
they had responsibility, and the international union handled those 
matters in the areas where it had a direct responsibility. 

It is just like a difference between the State government and local 
government. You could have two people working in a situation 
where a Federal official has certain responsibilities in an area, and 
local officials have other responsibilities. One doesn't have to usurp 
all of the other one's functions. They can be parallel functions. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, that is all the questions I 
have for a while. I will have some more later. 

The Chairman. Thank you, sir. Who is next ? 

Senator Mundt. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10025 

Senator Mundt. Most of your statement, Mr. Eeuther, that you 
made in the preliminary part of the session was devoted to the general 
union policies in which you believe and to which you subscribe, and 
you detailed your position primarily on five different points: 

Communism, corruption, racketeering, collective bargaining pro- 
cedures and democratic unionism. And as one member of the com- 
mittee, I was glad that you did devote a major portion of your initial 
presentation to those overall policies, because it seems to me that 
primarily the objective of this hearing is to try to determine pretty 
much in those five areas which you delineated what is taking place 
in union activities, and where there are improper practices in those 
areas, to correct them. 

Where there are not improper practices, to demonstrate that fact, 
and to determine where and whether new legislation is required to 
rid the union movement of improper practices primarily in those 
five fields. 

I think that you are quite proper in making your presentation 
along that line, because as one member of the committee I have never 
cherished the hope that we were going to settle the Kohler strike 
out in Sheboygan. It has been going on for over 4 years. A lot of 
smart people on all sides have discussed and analyzed it. I am afraid 
that when these hearings are over, you are going to be just as far 
apart and maybe some of the wounds will have been reopened a bit 
as a consequence of them. 

That would neither determine whether we went into the situation 
or kept out of it because it was the most important illustration, cer- 
ainly, of the kind of labor warfare that we don't want to have take 
place, labor-management warfare that we don't want to have take 
place in this country. 

I want to direct my questions primarily to you in the general field 
of the five areas which you were discussing. I do that in the hope 
that we can help produce some information, some evidence, which 
will be helpful to the direction of the major function of this com- 
mittee and that is to recommend legislative corrective steps or cor- 
rective steps by management or by unions which they can take 
unilaterally to improve labor-management relationships. 

I made a few notes as you went through your general statement, 
and I want to ask just a few scattered questions, with no relation to 
each other, but on matters primarily of information. 

Then I want to ask you questions at some length in some of the 
areas you discussed in connection with those five. I don't anticipate 
this afternoon I can do very much more than perhaps touch into one 
or two of those major areas and go through these preliminary 
questions. 

You stated, first of all, that you understood that the committee was 
not interested in your personal financial records and statements. I 
am sure that the committee has never taken any action indicating that 
it wanted to have a look at your personal records and so forth. 

But it has been quite customary in connection with the other union 
leaders who have preceded you, to examine them. So I was wonder- 
ing on what basis you had reached the understanding that we were not 
interested in your personal books and records. 

Mr. Reuther. I made inquiries, Senator Mundt. And I was told 
that as of that time the committee had made no decision about check- 



10026 IMI'KOPKK ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

ing into my personal finances, and since I wanted the committee to> 
make a check of my personal finances, I felt that the surest way to be 
certain that that happened was to write an official communication 
to the committee making such a request, because I wanted my personal 
finances examined. I have nothing to hide, and I want all the facts 
laid out on the table. 

Senator Mundt. I think you did quite properly in making that 
request, but it was true that the committee had taken no action either 
way in that particular connection. 

Mr. Reuther. I moved on the basis of being told that the committee 
hadn't made a decision, and I wanted to be sure that the committee 
would do it. 

Senator Mundt. The information that you received, then, was en- 
tirely correct. I gathered originally that you indicated that the com- 
mittee stated it was not interested in it. 

We had not gone into the matter at all, as far as I was concerned. 
You have clarified the record. 

In connection with the public review board, I think this is a very 
commendable step which you have taken. I did not know much about 
that until this afternoon, although I have read in the press a little 
bit about it. 

Just in the interest of placing credit where credit is due, Mr. Reuther, 
I think you should point out that this Board was adopted by your 
convention after our hearings had been started. 

I don't expect you to throw your hat in the air and cheer our com- 
mittee, but we get a lot of criticism, and 1 thought maybe we just ought 
to have credit where credit is due. This was adopted on April 8 y 
1 957, according to the book that you gave us. 

Mr. Reuther. But it was worked out many months before that. 

Senator Mundt. Our committee was created in January 1957, the 
end of January. 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Mundt, I think just for the sake of ac- 
curacy, what you say is true. Our convention did not meet, but this 
idea had been worked out, many, many months before your committee 
came into being. 

The convention was not held until after your committee came in to 
being, and obviously we couldn't act officially by convention action 
until the convention was held. 

But we have been working on this for a long time. A couple of years 
I have been working on this idea. As I indicated before, on January 
18, 1957, before your committee came into being, we passed a resolution 
calling upon the creation of such a committee, because we want to drive 
every crook and every Communist out of the leadership of the Ameri- 
can labor movement, and we are going to work until that job is 
achieved. 

Senator .Mundt. That is exactly what we are trying to do. We want 
(o work with you, and we hope that we can agree on some programs 
and policies which will help produce that result, 

Mr. Reuther. You stay on that track and you will be getting the 
support of a lot of good people. 

Senator Mundt. I will stay as long as we can endure in connection 
with these hearings, I assure you. I mention that because on your 
first page you say that the idea of a public review board for the UAW 
is not a child of Dave Beck or the McClellan committee. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10027 

Mr. Reuthek. That is true. 

Senator Mundt. I just wanted the chite as to when it was created 
and the date when the conunittee was created to be in the record. I 
have noway of telling or putting a dateline on when you get an idea. 
It may have been 2 years or 4 years; I don't doubt it at all. But a lot 
of preliminary thinking and work had to go into the thought. 

Mr. Keuther. We have worked on it for 2 years. The important 
thing is we have it. 

Senator Mundt. The important thing is that you have it, but what 
does it do and how does it operate \ 

Mr. Reuthek. I wish you would study it. I think it is a basic 
and fine approach to the problem of how do you protect the rights 
of the individual member in a big trade union. 

Senator Mundt. I think we can analyze that a little in discussion 
here. What criticism have they made up to now of the UAW? 

Mr. Reuther. None whatever. Up until now, I don't know pre- 
cisely how many cases they have handled, but up until now, to the 
best of my knowledge, and I haven't checked it in the last 48 hours, 
they have sustained the union's position on every case. I think where 
we are right, that is what they ought to do, and when we are wrong, 
I think they shouldn't sustain us. That is why we have the board. 

Senator Mundt. I quite agree. The record up to now then, shows 
that they have found nothing wrong with the UAW, up to this point ? 

Mr. Reuther. At the end of the year, and their first year will be in 
August some time, they will make an annual report, and this will be 
submitted to our total membership on what they have found out, 
what cases they have handled and so forth, and when our convention 
comes up, they will make a report to the convention, and at that time 
the delegates will decide about the composition for the public review 
board, the membership for the period between the next convention and 
the convention that will follow. 

Senator Mundt. You anticipated my next question. My next 
question was a matter of procedure, whether the board makes an an- 
nual or a semiannual report. You tell me that it is annual. 

Mr. Reuther. It is annual. It is all spelled out in there. 

Senator Mundt. And whether it is a public printed report at that 
time? 

I assume if it goes to your membership, it must be public. 

Mr. Reuther. It has to both go to the membership and be given to 
the public press. We are prepared to have our stewardship subject 
to the public review in the public market place. 

We do not claim perfection, but we are working, trying to make 
our union a better union. 

Senator Mundt. I don't care who got the idea. I agree with you, 
I don't care when it was implemented. I think it is a good idea and 
a forward, constructive move in labor relationships. 

Mr. Reuther. Thank you. 

Senator Mundt. Presuming a board measures up to its responsibility 
and finds the time to do its work, and has the proper composition, if 
it should, of course, in the course of normal events, find something- 
wrong with the union, and if they do, that you will make the correction. 

Mr. Reuther. When they do, Senator Mundt, we will move to cor- 
rect them. 



10028 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

That is why we have it. We do not claim perfection. 

Senator Mundt. I was interested in this where yon made the best — 
I don't want to say defense, but explanation, so far, and we have been 
asking the question several times, as to how it happened that the strike 
vote at the Kohler plant was made by less than half of the people 
belonging to the plant. You made a rather persuasive appeal that it 
is hard to get people to vote even in a political campaign, and I know 
that is true, it is hard to get them to stick around to the end of a 
meeting. 

I have a feeling of my own which I have incorporated in a bill 
which I think would help eliminate this problem that you complain 
of, which I complain of. You say it is part of human frailty, and 
perhaps that is true. 

But I think we should both agree that the optimum desirable result 
would be to have all of the people involved present and voting as to 
whether to strike or not, if that could be brought about, by a stroke 
of our hand. 

Mr. Keuther. I think, Senator Mundt, that in any democratic or- 
ganization, whether it is a trade union or a public election, that we 
ought to encourage the broadest participation in the discussion and 
the broadest participation in voting. 

I think it is a great tragedy. There are people in the world willing 
to give their lives for the right to vote as free men. Yet there are 
millions of our people who have the privilege and who don't exercise 
it. This is a great tragedy, but this is one of the human frailties. 

Senator Mundt. That is right. I think you will agree that the posi- 
tion of the union in this strike would have been stronger had you 
been able to tell Kohler and the world that instead of a majority of 
about a third of the members of the plant, who actually voted, that 
a majority of 80 percent of the members of the plant had voted for 
the strike. 

You would have been in a stronger position. 

Mr. Reuther. I think that public relationswise we would have. I 
don't think it would have made any effect on the company's attitude, 
because, Senator Mundt, if you back up — you see, we lost the first 
labor board election. 

The Kohler workers association won that. We have always thought 
it was a company-dominated union. And at the point that it began to 
act like a legitimate union it got in trouble with the company. 

At that time there was this move on the part of the people in the 
Kohler Workers Association to affiliate with our union. 

The company evidently thought that they could block that if they 
had a quick vote and if they held it in the plant, because they obviously 
were in a more favored position. 

When that vote was held — I don't know the exact percentage, but it 
was almost everybody voted, and the union won that by better than 80 
percent, So that was the most representative vote ever taken in terms 
of the number of people participating. Yet we won that. 

I have given a great deal of thought to this whole problem of how 
can you get more people to be interested, because democracy in the long 
pull really is no stronger than the people make it. 

Democracy is something that cannot be built from the top down. 
Democracy has to be built from the bottom up. You take what hap- 
pened it the Teamsters Union. It could never happen in our union, 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES' IN THE LABOR FIELD 10029 

because we have much broader participation. If you really want to 
rig a union against the rank and file, then you discourage them to 
participate. But if you are really trying to work with the member- 
ship, then you encourage participation. This is one of the big prob- 
lems of communication. It gets harder and harder and harder to 
reach people. I am talking about people generally, because of the TV 
and all of these other things. 

This is an area to which the American labor movement has to give a 
great deal of thought and consideration: How can we involve more 
and more of our rank and file members into active participation in the 
union, discussing the issues, and participating in the democratic de- 
cisions, against the competition of all these other things that compete 
for their time and their attention. 

This is a very serious matter. 

Senator Mundt. That is right. I am going to discuss that with you 
in just a second, but I am going to follow your detour with you a little 
bit. 

You talked about the Teamsters Union. It did a great many things 
which I considered reprehensible, or let me say better, officials in the 
Teamsters Union did. 

Mr. Reuther. That is a better way to put it. 

Senator Mundt. I agree. 

One of the things I thought were reprehensible was the establishment 
of a great many trusteeships which, as I see it, tend to negate the demo- 
cratic procedures which you say are practiced in the UAW. 

Did you have any in the UAW, any such a thing as a trusteeship or 
the equivalent of it ? 

Mr. Reuther. Yes. Our constitution provides that if, in a given 
situation the local union is in jeopardy, or there is an emergency situa- 
tion which might, if not corrected, put into jeopardy the very life of 
the union or the welfare of the membership, we can after due process, 
hold a hearing involving the local union leadership and then if we find 
that the local union is in jeopardy we can establish what we call an 
administership. 

If we remove the officers, then in 90 days we are required to hold 
a new election and turn it back. Here is an area that if we abuse our 
power — and I can assure you we have very few administrators^ an 
insignificant number because we do not abuse it — a public review 
board can set it aside. 

What do we find ? We had a situation where a group of numbers 
racket guys tried to take over a local. They were muscling their way 
in. We can't just sit back and say even the gangsters will take over 
if they cannot manipulate. 

If the membership is not interested and they move in and coerce 
people, in a situation like that we may have to put an administrator 
in there and carry on an educational campaign to arouse the rank 
and file and get them to participate so that democratically they 
can see that these gangsters did not capture the union. 

We have a problem like this where a local union is in a plant that 
was a war plant. It might have had 30,000 workers in that war plant. 
This plant shut down. They wound up with maybe 50 maintenance 
people who are making a final effort to close the plant up. The 
other fellows scattered. 



10030 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

That war plant may have accumulated a half million dollars during 
the war because they had high membership, high employment and 
they saved their money. We had one case where the fellows decided 
that they would like to divide that half a million dollars among a 
handful of people who were left. We felt that was not right. That 
money did not belong to the small handful It belonged to the whole 
group. 

We tried to work out in the Kaiser-Frazer situation to earmark 
funds to provide some medical care for former workers in that plant. 

These are the kind of things we do. We do not abuse it. It is only 
possible after due process. Even if we did abuse it, which we don't, 
public review board can sa}' this is wrong. You have to stop it. 

Senator Mtjndt. In your constitution, you say if you take one over 
you have to have an election of officers within 90 days'? 

Mr. Reuther. If you remove the officers, in 60 days you have to 
have a new election because the whole idea is that you are trying to 
protect the union and not try to interfere with (lie democracy of the 
election of officers. 

Senator Mtjndt. Correct me if I am wrong. What I understand 
you have said is, you have these adminstratorships. 

Mr. Reuther. We call them administratorships. 

Senator Mundt. You have that to protect the union. I can see 
that you need that. Would it operate in this way : If you found a 
union which was in jeopardy or which seemed to be doing injury to 
the members, either actual or potential, because you knew from your 
own sources of information that the leadership was corrupt in the 
number racket or some other way, or perhaps that the leadership 
might be under the control of the Communist power 

Mr. Reuther. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. You would have the power to go in, put it under 
an administratorship and remove the officers and if you do that within 
90 days you have to have an election. 

Mr. Reuther. Within 60 days. 

Senator Mundt. Back off the detour and back to the strike vote: 
At the vote which was held at the Kohler plant were there any inter- 
national representatives present participating in the discussion leading 
to the vote ? 

Mr. Reuther. I would assume that if they were taking a strike 
vote that there would have been an international representative there. 
There might have been several. They would not have voted. The 
only people who could vote would be the Kohler workers. 

Senator Mundt. They would not vote, but they would have the right 
I suppose, to urge the members to strike or not strike or make sug- 
gestions. As a matter of fact, I think Mr. Burkhart testified that at 
one time he urged them not to have a strike vote and at a later time 
he urged them to have a strike vote. 

Mr. Reuther. In August 1953, I think, the local membership did 
take a strike vote and with great difficulty the international representa- 
tives and the international officers persuaded the membership not to 
strike. You have many situations where the membership wants to 
strike and we try to persuade them not to strike. 

Sometimes it is better to have patience and try to nurse some of 
these things. We have been around a long time. You go on strike only 
after you have exhausted every possible means of resolving them, 
short of a strike. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10031 

Senator Mundt. The reason I mentioned that, I thought it should 
be related in the record in connection with what Senator Goldwater 
was asking you. You said several times, "I did not vote for the strike. 
It was not my strike. I didn't have anything to do with it." 

I do think we ought to have in the record the fact that indirectly, 
through your international representatives, you did have people at 
the meeting in one case urging them not to strike, in another case 
urging them to strike, but consequently, making the verdict, what- 
ever it was, part of the international policy to the extent that your 
representatives could influence a decision of the voters. 

Mr. Eeuther. I think, Senator, to begin with that in the average 
situation, the influence of the international union and the international 
representative would be more cautious than the natural instincts of 
the workers. 

I think if you could make a case study of how the balance of our 
influence would have been, you would find that in most cases we were 
the cautious ones because we know something about these things. A 
worker can be influenced emotionally a great deal easier than we can, 
because we have been through this. 

I can say to you that I have never in my life, and I hope I never 
shall, recommended that workers reject a proposal when I think that 
proposal is fair and they ought to accept it. 

The only time I have every recommended that workers reject a 
proposal is when I think it does not give them that measure of justice 
to which they are entitled, and I think if a person would not do it 
that way it would be wrong. 

The influence we exert is primarily a cautious one. We do not go 
in there strike-happy and try to get people on the brinks. The whole 
experience will show the contrary is true. 

Senator Mundt. Your record, insofar as we know about the par- 
ticipation of your international representatives in the Kohler case, 
was 50-50. One time vou said, "Don't strike," and one time you say, 
"Strike." 

I am not saying there is anything wrong. 

Mr. Reuther. You cannot base it on the law of averages. The 
point is what were the issues. In this case when the strike finally 
occurred, Senator Mundt, we worked for 5 weeks without a contract. 
I would not say that would mean we were jumping the thing. 

After all, the company canceled the contract. We tried to ^et the 
company to extend the contract for the purpose of facilitating further 
negotiations. The company refused. Despite the company's refusal 
to extend the contract for 1 hour, we persuaded the workers to work 
5 weeks without a contract, hoping that we could resolve it without 
a strike. 

If we had struck the same minute the contract terminated, you 
could say, "The fellows wouldn't wait until they jumped the gun." 
We worked 5 weeks beyond the contract termination without a con- 
tract, hoping we could resolve this. 

I have been in these situations many times, and sometimes it is 
very difficult when you get a bunch of workers in a mass meeting and 
they have been pushed around by the boss and they think they have 
been shortchanged, they are ready to go out and start right away. 
It is not easy to get them to take it easy and be patient. 



10032 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Yet, we try to do this because we know that it is much better to 
resolve at the bargaining table without a strike if you can do it. 

Senator Mundt. You are dilating on a point which I do not think 
is in dispute as far as you and I are concerned. I am not contending 
that the conditions did not contribute to the strike vote and that the 
voters had reasons which they considered good and valid to strike. 

What I am pointing out is that there can be, also, a fixation of 
responsibility, as I think there should be, on the international union, 
when the international representative goes to a situation of that 
kind, and advocates in the one case, "Don't strike," that is part of 
your responsibility, and advocates the second time, "Do strike." 

When you send a very persuasive and eloquent young fellow like 
Bob Burnhart down there — he is not quite in your class but he is 
good — you had better watch him because he may run against you 
sometime. 

When you send a man with that capacity down there he is bound 
to have some influence on the determination of the strike vote. To 
some extent, there is responsibility in your office for that decision. 

Mr. Reuther. I agree with you fully and completely, Senator 
Mundt. In a situation like that, an officer of an international union 
or international representative really has to weigh what he recom- 
mends with great care. It is true. You can say, "Well, he can be 
careless about it because his paycheck is going to continue and the 
other fellow is going on strike and he will give up his check." 

In our union, in every major strike we have, the leadership of our 
union have given up their paychecks too. When you look at my 
financial record you will find when we were on strike at GM in 1945 
and 1946, I did not get my pay. 

I made this mistake. I took it and kicked it back, and I wound up 
paying income tax. When the Chrysler strike came along, I did not 
take it so I did not at least have to pay income tax. 

We sit down and try to evaluate these things. If I had been in the 
Kohler situation the day the strike meeting was held, I tell you very 
frankly I would have recommended strike action in the face of what 
this company was doing. 

Senator Mundt. That is not a point of controversy between you 
and me because I certainly am not going to try to adjudicate that. 
I am positive there was fault at both sides. 

Mr. Reuther. I wish you could. We could stand some help. 

Senator Mundt. I hope you do not nominate me for that job. You 
have not had any takers yet. I am not available. 

Mr. Reuther. I think you and Senator Ives, the judge from North 
Carolina could do a pretty good job if you came up and worked at it. 

Senator Mundt. To get back to the strike, I have introduced a 
piece of legislation. I do not pose as an expert in the labor field. I 
have gotten force-fed on this subject in the last 3 months. Until then, 
I led :> hapnv and serene life as a representative of a great agricul- 
tural State like South Dakota and never enjoyed the kind of attacks 
made on me by labor leaders in the public press that I have been 
enjoying lately. 

Mr. Reuther. You have to admit you have to work to get it. 

Senator Mundt. There is no doubt about it. I was thrust rather 
reluctantly. I rather enjoy it. I think we should learn more about 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10033 

it. On the basis of these hearings and testimony like yours, I have 
suggested legislation. I would like to have your opinion on it. 

To get away from this human frailty, to get away from this type 
of situation where you have a majority vote for a strike but only a 
third of the workmen actually vote, I propose that a strike vote be 
conducted by mail, with every member employed in the plant having 



tne rignt 
partial ta 



tabulators. 

Does that make any sense to you at all, or not? I would like to 
have your opinion. 

Mr. Reuther. I have not really thought the thing through, but 
let me say this : During the war we had the Smith-Connelly Act as 
I recall, which essentially provided for a vote in the plant conducted 
by the Government, counted by the Government, the same as the 
Labor Board conducted them. 

The experience there was that overwhelmingly the union member- 
ship voted to strike. That finally got washed out. 

Senator Mundt. I am not advocating this as a device for stopping 
strikes. I am advocating this as a device for registering majority 
opinion which you told me you would like to do. 

Mr. Reuther. There is only one way to stop strikes in a free society. 
In a totalitarian society you get industrial peace without justice. In 
a free society the only way to stop strikes is to make it possible for 
workers to get justice without striking. 

As long as they are denied justice, they will fight to get it and 
they will strike to get it. I say this, when the Taft-Hartley law 
provided for this kind of broad voting — whether they vote in the 
factory where 99 percent vote when you send the letters out — the 
important thing is to get maximum participation. 

Senator Mundt. In a secret vote impartially counted. 

Mr. Reuther. Both secret and counted by the Government repre- 
sentatives. In each of those cases you will find that the union rolled 
up tremendous majorities. As a matter of fact, when this was taken 
out of the Taft-Hartley Act, I think many labor leaders had mixed 
feelings about it. I know I did because frankly, I found it very useful. 

Then the company could not say, "You don't represent the workers." 
If we had a strike vote in a big company with 25,000 members, 24,900 
voted and we got 90 percent vote, at least the company could not 
say, "You don't represent the workers." At least we had that one 
nailed down, so I just talk for Walter Reuther. 

I am for any device that will find a way to maximize the demo- 
cratic participation on all of these basic decisions. I would question 
the wisdom of a mail vote. I think the post office might get bigger 
and Mr. Summerfield would get more ulcers and I do not think that 
is a good idea. 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators 
McClellan, Ives, Ervin, Kennedy, Mundt, Gold water, and Curtis.) 

Senator Mundt. Well, I think I would like to have you give a little 
more considered criticism of the plant, other than the fact that it might 
put the Post Office Department into a deficit. I am trying to do what 
you are trying to do. You are trying to maximize self-determination 
in secret, on the basis that the votes are counted impartially. That 
is what you say you are trying to do. That is what I am trying to do. 

Mr. Reuther. That is right. 



10034 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. It seems to me that if you mail a ballot to every 
fellow who has a job, and he sends it back in secret, you have received 
that maximum degree of self-determination. I am curious and trying 
to find out. I cannot say you are the labor leaders I know bast, but 
you are the most important labor leader I have ever seen, and I didn't 
have a chance to see you until you were on the "Face the Nation" 
program Sunday. 

Mr. Reuther. How do you think I did on that program ? 

Senator Mundt. I think you did pretty well in questioning by Sen- 
ators, let me point out. I would like to have your considered reaction 
to that statement. 

Mr. Reuther. I personally think, and again, I am not committing 
the American labor movement — I am talking as Walter Reuther — I 
personally think in the whole area of trying to maximize participa- 
tion in all basic decisions, that anything that can help do that thing 
ought to be given very careful consideration. 

I think that sincerely. 

Senator Mundt. I appreciate that. You do not condemn it out of 
hand, then, and say it is something that is moving in the wrong 
direction. 

Mr. Reuther. Absolutely not. 

Senator Mundt. The next question is simply on information. You 
said several times today in your statement that the Kohler Co. had 
been found to be in violation of the law. I may be wrong, but if I am 
wrong, you correct me, but as I understood it, up until your testimony, 
the company had never been found to be in violation of the law, but a 
trial examiner had made a report to the NLRB that they were in 
violation of the law, and that the NLRB had not yet adjudicated it. 

If I am wrong, correct me, and tell me when the NLRB did act. 
1 will accept that fact for the record. 

Mr. Reuther. The trial examiner, representing the United States 
Government, the specific agency the National Labor Relation Board, 
after this very exhaustive set of hearings, 20,000 pages of sworn testi- 
mony, did find the company in violation of the law, and did say this, 
they were not bargaining in good faith, that they were bargaining not 
to reach an agreement but to avoid an agreement, 

It is true that if a lower court found some one guilty, you couldn't 
say they are not guilty because the Supreme Court hasn't ruled on it 

yet. 

The point is that at the level at which the hearing was held, the trial 
examiner who was to make the finding for the Board, did find the com- 
pany guilty. 

Supposing when the mass-picketing decision were made, that we said, 
"Well, we will go the whole way and we are not going to quit now." 

The point is that this step of the Labor Board procedure, where the 
trial examiner gets into all the minute details, did find the company 
guilty. 

Senator Mundt. I think, Mr. Reuther, that your testimony this 
afternoon indicates that on the picket line you did go the full way, 
that you did carry it up to courts, and then you said when the courts 
finally ruled, you complied with the law; that is the law when the 
courts have ruled. My point is, and I may be speaking from an abun- 
dance of ignorance, but my point is that a trial examiner, one man, 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 10035 

makes a recommendation to an NRLB board, and that the Board then 
makes a decision. 

After that, at that point, I would say, you can correctly state that 
the company is in violation of the law if the NLRB so holds. Then 
they could go to court if they want to. But at that point, a decision 
has been made. I just wondered if you didn't misspeak yourself earlier 
when you kept saying- the company is in violation of the law. 

Mr. Reuther. We said that the trial examiner found them to be in 
violation of the law. We never said that the Board did. 

Senator Mundt. That isn't what you said, but that is perhaps what 
you meant to say. 

Mr. Reuther. I quoted the trial examiner's reports. 

Senator Mundt. But repeatedly in your statements today, you said 
the company is in violation of the law. 

Mr. Reuther. As found by the trial examiner. 

Senator Mundt (reading) : 

Labor, when we were in violation of the law, and found out we were, we com- 
plied with the law. The company, when they found out they were in violation of 
the law, they did not comply. 

I think there is a difference. I think you should admit it. In one 
case there was an adjudication and in the other case there was a recom- 
mendation by the trial examiner. 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Mundt, that is not true. In our case, we 
appealed the decision of the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, 
but while we appealed it, we complied. 

The Kohler Co. is in defiance of the trial examiner's findings while 
they are appealing it. The difference is we complied and appealed. 
They are not complying. 

Senator Mundt. That doesn't get to the difference, as I understand 
it, and you straighten me out if 1 am wrong. But in the strike situa- 
tion, you had finally gone to court, in a Wisconsin court. In a situa- 
tion involving the trail examiner's report, if I am correct, no deter- 
mination of any kind has been made by the Board. They may well 
find that the trial examiner was correct, or they may change that de- 
termination. So I think there is a difference, and we should have it 
incorporated in the record, unless I am wrong. 

Mr. Reuther. Well, you know, I was born on a farm, and I under- 
stand you were, and I think this, therefore, gives us a right not to 
know about complicated things. 

Senator Mundt. That is right; just a couple of farmers. 

Mr. Reuther. That is right. And we have to make allowances for 
ourselves. 

Senator Mundt. Right. 

Mr. Reuther. I think this is the essential difference, Senator 
Mundt, that a trail examiner's findings are final unless appealed. So 
they do have more status than perhaps you think they do. They are 
final and binding unless appealed. Now, the company appealed them, 
as they had a right to, but they are in defiance of his findings while 
they are appealing. 

In the case of the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, they 
made a finding, and we had a right to appeal to the courts. We did. 
But we complied while we were appealing. I think there is a differ- 
ence there. 



10036 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mi not. Perhaps there is. Just to clarify it, let me say, 
then that if that is correct, that the company is operating in defiance 
of the law, because the examiner has made that finding, is that an 
enforceable violation? Why not bring the company into court and 
prosecute them for breaking the law 'I 

Mr. Reuther. Ultimately, when the Board disposes of it, that 
would be the next step. 

Senator Mundt. I am saying, if this is the law, why not do it now ? 

Mr. Reuther. You cannot jump from the trail examiner's report 
to the courts. You can only go to the courts from the ruling of the 
Board. But as far as the principle is concerned, as a procedural mat- 
ter, the facts are that they appealed, but they are in defiance while 
they appeal. 

We appealed, but we were in compliance while we appealed. You 
can't change that basic fact. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, that concludes the general ques- 
tioning that I have. I have some questions I want to ask Mr. Reuther 
on the following subjects, each of which will take, I suppose, a half 
hour. One involves the infiltration of communism in the union move- 
ment. One involves the subject of violence, whether there is a pattern 
of violence in UAW activities or not. 

I want to ask him some questions in that connection. I have some 
questions involving the subject of democratic unions. Each of these 
will take a half hour, or maybe a little longer. It depends upon the 
length of the answer a little bit, but it wlil be roughly a half hour. 
I would suggest that it being after 5 o'clock, we recess and resume 
in the morning. 

I hate to start a subject and not give either Mr. Reuther a chance to 
give his final answer or me a chance to complete the interrogatory. 

Mr. Reuther. I am very agreeable either way. I respect the Chair's 
decision. 

The Chairman. The Chair had indicated to the members of the 
committee that he would recess at 5 : 20. If there is any member of 
the committee who has any question he would like to ask this afternoon 
that he can ask and not necessarily desires to defer until tomorrow, 
we can be patient another few moments and proceed. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Kennedy. 

Senator Kennedy. Mr. Reuther, there are two areas where it 
seems to me that the union was vulnerable which have been discussed. 
One was on a question of lack of control over Vincent, and Vincent's 
testimony indicated that control was quite inadequate. You have 
stated that it was the intention of the UAW in future circumstances 
to exert closer control and not permit a local to assign men from one 
local to another without having some central clearance. 

The other was on mass pickets, and that even though tempers 
flared, the right of those workers who wish to go to a factory can go 
to work in spite of the opinion of the other workers, and that that 
right should be maintained. As I understand from your testimony, 
you feel that that is a right, and that that is the proper position. 

Mr. Reuther. That is correct. 

Senator Kennedy. It seems to me, in looking at this case, which has 
gone on for so long with so much bitterness, one of the problems has 
been the failure or the inability of the National Labor Relations 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10037 

Board to take quicker action ; that the trial examiner found, certainly, 
the failure to bargain collectively very clearly. This matter has 
been hanging fire since 1953 or 1954. It seems to me that there must 
be some better way of handling this problem so that a quicker decision 
can be reached instead of permitting a struggle like this to stretch 
out to 2 or 3 or 4 years. 

I know you took 20,000 pages of testimony and 10,000 pages of ex- 
hibits, but have you any suggestions or thoughts as to how on this 
matter, so that whether you are wrong or the company is wrong, it 
would be possible to get a quicker action and remedial action ? 

Mr. Reuther. I would think, Senator Kennedy, aside from the 
merits in a given controversy, whether a company or a union is wrong, 
or whether they are both equally wrong, I think we need to review the 
existing legislation with respect to trying to accelerate, and try to make 
it possible to come to decisions. 

In my prepared statement, I have some suggestions in that field. 

It seems to me that we need to try to find a way to be able to get 
earlier decisions, hoping that those earlier decisions will have some 
impact upon the parties at the bargaining table so that they can try, 
then, to resolve their differences in the light of a decision of the agency 
responsible for handling these problems. But here we are. 

We don't know when the Labor Board is coming up with this de- 
cision. We don't know. We know it is before them now. We are a 
little bit disturbed on the whole broad question of due process, of hav- 
ing this stuff kicked around here and the whole thing stirred up while 
this matter is before an agency of the Government for adjudication. 

But if we get a decision in the next 3 or 4 months and the company 
appeals it to the courts, first the circuit court and then the Supreme 
Court, this could take 7 years. But it is quite obvious that you couldn't 
stand in any forum in the world defending labor legislation in America 
and answer successfully a question by a worker, whether it be in India 
or in the Scandinavian countries, if he said to you, "Does it take 7 
years to get a decision on a labor-management dispute?" 

And if you said "Yes," he would say, "Your laws need some chang- 

in £'". 

This is an area we have to check into on how to get speedier action 

with respect to these problems. 

Senator Kennedy. It seems to me that this is tremendously im- 
portant not only in this hearing but also in the question of what legis- 
lation should come out of it, particularly in this case where strikers 
are out and they are replaced by other workers. 

A statement was made yesterday by Mr. Kohler that the UAW 
was no longer the bargaining agent, in his opinion, that new workers 
had come in since the strike began, replacing the strikers, and that 
therefore the UAW was no longer the bargaining agent of the workers 
who were there now. 

If you have a situation where the National Labor Relations Board 
is not able to move in with a decision to make a judgment as to who 
is the bargaining agent and where the bargaining is being carried on 
in good faith, it seems to me that that inability or that failure has 
contributed a good deal to many of the difficulties we have seen in the 
last 5 weeks before this committee in regard to the Kohler matter. 

21243— 58— pt. 25 9 



10038 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I was not encouraged by Mr. Kohler's testimony. Mr. Kohler did 
not seem to be in control of the bargaining relations of his company 
yesterday. Mr. Conger seemed to be in complete control, with com- 
plete unwillingness to recognize the position of the union. It indi- 
cates to me that we can predict this strike will go on for a good long 
time, and I see no end to it short of the National Labor Relations 
Board and the courts' moving in and making a determination as to 
who is the bargaining agent and then requiring the company and the 
union to then bargain in good faith. But I would think that this is a 
matter that should concern the legislative committees as to what can 
be done to speed up these procedures so we Avill not have a repetition 
of this strike. 

Mr. Reuther. I would agree with you, Senator Kennedy. I think 
some way to expedite a disposition of matters before the National 
Labor Relations Board would be a valuable consideration, and I think 
the delay in this case on the part of that agency is a contributing 
factor towards the difficulties we have been experiencing. 

Senator Kennedy. Thank you. 

(At this point, Senator Ives withdrew from the hearing room.) 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I didn't have any questions at this 
time, but earlier this week I read into the record and delivered a copy 
of a request for some information for Mr. Reuther to present at the 
beginning of his testimony. I wonder if we might have it now? 

The Chairman. The Chair does not recall in detail what the re- 
quest was. I assume that Mr. Reuther is familiar with it and you can 
advise the committee whether you have responded to the request. 

Senator Curtis. I was not asking that it be read into the record. 
I just want to see it. 

Mr. Reuther. Mr. Chairman, I might say that to the best of our 
ability we tried to comply. I have the listing here of all of our inter- 
national representatives, their names and their mailing address. I 
have a copy also of our international credential which is the creden- 
tial each staff member has. I have a copy of the employment card we 
have. I also have a copy of those sections of the constitution which 
I would like to read that bear upon the designation of international 
representative. I would like to put this in the record. What you do 
about this I — it is really a lengthy document. 

The Chairman. As I understand, Senator Curtis wanted to see 
them. 

Senator Curtis. I wanted to look at them. Maybe I won't put 
anything in the record. 

The Chairman. They may all be submitted for inspection simply at 
this time and later we will determine what part if any should go 
into the record or be made permanent exhibits for reference. 

The documents are being delivered at this time. If there is nothing 
further this afternoon, the Chair before recessing is very pleased to 
advise that we have succeeded in procuring this room, the caucus 
room, for the hearings tomorrow. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if Mr. Reuther has 
complied with the entire request. 

Mr. Reuther. I told you, Senator Curtis, that it was impossible. 
First of all, we only had roughly 24 hours. I was in GM negotiations 
when I got this message. This is all the information we are able to 
give you. This is a complete listing of all the international repre- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10039 

sentatives, the constitution provisions under which they are desig- 
nated, and the qualifications they must have constitutionally to be 
appointed, and the credentials and so forth. That is all the informa- 
tion we can give you. 

Senator Curtis. I asked for five things and I got one and a half. 
Mr. Chairman, I ask consent that my request be reprinted in the 
transcript now and then you will know what it is. 

The Chairman. Without objection, the request of the Senator will 
be printed in the record at this point. 

(The document referred to follows :) 

Pursuant to our study of violence used as an organizing or bargaining tech- 
nique 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 commissioned, 
appointed, or designated by the UAW-CIO, together with a copy of the com- 
mission 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 representative 
has been designated to serve in a labor dispute, either directly participating 
in the dispute or serving in an advisory or consultative capacity for any period 
of time whatsoever. 

4. All information which the UAW-CIO has concerning the arrest of any in- 
ternational 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. The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock 
tomorrow morning. 

(Whereupon, at 5 : 13 p. m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene 
at 10 a. m., Friday, March 28, 1958, with the following members 
present: Senators Curtis, Ervin, McClellan, Kennedy, Mundt, and 
Goldwater.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



FRIDAY, MARCH 28, 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, Senator Office 
Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select com- 
mittee) presiding. 

Present : Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator 
Irving Ives, Republican, New York ; Senator John F. Kennedy, Demo- 
crat, Massachusetts; Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South 
Dakota ; Senator Carl T. Curtis, Republican, Nebraska ; Senator Sam 
J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat, North Carolina; Senator Pat McNamara, 
Democrat, Michigan ; Senator Barry Goldwater, Republican, Arizona. 

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 be in order. 

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

The Chairman. We will proceed. 

Mr. Reuther will resume the witness stand, and Senator Goldwater, 
do you have some questions ? 

TESTIMONY OF WAITER P. REUTHER, ACCOMPANIED BY JOSEPH 
L. RAUH, JR., COUNSEL— Resumed 

Senator Goldwater. I happen to have a few here, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Reuther, this does not apply to the subject of the investigation, 
but inasmuch as you haven't had a chance on it and there is some re- 
lationship to it inasmuch as the committee is responsible for it, I want 
to ask you a question before we get into the general questioning rela- 
tive to the strike. 

This committee has recently in the last week released a report, and 
some recommendations based on its first year of hearings. Mr. Meany, 
George Meany, in the official text of his comment said, and I quote : 

Today's report of the Senate Select Committee on Improper Activity in the 
Labor-Management Field, not joined in by Senator McNamara, is a disgraceful 
example of the use of sensationalism in an attempt to smear the trade-union 
movement. 

10041 



10042 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Later on in the report he said, and I quote : 

In sum, we find the committee's report little more than a publicity seeking 
document. A field as important as this deserves a mature, sober analysis of the 
situation, not a press agent's release. 

Do you concur in Mr. Meany's appraisal of our report? 

Mr. Eeuther. Senator Goldwater, in general I concur. I think 
that if the committee's report had been written more carefully and 
perhaps if the headlines had been smaller, less sensational, I think 
they would have had a greater impact in terms of dealing with the 
problem. 

I am concerned here with what we can do inside of the American 
labor movement to try to put our house in order. We don't deny the 
fact that we have got some problems. I think we need to find a way 
to meet this problem other than just expelling big unions, and leaving 
the rank and file to the further victimization of people who have no 
scruples and who have betrayed their trust. 

I think that Mr. Meany's statement reflected his deep concern that 
we were getting more headlines and that those headlines were weaken- 
ing the ability of the American labor movement to deal with this 
problem effectively. I think that really this is a matter that requires 
very sober consideration. 

I think all of us have a tremendous responsibility and I think that 
everyone who is generally motivated by a sincere desire to contribute 
to helping the American labor movement clean its house, from within 
and from without, ought to be concerned by how best that job can be 
done. 

I think Mr. Meany's reaction was that the headlines were so gen- 
eralized that they tend to overemphasize certain sensational aspects of 
the problem to the jeopardy of the more positive, constructive, and 
sober job that needs to be clone. 

I think that is essential. 

The Chairman. Does the Senator yield ? 

Senator Ives. I want to ask Mr. Eeuther this, Mr. Chairman: I 
take it you read what came out in the press at least of the report ? 

Mr. Eeuther. I did not read your full report because I haven't 
had an opportunity. 

Senator Ives. I don't mean the full report but you probably read 
what was reported in the press. 

Mr. Eeuther. I read the press accounts. 

Senator Ives. Which was a fairly substantial part of it and the 
essence of it. Did you see the recommendations ? 

Mr. Eeuther. I saw them as reported in the press. 

Senator Ives. I think they were accurate, as reported in the press. 
What do you think of them ? 

Mr. Eeuther. Well, Senator Ives, both as an officer of the labor 
movement and as a human being, I have been thinking about this, 
because I think the Becks, and the Hoffas, and the people like that 
who have betrayed their trust to the American labor movement are 
unworthy of being in leadership of the American labor movement. 

I think unions, where they have administrators for 16 and 20 years, 
where the rank and file are denied any democratic privileges, I think 
that all of these kinds of abuses can have no place in a free democratic 
trade union movement. 



IMPROPER AOraVITOElS IN THE LABOR FIELD 10043 

I think they need to be removed. The question here is how best can 
we do that job ? 

I am in favor of creative labor legislation. I am opposed to repres- 
sive legislation. 

Senator Ives. I don't think there is anything repressive about those 
at all. 

Mr. Reuther. I am not saying there is. I am saying it is my at- 
titude. I think that the American labor movement has to give this 
matter very careful consideration, and I think every effort should 
be made to encourage and to facilitate self -regulation, to encourage 
the democratic processes. 

Democracy is strong only if it operates. Democracy is not some- 
thing that you can impose upon and organize. 

Senator Ives. May I interrupt you there? 

That was originally my own philosophy, and that is the way in 
which I operated for a great many years, with that philosophy, and 
suddenly I discovered that the racketeers were getting in, because 
too much freedom was left to the labor movement. 

After all is said and done, the voluntary approach is the right 
approach, and you and I believe in it. But it is the fundamental 
approach. It is the approach that makes people happiest because they 
do things the way they want to do them. 

But on the other hand if you leave too much there, to their own 
discretion, that gives the opportunity for these racketeers and 
gangsters and criminals to get into it. That has brought me around. 
I think the thing that interested me was Victor Riesel's blinding, and 
it brought me right face to face with reality. 

I had not realized conditions were as bad as they were. I think 
we have got to go a little bit further than what we have in the way of 
legislation and I think you do, too. 

Mr. Reuther. I agree with you fully. I don't think that freedom 
should be a license. 

Senator Ives. That is right. 

Mr. Reuther. I think freedom is both an obligation and a privilege, 
and I think when people abuse it, to try to use it as a license, then 
we have got to protect the broader freedom of all of the people 
against such abuse. The question arises, how do we do it ? 

I think we all are motivated essentially by the same objectives 
and the same basic desires. The question is the mechanics, how do we 
go about doing it ? 

I happen to believe that the labor movement has to do more within 
its own structure. I think that we have got to be big enough to recog- 
nize our own shortcomings. I think we need to be able to rise above 
some slogans that we have, very comfortable and convenient slogans 
behind which we hide when somebody said we were doing things 
wrong. 

We are all human beings, and none of us are infallible, and the 
labor movement is made up of those kind of people. I think, over- 
whelmingly, the leadership of the American labor movement is com- 
posed of honest, decent, dedicated people, who have served their mem- 
berships well, and I think with great personal sacrifice. 

I could have made a whole lot more money in private industry, and 
I was making more money in the shop than I ever got. Why did I go 
into the labor movement ? 



10044 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

It is because I believe that this was an opportunity to serve my 
fellow man. and to make a contribution in an area I was interested in. 

I think this is the philosophy of the overwhelming majority. But 
it is the small minority. How do we meet that problem i 

I favor the kind of approach that would say, that you ought to 
encourage self-regulation and if the unions will meet these standards, 
and they will protect these basic values that we believe in, then the 
Government doesn't intervene, but when you are outside of the area 
in which self-regulation meets the problem, then perhaps the Govern- 
ment will have to move in to fill the vacuum created by the failure of 
those who want to abuse their power. 

Senator Ives. Such legislation as that would be very hard to write. 
You know that as well as I do. 

Mr. Reuther. Well, making freedom 

Senator Ives. That pretty near puts labor organizations into a 
strait jacket, what you are talking about — they have to do this or else. 
That is about what it amounts to. 

I am -not too much inclined to favor that kind of an approach. I 
think the approach that we have taken in our committee is much 
better. 

Mr. Reuther. Well, my proposal, Senator Ives, I do not think 
would put the labor movement in a strait jacket. 

Senator Ives. It could very easily. 

Mr. Reuther. I would try to safeguard against that by appropriate 
legislation. My principal feeling is that we need to encourage self- 
regulation. 

This is, I think, what has to be done, and I think that this will 
meet 99 percent of the problem. 

Then we would have to find out how to deal with the 1 percent that 
is outside of this kind of a setup, and what I think we need to avoid 
is legislating for the 99 percent in terms of the problem created by 
the 1 percent. 

Senator Ives. But all of our legislation, please bear this in mind, 
all of the time, we are legislating for the minority. 

We pass legislation here, there, and other places, and it is always a 
minority that it is for. It is never the overwhelming group, except in 
rare instances. So it is here. 

We have got to help you protect yourselves, because it is very evident 
that you cannot protect yourselves under the laws as they are. 

Mr. Reuther. You can but it is difficult. 

Senator Ives. You haven't done it. 

Mr. Reuther. There is no racketeering in our union. 

Senator Ives. You haven't done it, that is the point. 

Mr. Reuther. In our union, we have. 

Senator Ives. I am not talking about your union, you are an excep- 
tion. I am talking about the labor movement as a whole, and while I 
am on this subject, I want to pay tribute to the great majority of labor 
leaders. 

All of them are honest to goodness God-fearing men, and I know 
most of them, the important ones, and I know that to be true, and I 
want to say at the same time there is no point in scuttling the ship in 
order to kill a few rats. 



IMPROPER AOTirVITIElS IN THE LABOR FIELD 10045 

But on the other hand, you have got to protect the labor movement 
as a whole against its own weaknesses, and that is what we are trying 
to do with these recommendations. 

Mr. Reuther. I cannot disagree with that general statement. I 
think it is a question of how we can draw the line of demarcation be- 
tween what constitutes corrective legislation, and what constitutes 
repressive legislation. That is the line I think we have to learn to draw. 

Senator Kennedy. I want to pursue that point. 

Senator Goldwater. I am happy to yield to my friend from Massa- 
chusetts. 

Senator Kennedy. I think it would be unfair to ask you, Mr. 
Reuther, at this point to do any more than state a general position on 
legislation, and I am hopeful that you will testify before our subcom- 
mittee, both on bills which may be before it and possible alternatives. 

The problem is to develop the generalization of corrective legislation 
which would be helpful to deal with particularly those areas where 
the AFL-CIO ethical codes do not reach, those unions which may have 
been expelled from the AFL-CIO who don't meet the ethical standard 
which the AFL-CIO is requiring of its members. 

The problem is, of course, how we are going to do that without affect- 
ing adversely the interests of the 90 percent that Senator Ives men- 
tioned. It is an extremely difficult problem. 

I am hopeful that the labor movement, or at least its spokesman, 
will not confine themselves to saying what is wrong with the proposals 
put forward without at least suggesting areas where there might be 
possible improvements. 

I think if we confine ourselves merely to saying what is wrong, when 
anything is put up, and at the same time saying "Yes, we need cor- 
rective legislation," we don't really get very far. 

I know that you are a man of great influence in the labor movement, 
and I am hopeful when you come before our committee that you will 
have a chance to look it over, and suggest not only where we are wrong, 
but where we could be right, or where we could go. 

Mr. Reuther. I agree. Obviously we have got to ultimately get 
out of the realm of just noble generalizations and we have got to say 
what we stand for, and we have to be able, I think, to defend that 
based upon the dimensions of the problem we are dealing with, and 
the realities that surround us. I mean I share that point of view com- 
pletely. 

Senator Kennedy. Thank you. 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators 
McClellan, Ives, Ervin, Kennedy, Curtis and Goldwater.) 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, Mr. Reuther, getting back to the general 
subject of yesterday, mass picketing, Emil Mazey was before this 
committee and he admitted that Kohler employees who wanted to go 
to work were kept out by a mass picket line, before the Wisconsin 
Employment Relations Board ordered them to cease and desist. 

My question on that is : Do you approve of preventing men from 
going to work by a mass picket line ? 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Goldwater, as I said yesterday I do not. 

Senator Goldwater. If a man chooses not to join your union, is he 
obligated to go on strike and stop work when your union calls a strike? 



10046 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Reuther. This is a matter of individual conscience. I think 
personally, where a majority of workers have made a Democratic de- 
cision, and they have agreed to act together in order to improve the 
working conditions and the wages that will apply to all of the em- 
ployees, I believe that a worker has a procedural obligation to support 
that joint effort of his fellowmen, but he has a legal right to go to work 
if lie chooses to. 

Senator Goldwater. That is right. Now, if a union calls a strike, 
is an employer obligated to close his plant ? 

Mr. Reuther. No. Not legally. I think an enlightened employer, 
where he has recognized the union and the spirit of the law, which 
requires him to bargain in good faith, would not attempt to break 
the strike. He will attempt to settle the strike. The Kohler Co., un- 
fortunately, has never accepted the letter or the spirit of the law. 
That is why they have been found guilty by the trial examiner of the 
National Labor Relations Board. 

Senator Goldwater. Is it your belief that if an employer tries to 
operate his plant during a strike, that you have a right to shut it 
down by mass picketing ? 

Mr. Reuther. I said yesterday, Senator Goldwater, that if a worker 
has a right to join with his fellow man in choosing not to work, another 
worker has a right, a legal right, to choose to work. Obviously, the 
only way he could ever exercise that right were if the plant were open 
so that he could work. 

Senator Goldwater. If the union did attempt to shut it down by 
mass picketing, who would be responsible, in your opinion, for any 
violence that might occur ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, it would depend on what circumstances. 

Senator Goldwater. Pardon ? 

Mr. Reuther. I say it would depend on what kind of violence was 
involved and what the circumstances were. When Mr. Herbert 
Kohler, as was testified here by the sheriff, when he came out with a 
club in his hands and said "I am the law here," if something had 
happened there, I would have thought maybe Mr. Kohler had pro- 
voked it. It depends on what the circumstances are. If you will give 
me a specific situation, and who hit who, and under what circum- 
stances, I can give you a more specific answer. 

But you can't ask me in a hypothetical, abstract, undefined situation 
who was responsible. 

Senator Goldwater. In the case of the mass picketing that occurred 
in front of the Kohler plant, who was responsible for that? 

Mr. Reuther. Do you mean who was responsible for the fact that 
there were a lot of Kohler strikers in front of the plant ? 

Senator Goldwater. Mass picketing. 

Mr. Reuther. The local union strike committee, which was set up 
by the Kohler workers in accordance with the democratic structure of 
our union, they made a decision asking all the Kohler strikers to take 
their place on the picket line for the reasons that they felt they would 
be more secure because of the shootings and killings that took place 
in the 19-34 strike, and secondly because Mr. Conger at the bargaining 
table said the union did not represent the workers, and they figured 
that if they walked the picket line together, that would prove to the 
company that the union did represent them. This is how they got 
there. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 10047 

Senator Goldwater. You would say in this particular instance, you 
asked for a specific, that the local union was responsible for the mass 
picketing ? 

Mr. Reuther. They were responsible for the fact that there were 
a large number of Kohler strikers on the picket line at the same time, 
that is correct. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Mazey has testified, and I read from his 
testimony : 

The people who have returned to work are traitors to our cause. They have 
joined the ranks of the enemy and they ought to be treated as such — 

and also referring to nonstrikers, again I quote : 

They have joined the ranks of the enemy and they ought to be treated as such. 
During the war, when they joined the enemy, they are shot, when convicted. 

Mr. Reuther, do you agree with Mr. Mazey's statements in that 
instance ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, I would choose my words much more carefully 
than Mr. Mazey did. I think that his words are very descriptive, but 
I would think that they were not chosen too carefully. 

But, you know, when you have a democratic union, I don't write Mr. 
Mazey's speeches and he doesn't write mine- 
Senator Goldwater. Then you would disagree with him? 

Mr. Reuther. I would not have used that language. 

Senator Goldwater. Would you disagree with Mr. Mazey's 
statement ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, I certainly think that if the law of the land 
permits a worker to choose not to go to work, and permits another 
worker to go to work, that while he was in violation of a basic moral 
obligation to his fellow man, I wouldn't — I think that he was wrong 
morally, but I wouldn't call him a traitor, because that implies some- 
thing with respect to the loyalty of one's association with his country. 

I would not have used that word. 

Senator Goldwater. But you disagree, then, with Mr. Mazey's 
statement ? 

Mr. Reuther. I think I have said that I wouldn't have chosen his 
language. 

Senator Goldwater. I just want to find out whether you agree or 
disagree with your vice president. 

Mr. Reuther. If you don't know my position after telling you these 
things, I will have to draw you pictures. 

Senator Goldwater. I know it is very easy 

Mr. Reuther. The point is I would not have used this language, 
and, obviously, if I wouldn't have used it, I wouldn't agree with the 
words that he used. 

Senator Goldwater. It is so easy to answer, if you eliminate the 
words in between. How about a man who has never seen fit to join 
your union. If your union called a strike and he wants to work, would 
you consider him a traitor ? 

Mr. Reuther. I would consider him of having defaulted in his 
basic moral obligation to his fellow man. I would not consider him 
a traitor. 

Senator Goldwater. Would you consider him an enemy ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, I think that in a given strike situation, he cer- 
tainly is not being very friendly or very cooperative or very helpful. 



10048 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

He certainly is not helping the cause of the majority of the workers 
who decided to try to improve their working conditions and their 
wages and so forth through strike action. In that case, he certainly 
is in opposition. He certainly is hurting the strike. He certainly is 
an enemy of the strike. He is in opposition to it. But here again, 
you see, the word enemy and the word traitor have connotations be- 
yond the area in which we are discussing them, and, therefore, I would 
not have chosen that word. I would have found a way to describe this 
fellow. I think he is not the kind of person who helped build America. 
I think he is not the kind of a person who helped make social progress 
in America, to make America strong. But I would find another way 
to describe him. 

Senator Goldwater. Doesn't that man have as much right to go to 
work as you have to strike ? 

Mr. Reuther. I have just said that he has. 

Senator Goldwater. Doesn't he have a right to protect his job ? 

Mr. Reuther. He has a legal right to go to work even though his 
fellow men in the majority vote feel he ought to join their ranks. 
He has that same legal right to go to work that they have not to go 
to work. 

In other words, he has a right to sell his labor power and they have 
a right to withhold their labor power. That is all a strike is. You 
just agree together, collectively, by a majority vote, to withhold your 
labor power for the period of the strike. We make strike sound so 
terribly bad. It is just a simple matter of saying the only thing a 
worker has to sell is his labor power, his sweat, energy and his skill, 
and he says "I wouldn't sell it for the price you are willing to give 
me or the conditions under which you ask me to provide it, and I want 
to withhold it." 

When a company withholds a product from a market, that is a 
perfectly fine thing. That is advancing the whole American system. 
But when a worker does it, it takes on a kind of sinister tone. There 
is nothing sinister about it. The law says workers have a right to do 
this. 

(At this point, Senator Kennedy withdrew from the hearing room.) 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Reuther, there is evidence that in a speech 
on May 9, 1954, Robert Burkhart referred to the nonstrikers as germs. 
You will find that on page 783. Don't you think that in an intense 
stike situation, to have high-placed officials of your union like Mr. 
Mazey and Mr. Burkhart referring to nonstrikers as traitors, enemies, 
and germs, might be likely to incite the strikers to violence against 
the nonstikers ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, I think that here again, Senator Goldwater, 
I suppose if I am going to have to write speeches — I don't even have 
time to write my own speeches. That is why I never have a written 
speech. If I am going to have to write speeches for everybody in 
our union who makes a speech, I am going to have to work longer 
hours than I currently work. 

The point is that in situations many times people say things, and 
when they are taken down and they appear in black and white, in 
print, and they read them in a completely different context, thev say 
"My God, did I say that?" 

And this is not only true of union people. It is true of manage- 
ment people, and I would like to respectfully say it is true of Republi- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES* IN THE LABOR FEELD 10049 

cans and Senators, It is true of all of us. I can get you things that 
you said that you would like to somehow expunge from the record, 
and maybe you could do the same thing with me. 

This is why — we are all human and we are all frail, and we all 
ma Ice mistakes. I wouldn't use the word germ because I think there 
is a better way to define these fellows. I think germ kind of throws 
you off the track. 

Senator Goldwater. One of the reasons that I wanted to read these 
statements to you is I know you haven't had a chance to read the 
record, and you weren't here during the hearings, so you might have 
a better insight into some of the other problems of your union that 
you might not have suspected before you came here. 

Continuing on Mr. Burkhart, in a, radio speech that just preceded 
the strike, he said: 

If the Kohler Co. attempts to operate the plant during the strike, it will only 
be provoking trouble. As the company said in its latest publication, it is 
perfectly legal for a man to become a strikebreaker, but no decent person 
wants to be one. It is also perfectly legal for a person to step off a curbstone 
into speeding traffic, but no sensible person would do that. 

Can that statement in your mind be considered anything but 
provocative ? 

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

Mr. Reuther. I believe that when a company deliberately and will- 
fully embarks upon a labor policy designed to break a strike and 
destroy a union, that it must assume the prime, moral responsibility 
for anything that happens. There is not one enlightened modern 
management group in America who, where a responsible union takes 
a strike vote democratically, even though management may question 
their judgment^ when they go on strike — management may feel that 
they are wrong in what they are doing, but if they democratically 
choose to go on strike, there is not one responsible management in 
any industry that attempts to break that strike. 

We had a strike in General Motors for 113 days. The company 
never made any effort. They told us they would not attempt to op- 
erate until the strike was over. We had a strike in Chrysler in 1950 
where we didn't have a single picket at a single plant in the whole 
of Detroit. 

Why? 

Because everybody knew the company wasn't going to try to break 
the strike. It was an economic contest. We wanted so much for our 
labor power, and the company was only willing to pay us so much. 
So we had a reasonable, sensible argument about this. But they didn't 
try to destroy us and we didn't try to destroy them. But the Kohler 
Co. gets in trouble because they want to destroy the union. 

This is always what provokes the trouble. I say the party that 
makes the prime decision to destroy the other party acts outside the 
letter and the spirit of the law which requires good-faith bargaining, 
and, therefore, is morally responsible for the difficulties that ensue. 

I don't think you can run away from that. This is why, Senator 
Goldwater, you can sit down in England or the Scandinavian coun- 
tries as I did last summer, and talk to industry people. I was asked 
to address, last fall, a group that was like the NAM in America. 
They said to me "How can you explain the Kohler strike?" 



10050 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

They can't understand it. They don't have the kind of trouble we 
have, because management there wouldn't think of trying to break a 
strike, like the Kohler Co. I say the responsibility is not Mr. Burk- 
hart's for making a speech that you think was inflammatory. The 
prime responsibility is the Kohler Co. because they are acting outside 
of the law. 

Senator Goldwater. All right, Mr. Reuther, let's move on now to 
the episode involving Mr. Vincent. Yesterday in commenting on 
Mr. Vincent, I believe you used language pretty much to this effect, 
that he was punished as he should have been punished. 

Mr. Reuther. That is correct. 

Senator Goldwater. Wouldn't this mean in your mind that Mr. 
Vincent received a fair trial and a just sentence? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, I don't know the details of the trial there. 
I have never read a transcript of the trial procedure, so I don't know. 
I assume that, like any other American, he got a fair trial in a court 
room established for that purpose. But I am not personally familiar 
with what took place. 

Senator Goldwater. If he was punished as he should have been 
punished, I think a reasonable person would assume that he received 
a fair trial and a just sentence. Wouldn't you? 

Mr. Reuther. I would assume that. I always assume that the 
courts are fair, because I think at the point that you begin to question 
the courts and so forth, I think we get in trouble in America. The 
lawyers tell me that they felt that in this case, based upon the circum- 
stances, that the penalty, the sentence, was a bit severe. That is what 
I am told. 

Senator Goldwater. But the trial you assume to be fair ? 

Mr. Reuther. I would assume that the trial was fair; yes. 

Senator Goldwater. Did any Kohler striker or any union member 
in any proceeding before any court, from the Kohler strike, receive an 
unfair trial, in your opinion ? 

Mr. Reuther. I wouldn't know of any. 

Senator Goldwater. You don't know of any ? 

Mr. Reuther. No. I know that — I mean, I don't know about these 
details, but I am perfectly willing to assume that people who appeared 
in a courtroom got a fair trial, and in the absence of information to 
the contrary, I accept that assumption. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, Mr. Reuther, practically all of the union 
witnesses in these hearings have testified that the overwhelming ma- 
jority of the people in the Sheboygan area are wholeheartedly in sup- 
port of the strike and sympathize with the Kohler employees. Do you 
wish to repudiate that testimony ? 

Mr. Reuther. No, I wouldn't. 

Senator Goldwater. Then it is true, is it not, that Mr. Gunaca would 
receive a perfectly fair trial if he returned to Wisconsin ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, I would think that really trying to imple- 
ment the spirit of democracy in a fair trial, that I think that a person 
would be in a better position to get a fair trial in a community that 
was not charged with the emotional tension and the bitterness and the 
strain and stress that Sheboygan has been experiencing. It would 
seem to me — I think that Mr. Gunaca ought to be back in Wisconsin 
without another day's delay, and I think that the prosecuting attorney 



improper AoravrnE& in the labor field 10051 

in the Sheboygan District ought to agree — the Governor of Wisconsin 
has agreed to try to work out another site. It seems to me they ought 
to shift this thing and get it behind us. I think it is very unfair to 
keep dragging this thing out. I personally think that no one can 
deny the fact that Sheboygan is experiencing great stress and strain, 
that emotionalism is high and tense there, and what you ought to do 
is to put this case in some other courtroom in Wisconsin and give this 
man a fair trial. 

If he is found guilty, then give him a punishment that fits his offense. 
That is what ought to be done. I think splitting hairs about can 
you get a fair trial in Sheboygan County or not is not really the 
spirit of American democracy. 

Put him where you know he can get a fair trial and then you 
wouldn't have an argument about it. There are other parts of Wis- 
consin where they have good judges, and where they can draw a jury 
from a community. 

But to try to insist that a man be tried in an atmosphere charged 
with hatred, suspicion, ill will, neighbor against neighbor, where a 
man doesn't talk to his own family except at a funeral, this is not a 
community where you can be certain to get a fair trial. 

I don't say you can't get a fair trial, but at least somebody might say 
you couldn't. Therefore, to remove even that shadow of a doubt, I 
would suggest that you go to another section of the State so that every- 
body would know you are getting a fair trial. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Reuther, you have testified that you feel 
that Mr. Vincent got a fair trial in Sheboygan. The overwhelming 
testimony of union witnesses before this committee is to the effect 
that the people of Sheboygan are in support of the strike and sympa- 
thize with the union. 

Mr. Emil Schuette, who is president of the Sheboygan County Labor 
Council, AFL-CIO, in an affidavit, mentions the overwhelming ma- 
jority of the people in the Sheboygan area are wholeheartedly in sup- 
port of the strike and the union. 

In view of this, I can't understand your reluctance to see Mr. 
Gunaca tried in a community that seems to lean in his favor rather 
than against him. 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Goldwater, we ought to understand several 
simple facts. First of all, this is not my decision. Mr. Gunaca has a 
lawyer. This is the lawyer's decision. He isn't seeking me. I have 
never met Mr. Gunaca in my life. If he walked in this room I 
wouldn't know him. He didn't come to me for legal advice. He has 
a lawyer, his lawyer thinks he shouldn't go to this city because of 
the emotional stress and tension there. I don't say he can't get a 
fair trial in Sheboygan. I don't know. But it seems to me that if 
his lawyer thinks he can't, he is entitled to follow the advice of his 
lawyer, because that is why he has him. It would seem to me that 
everybody could say that maybe in the other city he could get a fair 
trial, and that would remove any shadow of a doubt about the fair- 
ness of the trial. I think it is a disgrace that he can't be tried and 
this thing gotten behind us. But let us understand one thing clearly. 
This is not my decision. Mr. Gunaca has never asked me for my 
opinion. And if he asked me, I wouldn't know what to tell him, be- 
cause I am not competent to make a decision in this field. 

Senator Goldwater. Who is paying for his lawyers ? 



10052 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES LN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Reuther. I am not certain who is paying for his lawyers' fees. 
The international union may be paying for his lawyer fee. That is 
possible, because I think there was a general policy to pay people 
who got into difficulties as related to the strike. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you want to ask Mr. Rauh if he knows who 
is paying them ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Reuther. Mr. Rauh advises me that there was testimony to 
the effect that we are paying for it. 

Senator Goldwater. Then inasmuch as the union funds are being 
used and you are president of the union, even though I know you 
run a democratic union, and you leave these decisions pretty much up 
to your people, don't you feel, as president, some responsibility in this 
case ? 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Goldwater, it would seem to me that if you 
were paying a legal fee, and you took the position that since you are 
paying the money you can call the shots, that that is completely con- 
trary to the whole concept of due process and the legal procedures of 
our whole judicial system. 

It seems to me that when a man chooses a lawyer and he develops a 
client-lawyer relationship, and his lawyer says "You can't get a fair 
trial, in my judgment, in this town," I shouldn't say "Well, I am 
paying the bill, you are going to do it my way." 

I just don't want to have that kind of relationship with people, 
because I think it does violence to every concept of decency and 
democracy. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Reuther, in view of the answers that you 
have given, namely that you feel that Mr. Vinson received a fair 
trial, and that you feel that Mr. Gunaca should return to Wisconsin 
and stand trial, and note I have said Wisconsin, are you willing to 
publicly ask Governor Williams to extradite Mr. Gunaca to 
Wisconsin? 

Mr. Reuther. I think that first of all I have never talked to Gov- 
ernor Williams about this case, and I don't intend to. I think that if 
Governor Williams and he is competent to speak for himself, and he 
is ultimately responsible to the people of Michigan, who, in their good 
wisdom, have chosen to elect him time after time by increasing majori- 
ties, I think Governor Williams' position is very clear. 

He has said that this man's lawyer raises a reasonable doubt in that 
in the emotionally charged climate of that community, suffering the 
strains and stresses of the longest, bitterest strike in the history of 
the labor movement, there is some doubt as to whether in that emo- 
tionally charged climate he can get a fair trial. 

Governor Williams, in keeping with the high tradition of American 
democracy and fair play and due process is saying "I will sign the 
papers" — as a matter of fact, he wouldn't have to sign any papers, 
because Mr. Gunaca said he would go back voluntarily if they will 
move the trial to another section of Wisconsin. If you want Governor 
Williams to come down here and defend his position, I am sure he 
will respond. I didn't make his decision. I never talked to him. 
To my knowledge, no officer of our union ever talked to Governor 
Williams. This was done by the lawyers handling this case. 

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



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10053 

Senator Goldwater. Now, you as a citizen of Michigan and as the 
president of your union who has stated publicly that you feel Mr. 
Gunaca should stand trial, would you be willing to publicly state that 
unless he goes back to Wisconsin voluntarily you will withdraw 
financial support such as the pay for his legal advice? 

Mr. Reuther. I would be willing to say emphatically and without 
reservations or hesitation that if the request of Mr. Gunaca's attorney 
for a change in the location of the trial, if that were agreed to and if 
the trial were moved out of the stress and strains of the emotional 
climate of Sheboygan and to another area, and Mr. Gunaca then did 
not voluntarily go to Wisconsin for the purpose of being tried, we 
would terminate forthwith any further assistance with respect to his 
legal needs. 

I say that categorically, because we want Mr. Vinson to stand trial 
but we want him to get a fair trial, and we are willing to have him 
accept the evaluation of the Sheybogan situation that his attorney 
makes. 

Senator Goldwater. I think the reporter should change that name 
to "Gunaca" and not "Vinson." Mr. Vinson has already stood trial. 

Mr. Reutiier. Thank you for the correction. 

Senator Goldwater. Now, Mr. Reuther, I want to get into another 
little matter here. Because he sentenced Mr. Vinson, Mr. Mazey made 
a public attack on Judge Schlichting which I personally consider 
wholly unjustified, and he said, and I quote him : 

I further said that the conduct of Judge Schlichting in the Vinson case raised 
a serious question in my mind as to whether he is qualified to serve as a judge 
in this community and I repeat this charge. 

Now getting back again to the testimony I referred to in my last 
series of questions, namely your statement yesterday to the effect that 
you felt that Mr. Vinson had received a fair trail which you reiterated 
this morning, I take it that you disagree with Mr. Mazey in his state- 
ment on Judge Schlichting. 

Mr. Reuther. I think Mr. Mazey was influenced by the feeling that 
the sentence was severe. I think the trial was fair, but the sentence 
was severe. That was the feeling. 

I would not have used the language Mr. Mazey used, and therefore 
I disagree with the language he used. 

Senator Goldwater. Did your union ever publicly retract its criti- 
cism or Mr. Mazey's criticism of Judge Schlichting after the Wis- 
consin Supreme Court affirmed the verdict and the sentence. 

Mr. Reuther. I wonder if you would be kind enough to repeat 
that, I am sorry. 

Senator Goldwater. Did your union ever publicly retract its criti- 
cism of Judge Schlichting after the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed 
the verdict and sentence, and I didn't read it that way the first time. 
I said Mr. Mazey's criticism, so will you answer that one? 

Mr. Reuther. Not to my knowledge. Not any more than the 
President of the United States feels obligated to repudiate every 
statement made by a Republican politician when he says something 
the President doesn't agree with. 

These are the things that people do in a democratic organization. 
I may make a statement which Mr. Mazey doesn't agree with, and I 

21243— 58— pt. 25 10 



10054 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

respect his right to disagree with me just as I am sure he respects 
my right to disagree with him. 

You asked me whether I agreed with him and I say I don't. But 
I don't have to repudiate him every time he says something I disagree 
with. 

Senator Goldwater, this is the way a free country operates, and 
thank God we can have our differences, even though sometimes it 
agitates your ulcers and makes your hair turn gray. This is the way 
it ought to be. 

Senator Goldwater. Would you like to state your position about 
Judge Schlichting? 

Mr. Keuther. I don't know much about the judge, and I never 
had the pleasure of meeting him. I just work on the basis that this 
is the most wonderful country in the world, and it has its short- 
comings, and its deficiencies, but overall it happens to be the last 
hope of freedom in the world. 

I believe in the Government, and I believe in the economic system 
we have, even though there are times when it inflicts injustice upon 
people, and I believe in the courts, and therefore when the democratic 
processes elect a person to public office, I accept that in good faith, 
and I don't go around challenging people just because I may disagree 
with them on some details. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, you disagree with Mr. Mazey's criticism 
of Judge Schlichting ? 

Mr. Reuther. I said that as simple as I know how, and I said I 
disagreed with what Mr. Mazey said. 

Senator Goldwater. Thank you. Some place in that mass of 
words, I missed that. 

Now, do you agree with Mr. Mazey's action in issuing instructions 
that the union issue no more food vouchers for grocery stores in which 
the judge has a financial interest % 

Mr. Reuther. Well, it seems to me that there is a tremendous 
difference between how you spend your money and raising the ques- 
tion of people's motivations or integrity. 

In characterizing the judge, I think though there was some indis- 
cretion, Mr. Mazey was doing one thing. But when it was a question 
of where do you buy groceries for strikers with moneys contributed 
by workers, this seems to me, within our free enterprise economy, 
our business. 

If we learned that a judge whom the local boys didn't feel was 
very fair, and this was their feeling and I don't share that point of 
view, at that point I think it was within their right— you can question 
their judgment — I think that is quite important, they had a right to 
spend their money for groceries wherever they chose to spend it. 

If this judge had an interest in a chain store and he would therefore 
make a profit from their dollars, they had a right to say, "Well, we 
won't buy our groceries there, we'll buy them elsewhere in the 
community." 

I don't really think that that is of such world-shaking importance 
that it ought to take the time of men of your great importance. 

Senator Goldwater. But in the course of your answer, you didn't 
agree with Mr. Mazey's actions ? 

Mr. Reuther. On the question of where we buy groceries, I think 
Mr. Mazey was right. 



IMPROPEIR ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10055 

Senator Goldwater. But it seems to me that some place in your 
answer, you said that you didn't agree with his action in this instance. 

Mr. Keuther. I said I make quite a sharp distinction between 
where you buy groceries and questioning people's integrity in basic 
motivations. It seems to me that there is a world of difference be- 
tween those two questions. 

Senator Goldwater. Let us get into the next one. Do you think 
it is all right to exert financial pressure — I would call it a boycott, 
but I won't quibble about it — on a judge who had incurred your 
union's displeasure for passing a sentence later approved by the 
Supreme Court? 

Mr. Reuther. I would like to say that a judge who can be per- 
suaded in making decisions in a courtroom, sworn to uphold the law 
and to hand out justice — if he can be persuaded by the fact that some- 
body didn't buy groceries in a store in which he held an interest, then 
I am afraid he didn't have much moral fortitude to start with. 

I don't think that would sway a judge, and I think anyone who 
would say that would sway this particular judge has little confidence 
in his dedication to democratic values and justice as we conceive it. 

Senator Goldwater. Do you think it was all right to exert that 
kind of financial pressure ? The decision had already been made. 

Mr. Reuther. I think if the effort was to persuade the judge in his 
decisions, it would be wrong. But if it were a straight economic 
matter, then the union had a right to do it. 

This is again, you see, this very important line of demarcation. 
When you are dealing with purely economic material things, there 
is one kind of standard of what is ethical and moral and right, but 
when you are dealing with basic values of a person's motivations and 
their integrity, then you are dealing with things I think are quite 
sacred and you do not attempt to interfere in that field unless you are 
on the solidest ground possible. 

Senator Goldwater. Now the attorneys were aware as early as May 
of 1954 that the judge had an interest in those grocery stores, and that 
was long before Mr. Vinson came to trial, and it is my understanding 
that groceries were continued to be bought from those stores. 

It wasn't until after the judge had passed his decision that Mr. 
Mazey issued instructions that no more food was to be bought from 
the judge. 

Now don't you think it is apparent that attacks and financial pres- 
sure of this kind were designed to influence the decisions not only of 
that judge but any other judge in that area who might try a case 
involving a union ? 

Mr. Reuther. I do not. I do not think those were the motivations 
of the union, and if they had been, it would have been wrong, but I 
deny that those were the motivations, and if the union had tried to 
influence a judge I just don't think judges come that cheap in America. 

I have more integrity in our system of justice than believing whether 
you buy a few more groceries or a few less groceries, you can influence 
a decision of the courts. 

I have too much respect for the courts of the United States to believe 
that. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, Mr. Reuther, candidly, what other con- 
clusion can a person draw on Mr. Mazey's action, than one of attempt- 
ing to either punish or to exert influence on future decisions ? 



10056 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Reuther. Well, I suppose that one's conclusions depend upon 
how one feels about these things. If you feel as I do strongly that 
there are men of principle sitting in the courts of the United States 
and they can't be bought with a few more groceries or a few less 
groceries, then you come to the conclusion I come to, that this couldn't 
influence a judge, and the motivation behind it was not to influence 
the judge. 

It was just a decision that "We are not going to buy any more gro- 
ceries in this man's store, because we don't like the things he did." It 
wasn't to influence him. 

I think if anybody thinks he can influence a judge, elected by the 
people 

Senator Goldwater. Don't you call that economic pressure ? 

Mr. Reuther. I do not, sir. I don't think you can influence judges 
that way. Do you think you could influence a Senator if he owned a 
grocery store and you bought groceries there or didn't, do you really 
think that? 

Senator Goldwater. Don't you think that Mr. Mazey really was 
trying to punish this man because he made a decision he didn't like? 
What other conclusion can you honestly come to ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, I think Mr. Mazey was angry, and I think he 
didn't like what the judge had done, and I think in that emotional 
condition he said, "Well, by George, we don't have to give him our 
money and we'll buy our groceries some place else," and I think it is 
just, that simple. 

Senator Goldwater. He was punishing the judge ? 

Mr. Reuther. He was not buying groceries in the store in which he 
had an interest. 

Senator Goldwater. He was giving the judge a little economic diffi- 
culty ? 

Mr. Reuther. Do we have a free enterprise economy or can't you buy 
groceries in the store where you want to buy them ? 

Senator Goldwater. You can do it any place you want, but there are 
reasons for it. 

Mr. Reuther. That is all Mr. Mazey was doing, and he was exercis- 
ing his right to spend money for groceries in a store other than the one 
that the judge owned an interest in. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Mazey issued instructions that the union 
not buy any more goods there. 

Now, isn't that punishing the judge for a decision? Is that, in your 
opinion, and I know you hold the courts in high regard, a good thing 
to have happen in America, in a democratic country and a free country ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, if I thought that the motivation was to attempt 
to influence the courts, then I would speak out against it with vigor. 

Senator Goldwater. How about 

Mr. Reuther. I think this was simply a situation where emotionally 
the people were somewhat irritated and agitated, and they said, "Well, 
we don't just have to buy our groceries there any more at least." I don't 
think it was an attempt to influence the court, and I think you can go 
around and around and around on this, and you will just be exactly 
where you are right now. I don't accept that. 

Senator Goldwater. It couldn't have been an attempt to influence 
the court, because the court had already made its decision. But you 



improper AcnrvrriEis in the labor field 10057 

can't agree with the idea that we punish a judge because a judge passes 
a sentence that we don't like. You can't agree with that, can you ? 

Mr. Reutiier. No. I personally think that the economic differences 
between free labor and free management ought to be essentially re- 
solved between them. But that doesn't stop the fact that in a situa- 
tion like the Kohler strike, where the company has been behaving 
very badly and they have been violating the law and not bargaining 
in good faith, and where the workers have been pushed around, and 
shot at, and killed, and wounded in the 1934 strike, you just can't 
expect everybody up there to have to get up in the morning and have 
their wings trimmed. 

This is the kind of a situation where people are people. When they 
said, "Well, by George, we don't have to buy our groceries over 
there," this was acting like ordinary people act when they are agitated. 

You ask me, do you think I would do it, and I don't know what I 
would have done. 

Had I been there, and involved in the same emotional climate, I 
perhaps would have acted the same way. But if they sat down with 
me and said, "Look, we had better teach this judge a lesson so that 
other judges won't behave this way, let us put some pressure on him," 
I would have said "This is the surest way for me to insist that you 
not only buy the same amount of groceries there, but you had better 
increase the number, because I would not for one moment do that." 

There are things more important to me than just the labor move- 
ment. There are a few things that I consider, my own personal self- 
respect; because before you can live with the other fellow, you have 
to learn to live with yourself. 

I would never be willing, I would never be willing to compromise 
a basic principle. 

When you talk about trying to tamper with justice by economic 
pressure, that is in direct opposition to what I think is right, and I 
would never agree to that. 

But in this situation, that was not remotely in the picture. That 
I am sure of. 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators Mc- 
Clellan, Ives, Ervin, McNamara, Kennedy, Curtis, and Goldwater.) 

Senator Goldwater. You said that you felt that he was acting in 
anger, and said "Well, this judge has done this, we are going to teach 
him a lesson," in effect. 

Now you say that you don't feel it was remotely connected. Don't 
you honestly feel that Mr. Mazey was punishing, attempting to pun- 
ish, the judge % What other reason would he have to stop their buying 
groceries at his grocery store ? 

Mr. Reuther. I told you before I don't think he was trying to in 
any way. I think that this was kind of a natural reaction of people 
who were emotionally agitated. They said "Well, at least we don't 
have to buy our groceries there." I think it was just about that 
important. 

Senator Goldwater. He wasn't trying to help the judge's grocery 
store ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, I don't think he has a responsibility to help 
the grocery store. That is not Mr. Mazey's responsibility. The judge 
doesn't expect him to, and I am sure he doesn't. 



10058 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. Does he have a responsibility to try to punish 
the judge through economic pressure? 

Mr. Reuther. I said before that any effort to influence the court 
would be wrong, and that there is not the remotest relationship between 
what happened there and trying to influence the court, not the remotest. 

Senator Goldwater. You are convinced that Mr. Mazey didn't try 
to punish the judge ? 

Mr. Reuther. I think Mr. Mazey just said "Look, we don't like what 
this fellow did. I don't think we will buy our groceries there." 

I think it is that simple. I think you are making three mountains 
out of a very small molehill. 

Senator Goldwater. You are saying what I am saying, that there 
was punishment, but you are saying it in a different way. 

Mr. Reuther. You say it your way and I will say it my way. That 
is fair enough. 

Senator Goldwater. I think it is an important part of this whole 
hearing, in this, should we countenance economic pressure on the 
judiciary in order to influence decisions or to punish them for de- 
cisions. I don't think you agree with that. 

In fact, you said you don't agree with that action. 

Mr. Reuther. I say emphatically that this union will never be 
guilty of that as long as I have anything to do with it, and if that 
became the policy of this union, by decision beyond my control, I 
would resign, because I will not be a part of a labor movement that is 
corrupt, that has racketeering or Communists, or that attempts to 
use economic muscle to influence the laws and the courts of this land. 

I would not be a party to that kind of a movement. 

Senator Goldwater. You didn't know about this when it occurred, 
then? 

Mr. Reuther. Obviously I didn't. I didn't know about the grocery 
store thing until this hearing took place, because it isn't that important. 

Senator Goldwater. I can understand how you wouldn't know 
about it. That is why I tried to keep away from these small details. 
But in the future, we can depend on you to take action if such a thing 
were tried ? 

Am I correct ? 

Mr. Reuther. You can be certain, Senator Goldwater, that if I knew 
of any situation where people were trying to use economic action to 
influence a decision of the courts, that I would be opposed to that, and 
I would do everything in my power to stop it. 

Senator Goldwater. Are you, by those words, repudiating Mr. 
Mazey's action in this ? 

Mr. Reuther. Why don't you just get all the things that you want 
me to repudiate Mr. Mazey on and give them to me, and I will tell you 
which ones I am prepared to disagree with him on. 

I think Mr. Mazey did what any other human being in that kind 
of situation would have done. He just said "I think we will buy 
our groceries elsewhere." 

Now ain't that a terrible offense ? 

Senator Goldwater. I think it is, frankly, if it was done for the 
purpose 

Mr. Reuther. Well, it all depends on one's point of view. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10059 

Senator Goldwater. Now, Mr. Eeuther, ex-Sheriff Mosch has testi- 
fied that he received $300 from Graskamp for his re-election campaign 
in the fall of 1954 ; also, the minutes of the local show a motion to 
donate that amount subject to the permission of the director of region 
10, who, I believe, was Harvey Kitzman. I assume that permission 
must have been given since the donation was made. The local union 
minutes also show an expenditure of $200 for mailing out literature 
in support of the re-election of Mosch. Mosch testified that his total 
campaign expense was $1,000 to $1,100. So about half of his cam- 
paign expense came from union sources. 

Do you think it is a proper expenditure of union dues, a proper 
moral expenditure, to use it to support the campaign of a sheriff in 
this instance for reelection? 

Mr. Eeuther. I see nothing improper with that local union, if they 
felt there was a campaign going on there — I suppose there were two 
people running. They certainly had a perfect right, democratically, 
to support the candidate of their choice. 

I don't see anything wrong with that. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Goldwater. You don't see anything morally wrong with 
it? Suppose some of the other members of the union wanted to sup- 
port the other candidate ? 

Mr. Eeuther. Well, I suppose they did. 

Senator Goldwater. No. But with union funds ? 

Mr. Eeuther. Senator Goldwater, we have been over this one and 
over this one and over this one, and if you want now to start and turn 
this into the Gore committee, I would be happy to do that. 

Senator Goldwater. We are going to do that later. 

Mr. Eeuther. You are going to do that later? I see. The point is 
that our union, I think, attempts to make decisions of this character 
at the level of the union where people directly involved have the re- 
sponsibility for the decision. Obviously, when they get around to 
talking about a sheriff in that county, they didn't call Detroit to find 
out what we think they ought to do. They made that decision them- 
selves. It seems to me that they have a right to. Do you think the 
Kohler Co. was disinterested? 

I mean, you know and I know, you get campaign contributions 
from many big corporations, and from the oil people in Texas. They 
have a right to support you, and our fellows have a right to support 
the people they want elected. 

(At this point, Senator Ervin withdrew from the hearing room.) 

Senator Goldwater. Getting back to the food store, you talked 
about a democratic union, and I haven't found anything to the con- 
trary, except in this one instance where Mr. Mazey forbade the local 
members from buying food in the store. Is that a democratic process? 

Mr. Eeuther. Well, I personally think that the position that Mr. 
Mazey took represented the position of the local strike committee. 
I don't know the background, the details, but I will bet you a quarter 
if you check into it you will find that there were discussions about 
this at some level with the fellows locally. 

You can ask Mr. Graskamp. He was there, whether or not that 
decision generally was accepted by the members of the strike com- 
mittee and the local union leadership. I will bet you a quarter that 
that exactly was their position at the time. 



10060 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

If they had wanted to do it and Mr. Mazey said "You can't and I 
am dictating it," I would think that that wouldn't be democratic. 
But I don't think that would be the case, You can ask Mr. Graskamp. 
He would know. I wouldn't know. 

Senator Goldwater. But you would agree that if they were 
prohibited 

Mr. Reuther. I do not think that Mr. Mazey would get himself 
involved in a situation where the local union strike committee that 
was handling a strike wanted to buy groceries in a certain store, I 
don't think he would think it so important that he would have a big 
fight about that. 

I will bet you that if you check you will find that the local union 
strike committee and Mr. Mazey were one mind on this question. 

Senator Goldwater. Well, it was important enough for Mr. Mazey 
to go on the radio about it. 

Mr. Reuther. Well, Mr. Mazey was a bit agitated at the time. 

Senator Goldwater. I realize that. We are trying to help you, 
Mr. Reuther, so that we hope if another strike like this ever occurs, 
you will know what is going on down below, you will know a pattern 
to look for, and you, as the president, who wants to run a clean union, 
and a democratic union, can make sure that it is that way all the 
way down the line. 

In your prepared statement, on page 25, you referred to laws dealing 
with the importation of strike breakers across State line. Mr. Mazey 
has testified that local 212 of the UAW maintained a flying squadron of 
active unionists who were available for strike duty to assist a local 
union in the picketing of plants. You were aware of the existence of 
this flying squadron, I presume, weren't you ? 

Mr. Reuther. In the earliest days of our union, there were a few 
local unions that had flying squadrons. But I think you will find that 
they are practically nonexistent. This was the period, Senator Gold- 
water, when Detroit was a social jungle. This was when the mayor of 
the city of Detroit and the commissioner of police were on the payroll 
of the underworld. As I said yesterday, they went to prison. And 
when the police department was being used to destroy our union and 
not protect the rights of people because of the tieup between the City, 
Hall, the police department and the underworld. In that period, as a 
matter of self-defense, we had local unions with flying squads, because 
the police department could not be trusted. The night the Ford gang- 
sters broke into my home, and I was told this, there was a deal between 
the City Hall, the police department, and Harry Bennett, to have 
Bennett's gangsters bump me off and dump me in the Detroit River. 

We called the police and it took them 1 hour 15 minutes to get to 
my home, and when they got there, we were afraid to let them in. 

It was in that period that we had flying squads, because this was the 
only protection that we had. I can bring you the headlines of that 
period, and I can show you that the mayor of the city of Detroit who 
was supported by the people who opposed us in Detroit in that period, 
I can show you that Mayor Richard W. Reading went to prison, and 
Mr. Fromm, the Superintendent of Police went to prison, because they 
were on the payroll of the underworld. This is why we had flying 
squads. But that is part of yesterday. Thank God for that. That is 
a part of a dark and sad and tragic chapter in the history of labor- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES lis THE LABOR FIELD 10061 

management relations. But you wouldn't find one flying squad in a 
thousand local unions now, because we don't have them and we don't 
need them. 

Senator Goldwater. We had testimony here to the effect that you 
still have flying squadrons, but to be perfectly honest with you although 
these members admitted being members of the flying squadron, they 
didn't know what the flying squadron was supposed to do. 

Mr. Reuther. Other than local 212, which local union has an active 
flying squadron ? 

Senator Goldwater. They still have one. 

Mr. Reuther. It is the only local. It isn't active. The point is 
they still have a name out there. It isn't active, because the period 
of our history when we needed to be protected by ourselves is past, in 
Detroit. The Detroit Police Department is a clean department, it is 
performing the functions for which it was created. The City Hall is 
clean. That was not the case when the Superintendent of Police and 
the mayor both go to prison because they are on the payroll of the 
underworld. 

These are the facts of life. This is the period that we came out of. 
This is the period when we were beaten up and pushed around and 
the police department instead of maintaining law and order was used 
as a weapon to destroy our union. 

Senator Goldwater. But local 212 still has a flying squadron? 

Mr. Reuther. I think they have one in name but not in fact. It is 
not active. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Mazey testified that he suggested to the 
president of local 212 that help be sent to Kohler, and four members 
were sent over. I take it from your statement that you approve of 
the law prohibiting strike breakers from being sent across State lines? 

Mr. Reuther. I do. 

Senator Goldwater. Don't you think the law also ought to prohibit 
flying squadrons of unionists being sent across State lines? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, I don't think in this case, when local 212 sent 
four people up to Wisconsin, that that was a flying squadron. I said 
yesterday, Senator Goldwater, and I am very happy to repeat it now, 
I think that where the local union sent people, I think their motiva- 
tions were right, they were worried about their own jobs, they were 
losing jobs because of the unfair competition of the Kohler Co., paying 
lower wages, et cetera, I think it was perfectly understandable that 
they wanted to help out the Kohler workers because they were doing 
work comparable to what the Briggs workers were doing. 

I said yesterday that I think the union did not provide sufficient 
affirmative leadership to these people. They weren't working for the 
international union. 

This is a shortcoming that we have to overcome. I think we have 
learned from the mistakes that were made in this situation, and we 
will do everything we can to avoid a repetition in the future. 

Senator Goldwater. You are aware, I believe, that of the four mem- 
bers of this flying squadron sent, one, Mr. Vincent, has been convicted 
of assault with intent to do great bodily harm, and another, John 
Gunaca, is still a fugitive from justice on a similar charge. 

Mr. Reuther. I am aware of that, and yesterday I made it very 
clear that I think what Mr. Vincent did was reprehensible, it was 



10062 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

most unfortunate, and he did our union a great disservice, and that 
he should have been punished and he was punished. I can't say it 
clearer than that, because I don't know how to make it stronger than 
that. 

Senator Goldwater. You are also aware, I believe that your inter- 
national paid for the lawyer fees, bail bonds, and paid Vincent's 
salary while he was in prison. 

Were you aware of that ? 

Mr. Eeuther. No. I know that the union paid half of a wage 
equal to what he would have made in the plant, with the local union 
paying the other half, because we felt that Vincent's family had not 
made the mistake and that they should not be punished for his 
mistake- 
He made the mistake. He was being punished, but we did not 
think it would be proper to punish his family. You know, when a 
member of your family gets in trouble, even though they are wrong, 
and you feel sad about it, and you regret then what they did, you 
don't throw them to the wolves, you don't disown them. You try to 
take care of your family. 

Here is a fellow who went up there. What he did was wrong. He 
shouldn't have done it. He should have been punished. He was 
punished. But why should his family be punished ? They didn't do 
what was wrong. So we tried to help his family. This is what I 
think any group would do. 

And if this kind of a decision were taken before our convention, 
there is no question in my mind that the convention, I think unani- 
mously, would say, "Well, this fellow's family didn't do the thing, 
why should they be penalized," and, therefore, the union did what 
was proper in helping, in contributing to the support of the family. 

That is what we did. 

Senator Goldwater. In the case of the wife and the family, I agree 
with you. 

But do you feel it proper, in view of your statement that you dis- 
agree with what Mr. Vincent did, that you felt he was tried justly, 
that the international should have paid the lawyers' fees, the bail 
bonds and so forth for this man ? 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Goldwater 

Senator Goldwater. Isn't that owning a little bit of the responsi- 
bility? 

Mr. Reuther. The point is that if Mr. Vincent, on his own decision, 
had gone to the Kohler strike and gotten into trouble, then the union, 
I think, would have had no obligation to help him in his legal defense. 
But since he went there on the request of a subordinate body of our 
union, we felt an organizational and moral obligation to help him 
out, even though he was wrong. This is exactly what you would do 
with a member of your family. Even though they were wrong, you 
would try to help them. You would want them to be punished for 
their wrongdoing, but you would help them in their difficulty. 

If, especially, they got in trouble based upon your asking them to 
do something, even though they did it wrong and made a mistake. 
This is where we were. If Vincent had gone to Sheboygan on his 
own volition, we would not have helped him out. But he went there 
upon the request of the local union. He did wrong, he made a mis- 



IMPROPE'R ACTtrViriElS IN THE LABOR FIELD 10063 

take. He was punished for his mistake. But we said his family 
should not be punished, and since he got into difficulty based upon 
being there upon the union's request, we were obligated to try to help 
him out, even though he should have been punished. That is that 
simple. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Reuther, you and other officials of your 
union have, before this committee and publicly, time and again, ex- 
pressed displeasure with violence, you disassociate yourself with vio- 
lence. Don't you think it would be a good thing to state to your 
membership that when a member engages in unjustified violence, that 
he is on his own ? 

Don't you think that would help curb it a bit ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, I think that if a member just went out of his 
way looking for trouble, that perhaps you might give consideration 
to that kind of position. But if he got in trouble in a situation where 
there were all kinds of factors contributing, and emotionally stirred 
up and so forth, then I think you would have to look at the thing 
slightly different. I am in the process of thinking through some of 
these things, because no one dislikes violence more than I. 

As I said yesterday, this is not academic. I have laid on the floor 
of my own home, in my own blood, and I have had fellows stick a .45 
in my stomach and the other fellow says, "Pull the trigger and let's 
get this over with." 

I have lived all through this. I say that violence settles nothing, 
whether it is in labor-management disputes — it doesn't settle a thing 
in war. There are always more problems at the end of a war than 
there are at the beginning, because the problems that created the war 
are still there and we have some new ones. The same thing is true in 
labor-management matters. I am opposed to violence. But it isn't 
so mechanically easy to see to it that every human being acts as though 
he has wings in a situation where people are provoked and there are 
irritations and emotionalism. 

This is the problem : How do you get people to keep their feet on the 
ground in a situation when it is easy to take off emotionally. This 
is our problem. 

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

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Reuther, here was a case of a 230-pound, 
6-foot-plus man, walking up to a man some 50 years old, 125 pounds, 
and, as he said, he disclaimed kicking him, he said he broke his ribs 
with his fists and knocked him down. The reason I asked you that 
question before is if Mr. Vincent had been told that it was union 
policy to take care of union members who became engaged in violence, 
we will say, in pursuit of their duty, or in protecting themselves, but 
they would not be supported if they acted as he did, don't you think 
Mr. Vincent might have stopped and thought, "I better not do this" ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, he had no assurance if he went out and just 
looked for trouble that we would support him. Nobody gave him that 
assurance in advance. So he wasn't doing these things knowing that 
he was protected. 

Senator Goldwater. But the fact is that he did receive it, and the 
example is what I am getting at. In any strike that you might become 
engaged in in the future, and I hope you don't look back on the acts of 
violence which you protected in the Kohler strike, a man might feel 



10064 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

that "Well my union is going to stand behind me, I am going to 
down'' m building of my own and knock a few people 

If you make it a union policy, I think it might help the situation. 
In A Pf UTI ^ R - ™ ? U > * M^mly think that in a situation where a fel- 
lcm deliberately and willfully, without provocation, creates an active 
aggression and violence, that he is wrong and ought to be punished. 

* i ankly, ii the facts were clear m a situation like that, and we didn't 
have extreme provocation, such as we have had in the Kohler strike, 
where the whole community has been aroused, I would think under 
circumstances like that, you could have a policy where a fellow would 

abXtthaf J WOUM n0t gGt SUPP ° rt ' * COuldn,t &T ^ 

wS*™ GoLDWATER - To en .<* this particular section of questioning, 
would you give serious consideration to a policy like that in your 
future considerations ? y 

iJ£i ? E V™ a 1 am Willing 1 to give serious consideration to any 
policy that will discourage and minimize violence, because I am op- 
pobed to all forms of violence. * 

Senator Goldwater. You have so stated, and 

Mr. Rettther. And I hope that the Kohler Co. would do likewise. 
Mv ™Z T^ D T ATER - J h0Ve that y° U wiI1 S ive consideration to this. 
^llZT^Lf f g -n that rt might be a deterrent to a desir *> a de- 
violence J UP m Sltuations like this > a desire to create 
I hope you will give consideration to it. 

W i]iwi airman ' th w terminates my questioning at the moment. I 
wi II have some more later on. 

The Chairman. All right, Senator Goldwater. 
Are there any questions on my right « 
Senator Ervin. 

to?hp a T°p r n^r N - W ? Jf Ve had a . g00d deal of evidence her e in respect 
haveconSfn 8 "v^ ^-f^ g - en ^ ineers to &* effect that they 
have constitutions which permit the international officers to place local 
unions m trusteeship or under supervision, and thereby deprive them 

alat ng lSt^l th ^ 0Wn ° ffic f S a i nd t0 mana ^ e their °™ " a * 
anairs 1 state this as a premise for the purpose of asking whether the 

S£: ° f the ^ ***** a P ™ n a «thorizing efther h^ 
status ? execut * ve b ^rd to place local unions in a comparable 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Ervin, we have a provision that if a local 
had captmiZfo^T 1 ' t^ in i eo P a f d y because the Communis? 
™.v£?£ ? . 01 the , racketeers were threatening to capture it, or 
maybe the plant was closing and the workers were all being laid off, 

T a W™ tl0J \ of Protecting the pension funds and so forth-that 

the international union, m a situation where the local union is in 

eopardy, can have what we call a show-cause hearing, with proper 

?lf W° n ' ThG - °? cers ° f H* l0Cal 0r ^ member °f the lQ cal Tan 
come before our international executive board, and, by due process, 

str7tn?l that i! v 1( ? Cal *? m ^^ydj, we can place it in admin- 

istrate! ship— we call it administratorship in our union, not a trustee- 
over that local. But if we remove the officers, within 60 days we have 



IMPROPER ACTirVITIiElS IN THE LABOR FIELD 10065 

to have a new election. If the problem is such that we may need, say, 
5 months to work at it, and the problem is not that the local union 
officers are not doing a good job, they may not be equal to the job, 
we can put an administratorship in there and keep it for 5 months to 
help the local union officers do the job of putting the local union on a 
sound basis. 

But if we remove the officers, then within 60 days the rank and file 
have a right under our constitution to elect new officers. 

Senator Ervin. In other words, you can't deprive them for more 
than 60 days of the power to elect their own local officers ? 

Mr. Reuther. That is correct. And if we put an administrator- 
ship in a local union, and the local felt that we did not have sufficient 
grounds under the constitution, they could go to our public review 
board, and the public review board could set aside our decision and 
give the local its autonomy. 

Senator Ervin. How many locals are affiliated with the UAW ? 

Mr. Reuther. Around 1,250. 

Senator Ervin. To what extent does the international exercise au- 
thority putting locals under administration ? 

Mr. Reuther. Very sparingly. We would not do this excepting 
where there was a real basis, because we would have no reason to. 

If the local union is making progress and its affairs are proper, 
we wouldn't want to interfere. But the jeopardy in most of our ad- 
ministratorships in the last couple of years have been put in in situa- 
tions where you might have a large plant, it may have a big war con- 
tract, and the Government may cancel the contract and the plant then 
goes from high employment down to practically nothing. Then you 
have the whole question that the local has no membership, and yet it 
has assets and it has responsibilities in terms of pension funds and 
so forth. 

We may have to put administratorship in there so that we can make 
the transition to protect the equity of all the workers in the pension 
funds, at a time when the local union as an organization is going 
out of existence. We would put an administrator in there in order for 
the lawyers and our social security people to make proper safeguards 
for the funds and the equities of workers on pension plans and so forth. 

We had this specific situation in the case of the Kaiser-Frazer plant 
in Detroit where they had the Willow Run plant. They consolidated 
their operations in Toledo at the plant where they make jeeps. We 
had to put an administratorship in there to make certain that the 
funds are protected. 

We do this very sparingly, and where we remove the officers, within 
60 days the rank and file members have the democratic right to elect 
new officers. 

Senator Ervin. If the local is under administration, how are its 
delegates to the international convention elected ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, you see, in our constitution, you cannot put a 
local under administratorship and deny the membership the right to 
elect the delegates. 

If there was a compelling reason in a given local situation to justify, 
according to due processes of our constitution, to put an administrator 
over them, and you put that administratorship over the local union 
1 week before that local would normally have elected delegates to our 
convention, they would still elect delegates by the rank and file. 



10066 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The administrator can never pick the delegates. Only the rank 
and file, by secret, democratic ballot vote have a right to elect our 
delegates. This is one of the things that is very sacred in our union. 
Only the membership elect the delegates. I think at our last conven- 
tion, I think only 2 officers and maybe 3 staff members were delegates. 
The rest of our more than 3,000 delegates were members, workers 
right from the factories. 

Senator Ervin. What proportion of the membership of the — first, 
as I understand it, there are approximately six corporations which 
now manufacture all of the automobiles in America. 

Mr. Reuther. There are only 5, Senator. The big 3 manufacture 
roughly 97 percent of the total domestic production of automobiles, 
and the 2 independents, Studebaker-Packard and American Motors 
produce the other 3 percent. 

Senator Ervin. It has been suggested by some that the antitrust 
laws should be made applicable to unions. 

What is your view with respect to that ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, I obviously don't think that that should be 
done. I think that when you are dealing with corporations, you are 
dealing with different kinds of legal entities than when you are deal- 
ing with unions that are made up essentially of workers who are work- 
ing together to improve their working conditions. 

I think that putting trade unions under antitrust legislation might 
look like a simple way to solve some problems, but it will not solve the 
basic problems. The basic problems really have to be solved by find- 
ing a way to keep unions democratic, by keeping the membership 
active. In the final analysis, the membership make a union good or 
bad. 

Senator Erven. Of course, antitrust laws are applicable — the Sher- 
man Antitrust Act is now applicable to corporations engaged in man- 
ufacture, and, notwithstanding that fact, we have all of the manufac- 
turing of automobiles, I would say monopolized by about 6 different 
manufacturers, or 5, I believe you said, corporations. 

Mr. Reuther. There is a higher concentration of the total produc- 
tion of this industry in the hands of fewer corporations than is the 
case in any other important segment of the American economy. 

Senator Ervin. What percentage of the membership of the UAW 
is engaged in the production of automobiles, roughly speaking? 

Mr. Reuther. This varies, of course, depending. At the moment, 
there are big layoffs. I would say that in our industry, in our union, 
about 60 percent of our membership was engaged in the production 
of automobiles and trucks, and in the production of the parts, sup- 
plier plants, about 60 percent, and the balance of the membership of 
our union would then be divided between the agricultural implement 
industry, the farm equipment industry, and the aircraft industry. 
We also have miscellaneous locals, but these three industries are the 
source of the overwhelming portion of our membership. 

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

Senator Ervin. I am a country lawyer, and, frankly, I would like 
to have everything in the United States small. In other words, I 
would like to have small manufacturing plants, small businesses, and 
small unions. I have always been told, though, that for every action 
there is a corresponding reaction. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10067 

I would like to know if it is possible, in your opinion, to expect to 
have small unions in a country in which the unions are supposed to 
engage in collective bargaining on behalf of the employees of such 
companies as the live companies which have a monoply on the manu- 
facture of automobiles. 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Ervin, you know, I sometimes philosophi- 
cally long for a simpler world, too, when the problems of our modern 
world get so complex that you wish that there could be a simpler way 
to live. I think that you need to look at it this way: That the size 
of corporations in our industrial society are dictated primarily by 
technology, because if you broke the automotive industry up into a 
hundred companies, and you divided the total production over a hun- 
dred companies, you would increase the production of the cost of auto- 
mobiles tremendously because no company having 1 percent of the 
total production of this industry could afford the tools that bring 
about the tremendous efficiency. 

This is going to be an increasing problem in our industrial society. 
How do we equate the efficiencies of a developing technology, auto- 
mation, the peaceful harnessing of the atom and all of these things, 
how do we equate the complexity of our industrial system, efficiency 
that flows from our advancing technology, and still keep it within 
the framework of the basic values that we all believe in. 

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

Mr. Rettther. I say that the size of industry is dictated more by 
technology, because technology determines how you make things. 

If you can't afford an automated line to automate engine blocks, 
if you only make 1 percent of the industry's production, but if you 
make 30 percent you can afford them, then ultimately you have to 
make up your mind. Do you want the 30 percent in one company 
so that they can have automated lines, or do you want the 1 percent 
so that we make them by hand ? 

Let me illustrate what this really means. I went to work for the 
Ford Motor Co. in 1927. They were making the last model T's. 
When they made the last Model T engine block, which was a very 
simple engine block, as you recall, they involved tens of thousands 
of individual workers on individual machine operations, and it took 
many days from the first machining operation to the final machining 
operation to complete an engine block. 

Then we kept improving that and shortening the time. In 1951, 
the Ford Motor Co. opened the first fully automated engine machin- 
ing line at their Cleveland plant, where they machine a V-8 engine 
block, which is very complex, and from the rough casting to the 
completely finished machining operation of that complicated V-8 
engine, it took 14.6 minutes, not a human hand touched it. 

Now, a company that can only make 1 percent of the industry, if 
you had 100 companies, couldn't own those machines, and the price 
of a car would cost maybe 4 or 5 times as much. 

This is our problem. If technology determines the size of industry, 
the size of industry determines the size of unions, because a little 
union couldn't deal with General Motors. 

I mean, don't you ever get the idea that General Motors gives us 
everything that we think we are entitled to just because of the elo- 
quence of some union leader. 



10068 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Ultimately we have to marshal 

Senator Ervin. I will concede that I do not entertain the notion 
that General Motors is an eleemosynary institution as contradistin- 
guished from a business institution. So the problem, it seems to me, 
that we are faced with in this country is that technology has made 
business big. 

In the old days, for which I suffer a certain amount of nostalgia, 
we had buggy manufacturers all over the United States, in the horse 
and buggy days. But if we manufactured automobiles in small plants, 
X can readily see that the cost of automobiles would be prohibitive. 

Mr. Betjther. That is right. 

Senator Ervin. Now, if we have big business, we have big unions, 
and we even have big governments. The most serious thing, I think, 
that confronts the American people at this time is how can we pre- 
serve the identity and the liberty of the individual among all of 
these big things. 

Mr. Eeuther. I agree completely. I think that the most challeng- 
ing problem that we face from within — we all recognize that the 
Soviet Union and everything that the Communist conspiracy in the 
world symbolizes is a great threat from without, but I think the 
greatest threat to America from within is to find a way by which we 
can equate the tremendous technological progress and the bigness, both 
industry and labor, how do we equate that so that we don't lose in the 
shuffle the basic human values of the individual that we all cherish. 
This is the great philosophical, I think, problem that we all face in 
America. 

Frankly, it is not an easy job. But the thing we need to keep in 
mind is that finding the answers to the tough problems is the im- 
portant thing. The little things will take care of themselves. This, 
I think, is our big problem. 

Senator Ervin. I would like to put to you another question, the 
same question that I put to Mr. Conger. I am a person who believes 
in open self-government as far as humanly possible. 

I believe that we are safer when we keep a government close at 
home, so that we can advise it of a fact that we do not like and change 
it. As a consequence, I would be extremely reluctant to depart from 
the well-established constitutional doctrine that fundamentally the 
preservation of all of us, and the suppression and punishment of 
crimes and violence is a matter for local governments. 

I would like to know if you can suggest any practical way, or, rather, 
whether you can suggest whether or not it is advisable for us to amend 
this theory and permit the Federal Government to enter into the 
field of dealing with violence which flares up in industrial disputes 
on occasions, and as flared up in the matter of the Kohler strike. 

(At this point, Senator Kennedy withdrew from the hearing room.) 

Mr. Retjther. Well, I think to begin with, the best assurance that 
we could have that we could minimize violence is to try to get both 
labor and management in any given situation to accept their mutual 
responsibilities by acting in good faith at the bargaining table. 

I think that while it is the bad things that get in the headlines, we 
should not lose sight of the fact that overwhelmingly collective bar- 
gaining every day goes on in which labor and management do sit 
at the bargaining table and do work out their problems without any 
trouble. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 10069 

I am very happy that the Kohler strike has only happened once in 
our union in twenty-some years. We are working things out. I am 
fitting down now with General Motors and next week with Ford and 
Chrysler and I have great hopes that we can sit there and work our 
problems out. 

What do we do where they can't be worked out? Well, I think too 
that government that is closest to the people is the most responsive 
kind of government, and further removed it gets the less responsive 
it might be. I believe in that excepting that where you are dealing 
with matters that you cannot handle on a local basis, because of the 
nature of the problem, you have to have government at a higher level 
deal with it. 

I just do not think that there are any simple answers to these com- 
plex human problems, and I think we have to keep working to try to 
find better ways to answer them. 

Senator Ervin. I would judge from the statement you have made, 
that you accept the philosophy that the interests of labor and the in- 
terests of management and the interests of stockholders are substan- 
tially identical. 

Mr. Keuther. I think the interests of workers, stockholders, man- 
agement, consumers, farmers, are all inseparably bound together. I 
don't think any group, whether it be management or labor, can make 
progress as a pressure group at the expense of the balance of the 
community excepting as they will put the whole economy into 
jeopardy. 

That is why I said yesterday, and I don't say this because I think 
it is clever public relations, I say it because I believe it — I happen to 
believe that when I sit at the bargaining table with General Motors, 
where I have a responsibility along with the other leadership of the 
union to our membership, and Mr. Curtice and the management group 
in General Motors has a responsibility to the stockholders, that to- 
gether we have a responsibility to the whole of our country. 

How can you have free labor and free management if you can't 
have free management and free labor working together to keep the 
country free for everybody ? 

I agree completely that we are all tied together, and what we need 
to do is to understand that we have a great deal more in common than 
we have in conflict. 

Senator Ervin. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The ( 'hairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt, then. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Reuther, yesterday I asked you some questions 
in the general field of the area in which you testified, and I said today 
I wanted to go into some of the specifics with you. 

I will turn first to that part of your statement which I applauded 
greatly where you said in substance and I have the transcript here 
if I misquote you, which I shall try not to do, but in substance you 
said that you and the UAW officials were appearing before con- 
gressional committees voluntarily and that you would not take the 
fifth amendment as I believe you implied some other union officials 
had done. 

You pointed out that you were eager as the committee to eliminate 

21243— rig— pt. 25 -11 



10070 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

corruption and communism and racketeering and you listed five areas 
of activitj 7 , and you said we will not tolerate in our union commu- 
nism or corruption. 

You said if the members of the committee know where there is any- 
thing wrong, we should tell you and you will correct it not tomorrow, 
but today. 

Is that a pretty fair summation of that part of your statement? 
Mr. Reuther. I think so. 

Senator Mundt. And I applaud you for making it. Now I want 
to relate that to practical aspects of the problem, and it is a 
very difficult problem in all of these areas, and I certainly agree with 
what you said yesterday that you can't just take these theories and 
operate on them in a vacuum and you have to test how they operate 
in practical life. 

So I want to first of all ask you whether in your opinion you have 
done everything that it is possible for you to do in your capacity to 
stamp communism out of the leadership echelons of your union. 

I don't think that you can stamp it out of every card-carrying 
union member, but in the leadership echelons where you do have 
responsibilities whether you feel that you have done as well as you 
can do with the authorities you have. 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Mundt, I think I can say in all good con- 
science that operating within the democratic structure of our union,, 
with respect for due process, and the basic rights of individuals ? I 
think we have done everything we can to see that Communist in- 
fluence is removed from the leadership of our union. We do not say 
that there might not be somewhere an isolated Communist. 

But this is our problem : Unless you have been a member of the 
Communist Party and you sat in Communist meetings with people, 
you don't know from your own personal knowledge that a person is 
a Communist. So in our kind of union, in our kind of union, sir, 
in which we respect the democratic processes and the rights of the 
individuals, you have no basis for moving against a person unless 
you have some substantial evidence. 

Senator Mundt. I think that is correct. 

Mr. Reuther. There may be a few people in our union concerning 
whom I have feelings, and I tell you that that is truthful. There 
probably could maybe be a few people here and there that I have my 
doubts about. 

Senator Mundt. Suspicions ? 

Mr. Reuther. That is right, but I have no right to substitute my 
feeling or my suspicion for the law of our union, and say, "Well, I 
just have a hunch that you are not clean and that you do have con- 
nections, and I can't prove it, but we will chop your head off anyhow 
because I have got a hunch." 

Senator Mundt. I agree with that, of course, and we all agree with 
that. 

Mr. Reuther. With that qualification, I say to you, to the best 
of my knowledge, we have moved to rid people from our leadership 
whom we knew in accordance with our constitution were Communists. 

Senator Mundt. That is good, and I want you to tell us then how 
you have moved and I want to discuss a few cases which are certainly 
not hunches or based on suspicions, but are based on sworn testimony.. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10071 

I hope that you can show us how you have done this, because it may 
help other union leaders to eliminate problems, and it may help to 
cut a pattern for reducing Communist influence in this country. 

I have in my hand the hearings of the Senate judiciary subcom- 
mittee, known as the Committee on Internal Security, which held hear- 
ings just a little less than a year ago, May 14, 23, and 28 of 1957. 

I want to call your attention to a few cases involving UAW officials. 

The first of whom is Mr. Walter Dorosh, Dearborn, Mich., who ap- 
peared before the committee on May 14. The committee members and 
the counsel pointed out to Mr. Dorosh that they had had sworn testi- 
mony before their committee that Mr. Dorosh was a member of the 
Communist Party. 

So under oath, I will read you the full statement, the counsel for the 
committee, Mr. Morris, said : 

Now, Mr. Chairman, we have had sworn testimony that the witness here today 
has been at least in the past a member of the Communist Party. I would like 
to ask you, Mr. Dorosh, have you been a member of the Communist Party. 

Mr. Dorosh. I refuse to answer that question under the privileges granted 
me by the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Morris. Are you now a member of the Communist Party? 

And I want to emphasize that because I suspect that we can all 
agree in this room that simply because a man sometime has been a 
member of the Communist Party does not necessarily mean that he 
is eternally condemned. 

We have had some great reformations in this country, and we have 
had some great assistance in the protection of our security from former 
Communists, and I was a member of the House Committee on Un- 
American Activities and we used to have a name for them, and we 
called them bolos. 

They went out like a boomerang and came back, and did some good. 
So we don't condemn them necessarily because at one time they were, 
if they have left the party, and have publicly renounced it and have 
joined the fighting forces of freedom. 

But this question was : 

Are you now a member of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Dorosh. I refuse to answer that question under the fifth amendment. 

Now that, of course, in itself was a violation of the fine standards 
that you set up before our committee when you said the UAW does 
not take the fifth. But it is more serious than that, because this in- 
volves a man against whom there is sworn testimony, as to his com- 
munism and he was given an opportunity to renounce it and he took 
recourse in the fifth amendment and I hope that you can tell us how the 
UAW has acted to safeguard your members against that kind of 
leadership. 

From a fifth amendment American at best, and perhaps an active 
Communist. 

Mr. Keuther. Senator Mundt, I should be most happy to talk 
about that with you. You asked me how did we beat the Com- 
munists, and you would like that information. 

Senator Mundt. I asked you what you did about getting rid of 
Mr. Dorosh or controlling him or something. 



10072 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Reuther. First you asked me how we beat the Communists, and 
you said that you ought to get that information around, and I would 
like 

Senator Mtjndt. You can answer that question first, how you fight 
the Communists. 

Mr. Reuther. That is right. 

Senator Mtjndt. Very good and then we will come back to Mr. 
Dorosh. 

Mr. Reuther. There is only one way to beat the Communists, and 
the thing you must always remember is that the Communists are 
never beat for keeps. You can't beat them in the local union and say, 
"Now we have done that job and we can forget about it." This is a 
matter of eternal vigilance, because the Communists keep coming back. 

And the only way you can beat the Communists in America in the 
trade union movement, and in the world, is to make democracy work. 
We have beaten the Communists by making democracy work, and by 
mobilizing the decent and honest rank-and-file members of our union 
at every level of our union, by outworking the Communists, and by 
outvoting them, and by coming early and staying late. 

I outlined that, how we beat the Communists in our union, because I 
think it might help other people who have this problem, and I would 
like, Mr. Chairman, if I might not put into the record in response to 
Senator Mundt's question, how we fought the Communists, the article 
that I prepared for Collier's magazine, some years back, in which we 
outlined exactly how we beat the Communists. 

The Chairman. That may be made Exhibit No. 131. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 131," for reference, 
and may be found in the files of the Select Committee.) 

Mr. Reuther. Now, with respect to your question 

Senator Mundt. To come back to my specific question about Mr. 
Dorosh, because as you have said and I could not agree with you more, 
these good theories about labor management and these good theories 
about labor in a vacuum are no good, we have got to apply them to 
problems. 

We have a problem here and what did you do ? 

Mr. Reuther. You talk about Mr. Dorosh, there are a number of 
other people involved in the situation you are talking about and let 
us lay it all on top of the table so we will save your time. 

Senator Mundt. Possibly so. 

Mr. Reuther. There are two groups involved, one group of people 
at the local level, and one group of people at the international level 
who were international representatives. Now, our constitution is very 
clear. I would like to refer to that before I get into the specific ques- 
tion of the people you mentioned. 

Article 10 of the UAW constitution, section 7, reads as follows, and 
I quote : 

No member of any local union, located in the United States of America, or 
Canada, shall be eligible to hold any elective or appointive position in this 
international union or any local union in this international union, if he is a 
member of any organization which is declared illegal by the Government of the 
United States of America, or Canada, through constitutional procedure. 

Section 8 : No member of any local union shall be eligible to hold any elec- 
tive or appointive position in this international union or any local union in 
this international union if he is a member of or subservient to any political 
organization, such as the Communist, Fascist, or Nazi organization which owes 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 10073 

its allegiance to any government other than the United States or Canada, 
directly or indirectly. 

Section 9 : No member of any local union shall be eligible to hold any elective 
or appointive position in the international union, or any local union, if he is 
affirmatively engaged in the promotion, implementation, furtherance, or support 
of organized in-plant rackets, such as numbers, bookmaking, and so on. 

Section 10 : The acceptance of an elective or appointive office or position or 
of nomination to an elective office or position by any member who is ineligible 
under section 7, 8, or 9 of this article is an offense against the union punishable 
by a penalty up to and including expulsion. 

Senator Mundt. The second section you read I think is the one that 
is pertinent to this case. 

Mr. Reuther. That is right. We are dealing here with a case of 
alleged Communist Party membership. 

Senator Mundt. That is right. 

Mr. Reuther. As I said to you, before, I have my own personal 
feelings. 

Senator Mundt. We are dealing with Mr. Dorosh. 

Mr. Reuther. That is right. Now Mr. Dorosh is not an interna- 
tional representative, he is a local union official, or minor local union 
official. 

Senator Mundt. But he comes under section 2 of the constitution ? 

Mr. Reuther. That is right. There were several other people in 
that same group as there were five international representatives who 
were called before the Internal Security Committee. When this mat- 
ter came up, we had a policy question to consider, and I sat down with 
my colleagues in the leadership of our union, because we were con- 
cerned about this. 

I said : 

Do we have any facts that can form the basis within the democratic pro- 
cedures of our constitution — do we have any tangible evidence that we could 
use to move against any of the people in question? 

I was advised after careful check that we did not have any substan- 
tial evidence or anything that we could base action by the union to 
implement this section of the constitution. 

I then said : 

Well, the constitution does not talk about the fifth amendment or any other 
constitutional procedures. 

Senator Mundt. You told us that you don't believe in taking the 
fifth amendment. 

Mr. Reuther. That is a matter of union policy and it is not in 
the constitution. 

Senator Mundt. This is a top union man that we are now talking 
about. 

Mr. Reuther. But I thought that no officer of our union at the 
international level or at the local level, or any international repre- 
sentative of our union ought to be able to hide behind the fifth amend- 
ment or any other constituional privilege as it related to himself. 
We did not want him to say, "Well, I refuse to answer it on the 
ground of the fifth amendment." 

Now, we sat down, the leadership, and we discussed this. It was 
not an easy decision to make, because we were really trying to say 
in effect, "Here is a standard of personal conduct not spelled out 
in our constitution." 



10074 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. May I interpolate, at the time you sat down, was 
this following this meeting in May, that we have been talking about? 

Mr. Reuther. You mean before these people were called before the 
Internal Security Committee? 

Senator Mundt. That is correct, May a year ago. I am trying to 
find out whether you sat down to deal with this specific problem or 
whether this is something that you had worked out before? 

Mr. Reuther. If you will pardon me, I would like to ask a member 
of my staff to help me refresh my memory. 

(The witness consulted with his staff.) 

Mr. Reuther. We could check this because this is all a matter of 
record, but following the discussion of this matter between the of- 
ficers of the international union, we sent or I sent over my signature 
what we called administative letter to all local unions, and to all inter- 
national representatives in which we outlined this policy. 

This was in April, in advance of this, and it came about because 
of the unsavory conduct of certain people before this committee and 
this whole question of the fifth amendment. 

We felt that in our union there are no secrets, and everybody ought 
to be willing to talk. So this letter went out. These people then 
were taken down and were called down before the Internal Security 
Committee, two groups of people, people at the local level and five 
people at the international level. 

Now obviously, I felt that I had more authority with respect to 
international representatives because under the constitution I ap- 
pointed them subject to the approval of the executive board. 

Local officers, I did not have any responsibility for in a sense of 
choosing them, because they were chosen by the membership. 

So I made it very clear to the five international representatives that 
that if they refused to testify about their own persons, they would 
be removed from the payroll. 

They went before the committee and I think the record will show 
that none of them used the fifth amendment. None of the interna- 
tional representatives used the fifth amendment. 

Now when this was all behind us, both the local people and the 
international, since it was all in one package before the committee, 
I sat down and read the transcripts and I said, and Mr. Rauh came 
in, and he is a great champion of civil rights, and I said, "I am not 
satisfied with certain of these international representatives, they did 
not testify as fully and as freely as I think that they should have in 
certain areas, and I am not satisfied." 

And until they satisfied me, I am going to move against them and 
remove them from the payroll. 

Based upon that they were called in, and they were entitled to sit 
down and they have rights too, and they talked this thing through, 
and based upon that conversation they were obligated to submit fur- 
ther signed and notarized affidavits clearing up these areas. Now, 
what were the areas ? 

I took the position and this position became the official policy of 
our union because it was concurred in by the executive board of our 
union, and it was so outlined in this administrative letter, that while 
the constitution of our union does not spell out this question of the 
use of a constitutional privilege, I felt that no one working for this 
union who technically is under my supervision and direction because 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIiELD 10075 

I am the head officer of this union, should be permitted to stay on the 
payroll of this union unless he was prepared to testify fully about 
himself and his own activities. 

I said, "If they ask you were you a member of the Communist 
Party," and you said, "I won't answer that," well I don't know how 
long it would take but as quick as we can do it, that fellow would be 
off the payroll. If he were an officer, I would instigate charges 
against him under the constitution of our union. 

I said, "However, I make this distinction : If you testify fully about 
your person, all of the activities that you were engaged in, and if 
you were a member of the Communist Party," and I think we maybe 
have eight people who were former Communists on our staff, but they 
are on our staff only after they demonstrated that they were willing 
to fight the Communists, and we got most of them from two unions 
that were dominated by the Communists whom we helped break up, 
and they came over with the membership only after they had proven 
their anticommunism, I said, "You have got to testify freely about 
yourself. 

"If they ask you about a party functionary, you have got to testify 
about that party functionary. If they ask you about a person whom 
you believe is still in the party, you have got to testify about that 
person. 

"But if they ask you about some fellow who was hungry back in 
1932 and couldn't get a job, and he joined the party, and he quit 15 or 
18 years ago, whose name has never been in the paper and his kids 
are in college and they are living respectable, useful lives, you don't 
have to smear that fellow because that won't help fight communism." 

Senator Mundt. What do you do about the fellow who quits the 
party on the way into the committee room? We have had a lot of 
them to do that. What do you do with them, when he says, "I am not 
now a member of the party," and you say, "Were you a member," and 
he says, "I refuse to testify." 

What do you do about the fellow who quits on the way to the 
committee room ? That is a very real problem. 

Mr. Reuther. Let me answer that. If the fellow who worked 
for our union came over under circumstances where we thought he 
had broken with the party, and he really had sought them, and he 
came in here and he said, "I quit yesterday," I say to you that he 
would be removed from our payroll as quickly as that physically 
could be done. 

We wouldn't have him for 1 minute. 

Senator Mundt. That wasn't my question. You are applying and 
rightfully so, while I was over in the Un-American Activities case, 
what we called the litmus-paper test of a fellow's actual cleavage 
from the party, the fellow that we felt and I feel now who can look 
you in the eye and testify under oath and he says, "I have quit the 
Communist Party, and I used to belong, but I am a good American 
now." 

We think he has some responsibilities as an American citizen, to 
do what you have been talking about, to talk about the political 
functionaries, and I was glad to see you felt he had, too. 

We feel he has a responsibility to help clean up the mess he has 
helped create, and apparently you do, too. 



10076 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

My question was, what do you do with the fellow who says to you, 
"I have quit the party, and I will talk about these functionaries who 
are now members of the party, but I won't tell you whether or not 
Joe Smith — although I know he is a Communist" — if Joe Smith hap- 
pens to be a fellow who quit yesterday, and you said 12 or 15 years 
ago, and I concur in that and a lot of people make mistakes and 
correct them, but the fellow who quits very recently after all we 
have learned now about the Communist Party, you have to have a 
lingering suspicion about him ? 

I think that your man who quits and makes good, and there are 
some of those, has a responsibility to at least indicate who they are 
and identify them when he knows, so we can check him out. 

Would you agree ? 

Mr. Reuther. I agree, Senator Mundt. This is precisely why, 
when I read the testimony of several of these international repre- 
sentatives, I said they didn't testify fully enough. 

I don't want anybody to be made an informer to hurt some innocent 
fellow who 15 years ago got out of the party and he related he was 
wrong and is living a useful life, and he is a loyal American, and why 
smear his kids and why make it difficult for his kids. 

I said you can say, "I don't want to do that," but anybody who still 
is in the party and has been active and if he quit yesterday, as far as 
I am concerned he is still in the party because this was a maneuver. 

I said you have got to testify about those kind of people. This is 
where we then had further affidavits because I wasn't satisfied with 
their first testimony. 

Now, let me find what we did. These cases were all processed. 

Senator Mundt. You are talking about the international represen- 
tatives ? 

Mr. Reuther. The international representatives. 

Senator Mundt. Let us stick to the international representatives 
because they are different, and let us keep them in separate categories 
and finish off the international representatives and then we will come 
to the others. 

Mr. Reuther. There were five international representatives, all of 
whom came from the former Communist controlled and dominated 
Farm Equipment Workers Union. 

We kept working, and w T e finally broke that union up and we have 
got the membership over, and when we did that, what was happening 
was this: There were certain staff people in there who had former 
Communist affiliation and they don't deny that, and we knew that, and 
I worked this one over, and worked it over, and it was with great re- 
luctance I can tell you, because I was on the receiving end of some of 
the stuff that these fellows did when we were fighting them, but after 
we were convinced that these fellows had broken with the Communists, 
not by saying, "I broke with the party," but who went out and fought 
them and really demonstrated their anticommunism, and they helped 
break up the Communist-dominated unions, their membership asked 
that we give them a staff post because of their contribution that they 
had made in this anti-Communist effort to break up FEW. 

Now, this is where these five people came in. We knew that they 
were former Communists, but we took them in only after they had 
demonstrated they had broken with the party, by deeds and not by 
words. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES* IN THE LABOR FIELD 10077 

Now, obviously, if we are going to fight the Communists, we want 
to win people away from them, isolate them, and isolate them until 
they have nobody left. That is the way to beat them. 

Now, when they testified, none of them used the fifth amendment, 
not one of these fellows used the fifth amendment. They testified 
fully about their own former membership, and they testified about the 
people who fall into the category of being functionaries and so forth. 
But they refused to talk about the little innocent guy who really is 
not the problem. 

After this was clone, I went over this, and I said, "I don't think you 
talked enough in this area, and I want far more," and they filed the 
affidavits. 

After that was over, we then had the special meeting of our execu- 
tive board, and we went over this whole proceedings and we dug 
deeper and deeper and deeper, and we said, "Is there any basis for 
our taking action against these fellows ? Are they on the payroll con- 
trary to the constitution? Are they on the payroll contrary to the 
ethical codes of the AFL-CIO?" 

We said, "Well, we can't find any evidence to substantiate that con- 
clusion, but nevertheless we want to be sure. Maybe we aren't looking 
at the thing as objectively as we should. Why don't we have the pub- 
lic review board look at it." 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators Mc- 
Clellan, Ervin, McNamara, Kennedy, Mundt, Curtis, and Gold water.) 

"Why don't we have the public review board look at it?" So 
under the constitution, we had a right to refer this to the public 
review board. We did. The public review board met, the whole 
board, the seven members of the board met. They went over this case. 
After they went over the case, they made a decision, and here is what 
they said, and I now read from the public review board's decision. 

I would like to put this into the record, Mr. Chairman, a short docu- 
ment, which is the findings and the decisions of the public review board 
with respect to the five international representatives that Senator 
Mundt is talking about. 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 132, for reference. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 132" for 
reference, and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Reuther. I will just read the conclusion, if I may. 

Here is the conclusion of the committee. 

The Chairman. That is the review committee? 

Mr. Rettther. The public review board. Mind you, the public re- 
view board has the constitutional authority to say to our union, "This 
fellow has no right to be on your payroll. He is not in compliance 
with the ethical codes or the constitution," or any 1 of the other 5 
people. 

Here is what they found : 

After careful scrutiny of these materials — 

and they talk about the proceedings of the Internal Security Com- 
mittee and all the other information, and the minutes of the executive 
board dealing with this — 

After careful scrutiny of these materials and in the absence of other evidence or 
information, we are unable to say that the actions of the international executive 
board with regard to these individuals has not been consistent in the spirit as 
well as in the letter with the A. F. of L.-CIO ethical practices code. 



10078 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

There is nothing in the said code nor in the international constitution barring 
former Communists from office. The five individuals in question have convinced 
the governing board of the UAW that they are not presently disqualified from 
office under the provisions against Communists. 

There is nothing before us that would justify a finding to the contrary. 

In other words, we went into this very carefully, because I can as- 
sure you, Senator Mundt, that I am extremely sensitive about this 
question of communism. I have spent 18 or 20 years fighting these 
people. We sent it to the public review board and they in turn went 
over it, and they concluded that there is nothing, that there is nothing 
that would justify our moving against these people, both with respect 
to the constitution and with the ethical codes of the A. F. of L.-CIO. 

(At this point, Senator Gold water withdrew from the hearing 
room.) 

Senator Mundt. So much for the international reps. My ques- 
tion did not lead with them, but I am glad to have that information. 
I was going to ask you something about it. Now we have Discussed 
what you did with the people that did not take the fifth amendment. 
Now I want to know what you did with the people who did take the 
fifth amendment, so we are back to Mr. Dorosh. What did you do 
about Mr. Dorosh ? 

Mr. Eeuther. With respect to the local union people, we notified 
each of the local unions where these people held their respective mem- 
bership, and w T e told them that they had to immediately take steps 
to see to it that the constitution of our union was implemented as it 
related to this. 

Senator Mundt. In this case, you notified Local 600 ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, Local 600, Local 3 

Senator Mundt. Did he belong to Local 3, too ? 

Mr. Reuther. No. 

Senator Mundt. Let's stick to Mr. Dorosh. 

Mr. Reuther. Mr. Dorosh was Local 600. 

Senator Mundt. You notified Local 600? 

Mr. Reuther. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. What did you tell them ? 

Mr. Reuther. We said that these people, in this case Walter Dorosh, 
was called before the committee in Washington, and that we direct 
the local union to take immediate steps to see to it that any question 
of whether Mr. Dorosh properly can be a local officer — he really wasn't 
a local officer, he was a unit officer in the local — that they were obli- 
gated immediately to take action to see that he was in compliance, 
and, if he was, they should find that, and, if he wasn't, then he should 
be removed under the provisions of the constitution. 

Senator Mundt. What happened ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, in this case, I am not certain, but I think his 
unit, since he was a unit officer and not a local officer, his unit held 
a meeting and they did take steps, they did have a hearing, and they 
found that he was not in violation of the constitution. 

Senator Mundt. On what basis ? 

Mr. Reuther. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator Mundt. On what basis ? 

(As this point, Senator Ervin withdrew from the hearing room.) 

Mr. Reuther. Well, they found that he was not a Communist. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10079 

Senator Mundt. On what basis? The Senate committee couldn't 
find that out. He took the fifth amendment before them. 

Mr. Reuther. I am told that he didn't take the fifth amendment 
either. 

Senator Mundt. "Well, I will read it to you. 

Mr. Reuther. He took it in front of the 

Senator Mundt (reading) : 

I would like to ask you, Mr. Dorosh, have you been a member of the Com- 
munist Party? 

Mr. Dorosh. I refuse to answer that question under the privilege granted 
me by the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Morris. Are you now a member of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Dorosh. I refuse to answer that question under the fifth. 

That is about as completely as Dave Beck can take the fifth 
amendment, That is taken. 

Mr. Reuther. You are absolutely right about that. I didn't know 
the details of the local people, but I did know the details of the 
international rep. 

Senator Mundt. You were right about the international rep. 

Mr. Reuther. None of them took the fifth amendment. That is 
correct, 

Senator Mundt. All of these I am going to mention, or whatever 
I do mention about locals, did take the fifth. 

Mr. Reuther. Yes ; I think that is the fifth. 

Senator Mundt. I would like to go back to Local 600. 

Mr. Reuther. All right. So we had this problem. You see, if the 
constitution said that taking the fifth amendment would disqualify 
you, then I could have moved. But I was operating within a policy 
that we had initiated. It was not in the constitution. This was a 
policy, a procedural matter. So we kicked this one around and we 
talked to our lawyers, and we said, "Now, how do we move on this 
on a basis that we do not do violence to established democratic 
procedures?" 

So we felt that the local union should be obligated to review this, 
and at the point the local unions reviewed it and did not do what 
we thought was sufficient to terminate the case, we then referred all 
of these cases to the public review board. 

In other words, we wanted the public review board to review these. 
This is a very difficult area. In the case of Local 600, we have had 
problems there in the past. We put that local under administrator- 
ship. We removed five people from office ; calls we thought we could 
prove that they were Communists. Four of them have been disbarred. 

They are still disbarred from holding office. 

But the whole problem, Senator Mundt, is that I have no right to 
move because I have a hunch. 

Senator Mundt. You have more than a hunch here. You have some 
pretty good evidence right here, which you yourself recognize, because 
very commendably you said you led a motion in your executive com- 
mittee insofar as international reps were concerned taking the fifth 
amendment was out. 

You wanted them to come clean as good Americans. 

Mr. Reuther. There I had authority. 

Senator Mundt. Yes; you had the authority. But you recognize 
that there was something more than a hunch involved in Mr. Dorosh. 



10080 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Reuther. In the case of a local union officer, in this case a unit 
officer of a local union, I do not have the same constitutional authority 
that I do have with an international representative. 

Senator Mundt. That is right. But you have a different constitu- 
tional authority, which we discussed yesterday. 

Mr. Reuther. What we did in this case 

The Chairman. May the Chair interrupt and suggest that as early 
as you can, you reach a point so that we can discontinue? We will 
recess for lunch. 

Mr. Reuther. I would like to put this into the record, because this 
is what happened to these cases. If we had just said "O. K., the local 
unions found these fellows qualified and, therefore, taking the fifth 
amendment didn't matter," and let it drop there, then I think we would 
have been derelict. But since we were trying to handle this in an 
area where the constitution of our union did not define that taking 
the fifth amendment as such would disqualify a person, and the local 
union found that it didn't, we then, the executive board of the interna- 
tional union then directed that all of these cases go to the public 
review board. 

I would like to submit, Mr. Chairman, the decision of the public 
review board on these cases, and read their conclusion, if I might, and 
then maybe we can dispose of this point before recess. 

Senator Mundt. That isn't going to dispose of it, but you certainly 
may read it, 

Mr. Reuther. I mean until we recess. 

The Chairman. Do you wish to make that document an exhibit ? 

Mr. Reuther. Yes. 

The Chairman. That will be made exhibit No. 133, for reference. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 133'' for ref- 
erence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. You may quote from that if you desire. 

Mr. Reuther. I would like to read : 

The issue thus referred to the public review board is defined as follows in the 
letter of transmittal from the international executive board accompanying the 
five cases. 

You see, we were hanging this case not on our constitution, because 
our constitution was cited, but upon the ethical practices code of the 
AFL^CIO. 

It says here : 

The issue thus referred to the public review board is defined as follows in the 
letter of transmittal from the international executive board accompanying the 
five cases : "It would seem that the primary question is whether each of the local 
unions in implementing the June 3, l'J57. administrative letter, conducted an 
inquiry and reached a conclusion consistent wtih the spirit as well as the letter 
of the AFL-CIO Ethical Code No. 3." 

This was the basis for our asking the public review board to review 
this, because it was not covered by constitution. It was covered by our 
approval of the ethical codes of the AFL-CIO. 
ri Then the public review board findings continue, and I quote: 

In reviewing these cases, the public review board has before it the following 
materials submitted by the international executive board: The complete testi- 
mony of each of the five individuals before the Senate subcommittee, the rec- 
ords of the local executive board proceedings, and the local union membership 
ratification, and a transcript of the international executive board's action in 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES' IN THE LABOR FIELD 10081 

referring these cases to the public review board. On the basis of a careful con- 
sideration of the foregoing, and in the absence of other evidence or information, 
we are unable to say that the inquiries conducted and the conclusions reached 
were not consistent with the spirit as well as the letter of the AFL-CIO Ethical 
Practices Code No. 3. 

In so disposing of these matters, we deem it important to point out that these 
cases are not really controversies in the form in which they have come to 
the board. 

The local officers were acquitted before the local tribunals. There were, as a 
consequence, no appeals from the local determination. The presentation to the 
board has been accordingly nonadversary in nature. 

This is what they concluded. These 7 public-spirited citizens — 3 
clergymen, 2 judges, and 2 people from the universities — went over 
all the documents, and in their judgment, not in my judgment because 
I didn't pass upon the local cases — we sent them to the public review 
board. I passed upon the international reps — in their judgment, 
they felt that the union had no basis to move against these people 
within the letter and the spirit of the AFLr-CIO Ethical Practice 
Code. 

If you want to dispute them, you have that privilege. But we are 
bound by their decision under our constitution. 

Senator Mundt. I would like to ask you a question now which you 
can answer either yes or no, and then we can adjourn for lunch and 
come back to it. 

I hope you will answer it either yes or no, and it would button up 
this part. You have said throughout, and I recognize it as a problem, 
that you have a more direct authority to move against the interna- 
tionl reps than you have against locals, and that you have a more 
direct authority to move against locals concerning actual Communists 
where you have developed sufficient evidence to prove it, and you have 
the fifth amendment, but your problem is that the constitution takes 
no action against the fifth amendment; my question is very simple: 

Would you favor an amendment to your constitution which would 
tend to establish there the fact that you consider taking the fifth 
amendmend on these personal questions? 

Mr. Reuther. Personally, I would. Personally, I am not sure that 
our organization would. Personally, I do not think that anybody 
ought to be an officer of any union at any level who has to hide behind 
the fifth amendment. That is my personal position. 

Senator Mundt. Yes. Would you favor it to the point that you 
would be willing to use your very considerable powers as an advocate 
to encourage its adoption ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, I am for doing whatever I can to meet the 
problem of subversion, but I want to meet it within the framework 
of the democratic concepts that make this country great. I can say 
to you that if one international representative uses the fifth amend- 
ment, he will get off the payroll in a hurry. But I don't have that 
kind of authority over local officers, and I am not going to abuse my 
authority. 

Senator Mundt. That is right. My question was : Since you favor 
including that kind of provision in the constitution, whether you 
favored it passively or do you favor it sufficiently so that you would 
be willing to use your very considerable powers as an advocate to 
recommend it to your convention ? 



10082 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Reuther. I favor very few things passively, Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. I am sure that is right. But that still doesn't 
answer my question. 

Mr. Reuther. I am aware of that. The point is that I think that 
the problem that bothers me — if you said to me, "Are you in favor of 
a constitutional provision that no international officer, no interna- 
ational representative, shall use the fifth amendment," I will say yes, 
I will work to get that. 

At the local level, I am just reluctant — how far do I reach into 
the locals and substitute my authority for their judgment? 

This is the whole problem of democracy. 

Senator Mundt. This as you said yesterday 

Mr. Reuther. At the international level, the answer is yes. 

Senator Mundt. The problem is real and very important, and I 
think you and I agree there is no problem more important than com- 
munism. You said that in your constitution you provide, and I think 
wisely, for this administrative procedure, so that you recognize that 
in a real problem you would have that authority. I would like to have 
you take this final step which plugs up this big loophole, which, by 
your own testimony, makes it difficult at least for you to do some- 
thing about a local situation with respect to the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Reuther. With respect to international officers, with respect 
to international representatives, I would favor such a provision in 
our constitution on the fifth amendment. With respect to the local 
unions, I have to think that one through, because I don't want to do 
anything which begins to erode the democratic rights and the auton- 
omy of local unions. I think that is why we have a good union, be- 
cause we have a democratic union. 

Senator Mundt. Would you go this far 

Mr. Reuther. We licked the Communists and still preserved de- 
mocracy. 

Senator Mundt. None of us have licked the Communists yet, but 
we are still working. 

Mr. Reuther. Our union did. If they didn't have any more in- 
fluence than they have in our union, we could cut our military aid and 
foreign aid and relax, because they have no influence in our unions. 

Senator Mundt. That depends" In our system of government you 
can have mighty fine people at the top, but if you have the wrong 
people in charge of the local situation, it is not good. 

Mr. Reuther. The Commies have been fighting me politically for 
years, and they haven't done too well. 

Senator Mundt. I am not arguing about that. 

Mr. Reuther. It proves they haven't any influence in our union. 

Senator Mundt. I want to give you this mechanism, if I can, to 
give you another tool to fight the Communists at a local level. It 
would seem to me, at least to this extent, you might decide to become 
an ardent advocate of a constitutional amendment 

Mr. Reuther. At the international level, I have already said. 

Senator Mundt. At the local level. To this extent, I think you 
should go along, that you should be willing to amend your constitution 
on this fifth amendment matter to the point that taking the fifth 
amendment by local officials should be sufficient, at least, to establish 
an administratorship, where you could then come in and watch this 
fellow and stick with it until you make a determination, and if you 



IMPROPEiR ACTirVITIElS' IN THE LABOR FIELD 10083 

find he is innocent, pull out your administratorship, and if you find 
he is guilty, certainly he should be removed. 

Mr. Reuther. I say at the international level. I am prepared to 
do it at the local level. I still say maybe the risk is too great. I am 
unwilling to destroy democracy in order to fight communism. 

I think the most effective way to destroy communism is to make 
democracy stronger. 

Senator Mundt. We are never going to make democracy strong or 
make democracy work with communism. That is what I want to 
state. 

Mr. Reuther. I say if the Communists have no more influence 
in the world than they have in our union, we would be over that 
problem. 

Senator Mundt. I think we can pick this up after lunch, Mr. 
Chairman. 

The Chairman. We will recess for lunch. 

The hearing will resume at 2 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 12 : 25 a recess was taken until 2 p. m. of the same 
day, with the following members present : Senators McClellan, Mundt, 
Curtis, and McNamara.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

(At the reconvening of the session the following members were 
present: Senators McClellan, McNamara, Kennedy, Curtis, Gold- 
water, and Mundt.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

TESTIMONY OF WALTER P. REUTHER, ACCOMPANIED BY JOSEPH L. 
RATJH, JR., COUNSEL— Resumed 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We left off for lunch when discussing Mr. Dorosh in Local Union 
No. 600 and what can be done about it. 

At lunch time, Mr. Dorosh was still a member of the official family 
of union number 600, and we hadn't found a way to get him out, 
although we had agreed pretty well, I think, the witness and I, that 
union officials taking the fifth amendment on evidence that they have 
that they are members of the Communist Party, is cause for them not 
to continue to serve as a union official, Mr. Reuther had said that as 
far as UAW reps are concerned, he took direct action. That leaves 
the problem unsolved : What do we do about a case like Mr. Dorosh, 
what do we do about this local official ? Through the lunch hour, I 
tried to rephrase my proposed amendment that I am trying to get 
you to advocate, Mr. Reuther. I would like to read it to you now and 
see whether perhaps this might be a halfway house on which we could 
agree. 

I think there is merit in what you say, that we shouldn't load into 
the office of the international president, complete dictatorial authority 
over a local union. I think that would be full of peril, no matter 
who the international official was. I think it runs contrary to our 
whole concept of the separation of powers of government. 



10084 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

But wouldn't this be an answer to this kind of problem, and it is a 
very real problem, and I think you sense it, to say that since you have 
no power to act directly, the constitution is silent on the subject, to 
provide that the taking of the fifth amendment by a local union official 
before a court of law or a congressional committee or a grand jury, 
dealing on these instant problems, would be sufficient ground to 
justify the creation of an administratorship over that local union, that 
would put it directly in your hands until the problem were resolved 
one way or another ? 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Mundt, I do not think that that would solve 
your problem, because supposing that under our constitution we put 
an administratorship over a local that had an officer in the category 
that you are describing and we removed him. 

Under the administratorship, 60 days later we would be obligated 
by the constitution to permit the membership to again exercise their 
democratic prerogatives to elect new local leadership. 

Supposing they elected him again ? 

Senator Mundt. Five days, or, I would prefer 24 hours after that, 
under this new authority in the constitution, you would reinstitute 
your administratorship. 

Mr. Reuther. Well, it seems to me that that really would just cre- 
ate chaos. We would be in a continuous rotation, administratorship 
for 60 days, a new election, a 5-day interval, another 60 days. It 
would seem to me that what we have to do is to try to find a way to 
get sufficient evidence so that by due process we can prove this fellow 
unworthy of holding local union leadership. 

You see, the waves of democracy are difficult, sometimes, in a to- 
talitarian state or in a dictatorial organization, somebody on top just 
makes a decision and somebody's head rolls. 

I would rather have a few people causing us a little bit of trouble 
than to destroy the democratic rights of every one. And I say that- 
just putting an administratorship, this would require a constitutional 
change in our union to do it, to begin with, but I don't think it is the 
answer. 

Senator Mundt. No, I think not. I think you said yesterday, and 
I asked you the question specifically whether you had the authority 
to establish an administratorship over a local where the official was 
corrupt, or a Communist, and you said yes. 

Mr. Reuther. Yes, but when we have a show cause hearing 

Senator Mundt. Now, to get around the question of whether taking 
the fifth amendment makes him a Communist 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Mundt, if we were holding now, if we were 
sitting now as an executive board of our union and we had before us 
the leadership of a local union under a show-cause hearing, where we 
were required to show cause why we thought the union was in jeop- 
ardy, and they had legal counsel with them, and he said "You show 
me in the constitution where this local union is in jeopardy because 
this one union official used the fifth amendment, you show us where 
constitutionally under this constitution that we are governed by you 
have the legal right." 

Senator Mundt. That is now. Let's talk about it after the Mundt- 
Reuther amendment has been adopted. 

Then what? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10085 

Mr. Reuther. You just call it the Mundt amendment, and we 
wouldn't complicate it. 

Senator Mundt. I want your advocacy. All right, the amendment. 

Mr. Reuther. I am saying that under this constitution, even though 
you are right, and I think that thing has to be talked through, under 
this constitution we could not do what you are suggesting, and I am 
governed by this constitution. 

Senator Mundt. You base that on the fact that the evidence we 
have here is that he has taken recourse in the fifth amendment rather 
than the fact that you found him with a hammer and a sickle tattooed 
on his chest so you know he is a Communist. 

Mr. Reuther. I can assure you that the dangerous Communist 
agents in the world do not have a hammer and sickle tattooed on their 
chest. They are where you least would expect to find them. If I were 
planting Communist agents in America, I would not put them in 
places where they carried the hammer and sickle either on their chest 
or any place else. I would make them the most respectable people, I 
would put them in positions where they could do their dirty work with 
a minimum of suspicion being associated with their activities. 

Senator Mundt. The Communists follow precisely that formula. 

Mr. Reuther. That is right, I think they are very clever and very 
dangerous adversaries. 

Senator Mundt. They take the fifth amendment when they are 
caught, because they don't want to go to jail for perjury and they 
don't want to admit their Communist activity. 

Mr. Reuther. I take it you agree with me that under this consti- 
tution I can't do what you are proposing, and you are suggesting that 
we change it. 

Senator Mundt. That is right. 

Mr. Reuther. All right. 

Senator Mundt. My suggestion is, and I will read it again, that 
you propose an amendment, which you said you would be happy to 
advocate for the international representatives 

Mr. Reuther. And the international officers. 

Senator Mundt. And the international officers, and I suggest to 
make the thing that it doesn't leave this loophole which is pretty 
serious, as you have in local 600, that you provide the taking of the 
fifth amendment, in your constitution the taking of the fifth amend- 
ment, by a local official, before a regularly constituted official govern- 
mental body — I am not talking about Gestapo chambers and star 
chambers, but of Government commissions, committees or bodies — 
that that should be sufficient to justify the creation of an adminis- 
tratorship. Then you have at least, got the thing under control. 

That is what you do with a crook. What would you do if you find 
a crook, and he is robbing the members blind? You move in fast. 
You have the constitutional authority. But suppose after 60 days 
they reelect a crook. What do you do then ? 

It is the same problem. 

Mr. Reuther. Under the constitution, we have specific authority 
to deal with these kind of things where you can prove it. 

Senator Mundt. Right, and you would have it under my amend 
ment on the fifth amendment. 

21243— 58— pt. 25 12 



10086 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Reutiier. But if a man says "I refuse to answer the question," 
are you a Communist; that doesn't prove he is a Communist. We 
have one fellow in this group who is anti-Communist, but he had a 
stubborn streak and he said "By God, it is my business what I am. 
I wouldn't tell you." 

He got in the same jam. I can swear he is not a Communist be- 
cause he has fought the Communists. But he has the stubborn streak 
and said "I resent your prying into my political rights." 

Senator Mundt. You meet people like that. 

Mr. Eeuther. What do you do when you meet a fellow like that ? 

Senator Mundt. You told me that what you did as an international 
rep was to call him in and question him. But if he sticks by it, I 
suppose you fire him. 

Mr. Reutiier. Because an international representative is working 
for the union at my discretion and the discretion of the executive 
board who have to approve them. But a local union officer is there 
by decision of the membership. If the UAW, and I think that I have 
as much support from the rank and file members of this union as any 
leader in the world has for any big union, and I think the record is 
there. If the membership of this union felt that they wanted to give 
me more power so I could do what you propose, I would refuse to take 
it, and I would resist them. 

You will find time after time in our conventions I have strongly 
urged them not to give us more power in areas where an abuse of 
such power could create a threat to the democratic rights of the in- 
dividual members. 

Senator Mundt. Let me explain, Mr. Reuther, why this is im- 
portant and very important. This isn't just a matter of rhetoric 
in vacuum. This is a matter of applying rules where proper. 

You told us that as the situation now exists, you are comparatively 
helpless. Mr. Dorosh serves there, and he serves there because con- 
stitutionally you have no authority to move in direct. You did, 
commendably, write a letter to the local saying it ought to give some 
attention to it. You did, commendably, refer it to this public review 
board. But the difficulty is, as you well know, this local even if 
composed of people ardently in opposition to communism, lacks, 
number one, the subpena power, the procedural power, it doesn't have 
the rules of perjury, it doesn't have, I hope, a Gestapo or a private 
police force that can check up on people. 

It isn't the kind of body that a congressional committee is or the 
FBI is to get to the evidence. There is no way they can go behind 
these fifth amendments and bring out the facts. 

Let me point out how hopeless it becomes in the instant case. This 
is local 600. I quote to you from May 18, 1957, where the president 
of local 600, Mr. Karl Stellato, who came with Mr. Dorosh to the 
committee hearings, to whom your correspondence would have to be 
directed, who would be in charge of this screening that the local 
union gave, which, in turn, apparently without too careful investigat- 
ing the facts, this public review board said they didn't find to be 
inconsistent, here now 

Mr. Reutiier. Mr. Chairman, I think it is unfair to accuse the 
public review board. 

There are seven very distinguished Americans, accused of not doing 
their job right. I don't think that is fair, Senator Mundt. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES' IN THE LABOR FIELD 10087 

Senator Mundt. I am not accusing them. 

Mr. Reutiier. Yon said without going into the facts. 

Senator Mundt. Because they in turn, Mr. Reuther, lack the sub- 
pena power. They don't operate under the rules of perjury. 

They have no way in which they can make the kind of 
investigation 

Mr. Reuther. No private group has subpena power. 

Senator Mundt. Of course not. That is the point. That is the 
problem. Because here is the man who makes the investigation on 
which you have to base your position, and on which they base theirs. 

Here is what he says, the president of the union, reporting back 
to his members, after he accompanied Mr. Dorosh. He said "Brother 
Dorosh, tool and die recording secretary, gave testimony in the execu- 
tive session and the open hearing on trade union matters dealing with 
his past as unit secretary." Then he goes on to point out that he took 
the fifth amendment. 

He says, "When the question arose as to whether he was a Com- 
munist uoav or was in the past, after having consulted with the in- 
ternational union, and being told that union policy frowns on the 
use of constitutional privileges while testifying on union finances, 
but not when dealing with civil liberties, and upon advice of his at- 
torney, Brother Dorosh invoked his constitutional privileges." 

Now, was he correctly interpreting the international union policy 
when he said that, Mr. Reuther ? 

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

Mr. Reuther. No, I don't think he was. 

I think that we frown upon the use of constitutional privileges in 
any case where a person is using that to hide what he personally was 
involved in. We make the exception 

Senator Mundt. Whether it is civil rights, or communism 

Mr. Reuther. We make the exception when we are dealing with 
that person who may be under oath being asked to act as an informer 
to hurt innocent people who are no longer involved in the Com- 
munist conspiracy. 

Senator Mundt. We had that in the record this morning. 

Mr. Reuther. Right. 

Senator Mundt. Yes. Except for that exception, he misinterpreted 
in his speech to the Ford workers the international policy ? 

Mr. Reuther. It is possible he didn't understand it. 

Senator Mundt. Well, if he didn't he misinterpreted it. 

Mr. Reuther. Yes. Well, I don't want to imply that he did it 
willfully. 

Senator Mundt. I am not implying. 

Mr. Reuther. I want to be sure you aren't. 

Senator Mundt. All right. I am going to imply something else in 
a minute. "Brother Dorosh invoked his constitutional privileges. 
Brother Dorosh refused to discuss the activities of other union mem- 
bers or the activities of progressive caucuses which seemed to be the 
central point of the committee's questioning." We don't quarrel with 
him on that, on your theory, but he, as the evidence showed, and as I 
corrected your impression of it in this morning, he took the fifth 
amendment on the pertinent question of "Are you presently a mem- 
ber of the Communist Partv?" 



10088 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

So we have here the man who is going to make the investigation of 
Dorosh at the local level, even before the investigation is made, after 
he gets home from his trip to Washington, saying that "Brother 
Dorosh was properly taking the fifth amendment, there was nothing 
wrong for it," and, as a matter of fact, in his speech, and I am not 
going to read the whole thing, his report, he attacks the Government 
witness, who was another UAW official, a fine fellow, who said "I 
used to be a Communist ; I am no longer a Communist," and followed 
the formula that you prescribed. So I submit to you, you leave the 
problem right out here now, unless you accept some such sugges- 
tion as mine. You say you lack the authority. They lack the de- 
sirability in local 600. 

You said this morning on occasion you have had to establish an 
administratorship on local 600, because of Communist officials who 
had gotten into control. 

Will you tell us how do we resolve a problem like this? 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Mundt, I was not there, but I am advised 
that when this matter was processed by the tool and die units, under 
the structure there, they would have been his peers in effect, in terms 
of paralleling our whole concept of trial procedure. 

They had a meeting at the unit level, which would be the tool and 
die unit, of which he was the recording secretary. He was not a local 
officer ; lie was a unit officer. 

At the time that this hearing was held concerning his testimony or 
his refusal to testify before the Internal Security Committee, he did, 
before that group, and they so reported to the membership, where 
their decision was ratified, that he had been a member of the Com- 
munist Party, and he so testified that he had left the party. 

Now, if he had refused to discuss it with his peers, then I think 
under our policy we would have been willing to move against him. 
In other words, if he had said that at the time they had this meeting, 
when he was called in before his peers at the unit level, if he had said 
"I will not discuss whether I was a party member or not," then we 
will, we would have used that as a basis for moving. 

But he did say "I was a member of the party and I quit the party." 

Senator Mundt. At that time, however, he was not testifying under 
oath. 

Mr. Reuther. Because we can't put anybody under oath. 

Senator Mundt. Precisely. That is where the mechanism breaks 
down. 

Mr. Reuther. The point is: Do we at that point challenge his in- 
tegrity and his statement ? 

If we do, then we start down a ratrace, and I don't know where it 
can lead to in a private organization. 

You see, this is the problem we have here: How do you try to ex- 
pand centralized authority on top of a democratic organization which 
does not have the right to subpena and make people testify under oath ? 

How do you enlarge upon the central authority at the top without 
putting into serious jeopardy the democratic rights at the local union 
level ? 

I think that democracy at the local level of a union is vital. I think 
without it you cannot have a decent, free, clean, trade union move- 
ment. 



IMPROPER ACTIVrrijES IX THE LABOR FIELD 10089 

What bothers me in this whole area, and I don't claim to be an au- 
thority on it, but I am just telling you as one person to another, with 
respect to international officers, because they have a higher responsi- 
bility, with respect to international representatives because they are 
not elected by somebody else, they are appointed by my office subject 
to the approval of the board, that at that level I am prepared to say 
"I think that no one should be on the payroll of our union at that 
level who uses the fifth amendment or any other constitutional 
privilege." 

But at the point you say to me "Do that mechanically at the local 
level," I am not sure, I am not sure that you aren't giving me authority 
far and beyond the wisdom of peojjle in the top of an organization 
to use with the discretion essential to protect the rights and the 
democratic privileges of each individual member. 

You see, democracy is more difficult to operate than a totalitarian 
structure. These are the problems of democracy. 

When Mr. Dorosh said he was a member of the Communist Party 
but resigned, I didn't just take his word, because, constitutionally, I 
had no basis for moving. But the international executive board said 
''We still would like the public review board to look this over, and 
we will take their judgment." They held hearings, and they made 
a judgment. You don't think it was the right judgment. 

Senator Mi ndt. I don't think it was the right procedure. I don't 
know whether the judgment was right or not. You can't hold 
hearings and get out assured facts unless you can operate under the 
rules of perjury and have the power of subpena. You can go through 
the motions, but you can't offset a Government hearing which is under 
oath by having a conversation with a stenographer around taking, 
down notes. 

Mr. Reuther. Ultimately, then, to apply your point of view to it 
in a practical way, you would have to get the Government to conduct 
all these trial procedures. 

Senator Mundt. No; I think, Mr. Reuther, you did it very well 
with your international reps. You said you were not quite satisfied 
with that. 

You called them in and talked to them. This wasn't a matter of a 
hearing. You asked them some questions. You went into the facts. 
They convinced you that on the basis of deeds 

Mr. Reuther. And they put affidavits in the record, sworn 
affidavits. 

Senator Mundt. Right. But you said they convinced you on the 
basis of deeds, and nobody can quarrel with that. That is why I am 
very sincere in suggesting you set up a mechanism such as this ad- 
ministratorship, which gives you the power, and which you now have 
in the constitution, when you know he is a Communist, to take some 
kind of salutary action against the fifth amendment American, who 
usually is a Communist. You run into the stubborn fellow now and 
then, but usually the fellow who takes the fifth amendment has some- 
thing to hide. So you ought to have some protection against those 
600 members. I don't know anything about union 600. But I would 
doubt very much that the international president, having established 
an administrationship, pointing out the problem, having talked with 
Mr. Dorosh, and found him unwilling by deeds, not by sworn testimony 



10090 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

but unwilling by deeds, to demonstrate that he was not a Commu- 
nist — I doubt if they would reelect him president. Maybe they would, 
or maybe they would not. But if they did, you could move right 
back. 

They might reelect a crook, you see. 

You wouldn't let them do that, would you ? 

Mr. Reuther. No, obviously not. 

Senator Mundt. This is a philosophical difference. It seems to me 
that these are kinds of problems that free people talk about and have 
a right to differ about. 

I am just worried at what point you have to draw the line of de- 
marcation in the centralizing of authority in a democratic, voluntary 
organization until you finally get so much authority on top that you 
begin to destroy the rights and privileges of people at the bottom. 

This is what bothers me. I don't want that much authority. 

Mr. Reuther. But you have it in corruption. 

Senator Mundt. Yes, because there you are dealing with a different 
thing. You can prove corruption. 

It is easier to prove corruption, that a fellow stole money, made a 
sweetheart agreement, or something else. It is tangible. But when 
you are dealing with a man's political thoughts, inner thoughts, you 
are dealing with intangible things. Here is a fellow that said I quit 
the party. How do you know he didn't? 

I don't know now. 

Senator Mundt. That is why we have the opportunities before con- 
gressional committees to prove precisely that. I am not going to go 
through all of these five. I want to call attention briefly to Mr. James 
Simmons, of Detroit. This is a more important official, because this 
is the man who was elected to the position of vice president of the 
gear and machine unit of local 600 involving some 750 members. 

He was asked the same question : 

Are you the vice president? 

Answer. That is right. 

Question. Are you presently a member of the Communist Party? 

Answer. I refuse to answer that question on the basis of the fifth amendment. 

f At this point, Senator Kennedy entered the hearing room.) 
(At this point, Senator Ervin withdrew from the hearing room.) 
Senator Mundt. Now, with vice presidents of local units and local 
organizations taking that attitude, you are taking the attitude that 
the UAW does not approve of the fifth amendment, I would hate to 
just let the problem rest and say "This is our policy but our practice 
is directly contrary, and I can't do anything about it." 

Mr. Reuther. That point is that at the moment, even if I agreed 
with you, and I made clear that I have reservations about your sug- 
gestion being the ultimate solution to this problem, even if I agreed 
with you, I do not have the constitutional authority to do what you 
suggest, and I am certain that you wouldn't suggest that I violate the 
constitution. "What you are really saying in effect is that at the next 
UAW convention we ought to give consideration to changing the con- 
stitution to provide that in the event anyone, for whatever purposes, 
uses the fifth amendment or any other constitutional privilege, that 
that automatically would be the basis for removal from office. 
(At this point, Senator Ervin entered the hearing room.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10091 

Senator Mundt. No, no. 

Mr. Reuther. This is your proposal. 

Senator Mundt. No, it is not. Up to the last part. Automatically 
would provide justification for you to establish an administratorship. 
You don't always remove the officers under an administratorship, 
but you are there to make sure everything is all right before you go 
away. Isn't that the purpose of it ? 

Mr. Reuther. The purpose is to see to it that the affairs of the 
union are such that the best interests of the membership will be served. 

Senator Mundt. All right. I ask that you do the same on com- 
munism as you do on corruption. 

Mr. Reuther. Well, it seems to me that at the time when your com- 
mittee is dealing with a problem as to how you can stop administra- 
torships from being established in local unions, you are now proposing 
that we begin to establish more of them. 

I don't like administratorships. I think they are bad and they 
ought to be used very sparingly. I wish there was an easy answer 
to the problem that you pose. The other thing that you must remem- 
ber, Senator Mundt, and this, again, is an area in which I am ex- 
tremely sensitive as a person, is most of my opposition has come out 
of local 600. 

I mean my political opposition internally in the union, when I run 
for office or when I advocate policies. 

I will do everything in my power to avoid anyone coming to the 
conclusion that I am trying to victimize people because they oppose 
me politically in the union, because everybody in this union who is 
in good standing has got as much right, as many rights and privileges, 
as I have, and I have always — you get the records of our convention, 
and we always put the opposition on every committee. 

When I first did this at the first convention after the group I work 
with were in control of this union, I was criticized by my friends, 
and I said "Look, if our ideas will not stand the test of the competi- 
tion of the opposition, then maybe we ought to review our own ideas 
because maybe they aren't as good as we think they are." 

At every convention, we put somebody from the opposition caucus 
on each committee so that that opposition will have an organized 
base on which to fight for its position and oppose our policies where 
they disagree. 

I am very sensitive. I don't want to destroy the opposition of the 
people in my union. Anybody has a right to run against me. They 
have a right to organize their own groups and own caucuses. 

I will not do anything constitutionally that will make it easy for 
me to destroy people in my opposition. If I can't provide better 
leadership that will be worthy of the support of our membership and 
win on that basis, then I don't think I am worthy of being the leader 
of this big union. 

So I am sensitive, as a matter of fact, when we put the administrator- 
ship over local 600, when we removed 5 people we could prove were 
Communists, and 4 of them are still disbarred — 1 fellow proved to us 
that he had broken with the Communist Party, he fought them, he 
testified freely down here, he didn't use any constitutional privilege — 
we reinstated his right to run, and he was elected to a local unit 
position. 



10092 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

When I established that administratorship, or when my administra- 
tive group did, I mean the executive board, we were severely criticized, 
severely criticized. Unless you handle these things carefully, some 
times the company that you think you are trying to go at winds up 
being a martyr and he gets the support of the membership just be- 
cause they think he is being kicked around by the people on top. I 
think your proposal would do exactly that. 

I think it would wind up to put administratorship, and at the end 
of 60 days they reelect this fellow, and you remove him again. 

Each 60 days I think he would get a bigger majority because this 
is the undergoing feeling. 

(At this point the following members are present: Senators Mc- 
Clellan, Ervin, McNamara, Kennedy, Mundt, Curtis, and Goldwater.) 

Senator Mundt. Do you do that when you put an administrator over 
crooked union officials? 

Mr. Reuther. You can prove that but you can't prove a man is still 
a Communist when he swears before his membership he resigned. 

How do you prove it ? How do you get back into the crevices of his 
mind and say, "Well, back in this little corner, he is still a Communist? 

You deal with intangibles. 

Senator Mundt. When did Mr. Simmons ever deny that he was pres- 
ently a Communist ? 

Mr. Reuther. I am not sure about all of the details, but I think 
if you will look at the publication of that local union, that provides 
that each big building has a portion of the paper each week for their 
purposes, you will find that this gentleman, Mr. Simmons, wrote 
articles condemning the Communist Party in his column in the local 
union. 

Senator Mundt. That would mean nothing at all. Lots of Com- 
munists write articles against communism, and that is part of their 
tactics that you say you would have Communists employ, and I would 
have them employ the same kind if I were directing it. 

You don't have them come up in front and stand on the street corner 
and espouse communism. This is part of the business. 

When did he deny he was a Communist? 

Mr. Reuther. He denied it when he was before the local group 
who were hearing his case. 

Senator Mundt. He did not take the opportunity before the senato- 
rial commitee. 

Mr. Reuther. That is right, and if he had we would not have this 
problem. 

Senator Mundt. I don't want to pursue that point any further with 
you. Could we settle that one this way : You don't like my idea, and 
you won't associate your name with my amendment, but will you agree 
that this is a phase of the fight against communism for which you have 
not found a successful formula for fighting at the local level ? 

Mr. Reuther. I would say it is a phase of democracy's problem. 
This is bigger than the question of communism. This whole ques- 
tion 

Senator Mundt. Let us pin it down to the problem of communism, 
which is big enough for this country boy from South Dakota to 
wrestle with one afternoon. 

Mr. Reuther. When you begin to take steps that will erode the 
freedom of people, even in the name of fighting communism, it still 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10093 

erodes their freedom. I say we have got to find a way to defeat 
communism without jeopardizing the freedom of people in the process. 

I think you can. Our union is the best example. We have beaten 
the Communists by making democracy work. 

Senator Mundt. You are not going to make it work in local COO 
if you have the Communists working at the democratic controls. 

Mr. Reuther. The Communists don't control local 600, Senator 
Mundt. If they did we would put an administratorship over it. I 
don't say, because 1 can't say this under oath, because I don't know. 
I told you I had my hunches, too, but I have no right nor do I want 
the power to remove people from office because Walter Reuther has 
a hunch. 

I believe in due process, and I believe everybody has the same 
rights, and unless I can prove a fellow is a Communist under the con- 
stitution I should not have nor do I want the power to remove him. 

Senator Mundt. Have you read this particular hearing of the Sen- 
ate Internal Security Committee? 

Mr. Reuther. I read all of the procedures related to the interna- 
tional representatives. 

Senator Mundt. This is not that. I think I ought to let you take 
this home with you and read it because this is a lot more than a hunch. 

Mr. Reuther. When do you think I will get home? 

Senator Mundt. This is pretty documentary. 

I think it will be Sunday morning. 

I will now turn to another phase. You have said many times, and 
I think I know enough of your public record to believe that I quote 
your position correctly when you say that you are an active advocate 
of civil rights, minority rights, and we are not talking about what 
Communists call civil rights. 

We are talking about what laymen talk about as the rights of a 
minority, and the rights of minority groups. You are a great believer 
and advocate, I believe, in that. Am I right ? 

Mr. Reuther. Yes. I think the test of a democracy and the ques- 
tion of human freedom is how it applies to single individuals. 

Senator Mundt. Or to a group that has a minority position? 

Mr. Reuther. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. Does the IT AW under your direction ever make- 
any contributions to organizations or groups that are sponsoring or 
promoting minority rights ? 

Mr. Reuther. We do. We make contributions to fraternal groups, 
to groups dealing with civil rights and civil liberties, and to religious 
groups, and to all kind of groups dealing in areas in which we feel 
that we have an interest, and which we feel we ought to lend our 
support to. 

Senator Mundt. How is that money collected, Mr. Reuther? Is it 
by a special tax on the membership, out of regular overall dues, or by 
some special assessment ? How is that fund raised ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, we have one source of income, that is our dues. 
We have no other source of income. Moneys that we spend for po- 
litical activities in terms of candidates and things like that does not 
come out of the dues money. 

This is voluntary money. Our convention is the highest authority 
of our union, and it meets roughly every '2 years. We have some- 



10094 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

where in the neighborhood of 3,000 delegates, all of whom are demo- 
cratically elected by the membership in each of the local unions. 

They come together, and there are committees set up by this con- 
vention in advance. There is a committee on credentials that passes 
upon the seating of delegates and there is a committee on constitution 
that deals with our basic bylaws, and there is the committee on griev- 
ances that have to be processed, and there is a committee on educa- 
tion, and there is a committee on other subject matters. 

There is also a committee, a broad committee on resolutions which 
is our policy committee. Now, they come forward with recommenda- 
tions, and they will make recommendations in a number of areas. 

Then between conventions the international executive board is 
charged and authorized to implement the policy resolutions because 
obviously a policy is of little value if it is just set forth on a piece of 
paper. 

It takes on meaning and purpose only as you implement it. Then 
we are authorized to spend moneys and make contributions to further 
and to promote the objectives and the policies outlined by the conven- 
tion in the resolutions it adopts. 

Senator Mundt. To summarize, to see if I get it right, one source 
of income the union has is from dues, outside of partisan political ac- 
tivities which you say are collected by voluntary contributions. 

We are not talking about partisan contributions now, but we are 
talking about income from dues. The convention determines the 
dues, and the convention determines the general overall objectives for 
which dues can be spent, and the international board within that 
framework would undoubtedly determine the specific contribution 
to a specific organization or program or cause to implement those 
overall objectives, is that about right? 

Mr. Reuther. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. Now, your contributions that you make from that 
fund, then, are made from dues which all members have to pay, is that 
right? 

Mr. Reuther. A member of our union is obligated to pay the dues 
as prescribed by the constitution. 

Senator Mundt. These are compulsory dues that apply to every- 
body, and that is different from a political campaign ? 

This is a compulsory union contribution for the objectives de- 
termined by the convention ? 

Mr. Reuther. It is a monthly dues required of all members. 

Senator Mundt. Among the organizations to which you make 
contributions in that category, would be Americans for Democratic 
Action ? 

Mr. Reuther. That is one group that has gotten a contribution. 

Senator Mundt. And the NAACP, National Association for the 
Advancement of Colored People ? 

Mr. Reuther. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. I notice this reported filed by the ADA. I men- 
tion this one particularly because we have our friendly associate here 
who can correct the record certainly if it is wrong, because he has 
an abundance of experience in this field. 

This is from the files of the House committee where the union files 
its contributions and where the ADA files its receipts. Would it be 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIE& IN THE LABOR FIELD 10095 

fair to say that the UAW pays approximately $1,000 a month to the 
ADA? 

Mr. Keuther. I think that is essentially the level of our contribu- 
tions. 

Senator Mundt. It seems that way to me, and the records show, and 
I presume that the record filed by the ADA is accurate, that the UAW 
has paid roughly 33% percent of the total ADA budget since the 
record starts on March 11, 1956. 

Mr. Reuther. I am sure that that isn't so. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Rauh, I am talking about the nonpolitical 
activity of the ADA, what they call their education and you have 
the list here. 

You designate specific nonpolitical contributions, and I wanted Mr. 
Reuther to have that information at the time I asked the question. 
So the record shows 

Mr. Reuther. What happened was, Senator, back when the ADA 
came into being, the ADA came into being for a very specific and 
very important reason. That is unless you have someplace in America 
so that you have got an aggressive anti-Communist and liberal group 
working, some of the people are going to be gullible enough to get 
taken in, and the ADA came into being when the Henry Wallace 
group was formed, and we were very effective in that fight. 

We worked out a budget. Phil Murray was part of that, and other 
people in the trade union movement were a part of that, and the UAW 
contribution was worked out. 

What happened was some of these people have cut back, and we 
haven't, and we have been discussing this thing. 

I think that we are paying a larger share of the ADA budget than 
we ought to be. 

Senator Mundt. Roughly a third of the nonpolitical program, as- 
suming the validity of their report which you and I have to assume, 
and we don't want to get Mr. Rauh into trouble. 

Mr. Reuther. I don't know what report you have there. 

Senator Mundt. This comes from the report filed with the Clerk of 
the House of Representatives. Let me give you the totals, and maybe 
my arithmetic isn't correct, but I think it is roughly correct. 

This report for nonpolitical contributions from March 1, 1956, to 
March 10, 1958, is $75,000.82, of which they report $25,500 comes from 
the UAW. So I say roughly a third. 

Mr. Reuther. Mr. Rauh tells me, and he should know, and he 
knows a great deal more about this than I do because I don't get close 
to their financial matters, he tells me that the UAW has contributed 
roughly 10 percent of their budget. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Rauh should tell the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives what he tells you then, because that is where he is 
supposed to make his report. 

Mr. Reuther. He says that that can all be explained, because you 
are confusing or you are separating their funds into two categories, 
but if you talk about their total budget 

Senator Mundt. My purpose of mentioning it, and we don't have to 
argue much with this 10 percent or 35 percent, is to show you make 
a substantial contribution of about $1,000 a month to ADA, which 
I presume you make not to espouse and embrace and encourage the 



10096 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 

political activities in which ADA is engaged, but its activities in other 
areas. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Reuther. Primarily, our contributions to ADA in the period 
more near to us, were made primarily because of ADA's activities in 
the field of civil rights and civil liberties, because we felt that this 
group could make a greater contribution because it could draw into 
its activities people not normally associated with the labor movement 
as such. 

I think that the record is there to show that the ADA has been very 
effective, and it has made a great contribution in these areas. 

Our contribution essentially was for work that they were doinn in 
the broad area of civil rights and civil liberties. 

Senator Kennedy. Would the Senator yield ? 

I would like to see if we can get this question of whether it is 35 
percent or 10 percent, because the difference is quite high. 

Would the Senator permit me ? 

Senator Mundt. I will be happy to put this in the record. 

Senator Kennedy. I am just trying to get this because I would like 
to know myself. Which is it ? 

Would it be possible to ask Mr. Rauh if he would give an explana- 
tion of which it is ? 

Mr. Rauh. I think it is about 35 percent, or 33 percent of the union 
contributions, and about 10 percent of the total contributions, and I 
think that clarifies it, 

Both figures are in a sense correct, but it is 10 percent of the total 
contributions we have received. 

Senator Mundt. You have me completely confused now. Would 
you say that over again; I don't understand it, 

Mr. Rauh. I believe the UAW contribution represents about 33 
to 35 percent of the total contributions by labor unions, but represents 
about 10 percent of the total contributions. 

Senator Mundt. Could you explain to me why you, and I don't 
mean you personally, but you as Mr. ADA for this purpose, filed with 
the Clerk of the House of Representatives then what is certainly not 
a faithful and factual report, because it doesn't show that? 

Mr. Rauh. Nonsense. It is a faithful and factual report. 

Senator Mundt. You can read this, and if you can read this and 
find any other interpretation 

Mr. Rauh. I would be happy to. There is no question about it. 
Senator Kennedy's question is quite clear. 

It is about 10 percent of the total, and about 35 percent of the 
labor union contributions, and the records filed with the House are 
perfectly clear on this, and we will get them for you and give you 
copies. 

Senator Mundt. Does that satisfy you ? 

Senator Kennedy. Yes. 

Senator Muj> 
go right ahead. 

Now, Mr. Reuther, I am asking you these questions not to question 
your authority or your right to tax members of your union through 
dues-paying mechanisms to support organizations which embrace 
causes, but to ask you a few questions as to how you equate your very 
commendable interest in minority groups and the rights of minority 



improper AcrnrvrnE© in the labor field 10097 

citizens with a position of the union which, by mass picketing, pre- 
vents a minority individual or a minority group from entering a plant 
and continuing to work when their only offense is that, for good rea- 
son or bad, they have disagreed with the strike vote and prefer to 
work instead of strike. 

Don't you concede that they have a minority right, too ? 

Mr. Reuther. It seems to me we could save a lot of time here. I 
have told you before and the record will show very clearly, Senator 
Mundt, that just as a worker has a legal right to decide to withhold 
his labor power and go on strike, another worker can choose not to and 
<xo to work. 

Senator Mundt. That is your position ? 

Mr. Reuther. We are not arguing about that. 



Senator Mundt. That is your individual positi 



<m 



Mr. Reuther. Yes, sir. 
Senator Mundt. Is that the union's position ? 
Mr. Reuther. That is the position of our union. 
Senator Mundt. Let me quote from the record. 

The chairman, Senator McClellan, on page 1762, in reference to 
mass picketing said to Mr. Mazey : 

I am talking about the man who has a job there, who wants to return to 
work. Has he got just as much right to go into that plant and work as you 
have to walkout? 

This is Mr. Mazey, International Secretary-Treasurer of the UAW 
who describes himself as second in command only to Walter Reuther, 
and he said, "I don't think he has." 

Well now, who speaks for the UAW, Walter Reuther or Mr. Mazey, 
because there is a big debate going on right now on this point be- 
tween them? 

Mr. Reuther. I really hope that hasn't caused you too much 
discomfort. 

Senator Mundt. It has caused us some concern. 

Mr. Reuther. Because I wouldn't want that to be the case. 

Senator Mundt. I hope it hasn't caused you any discomfort. 

Mr. Reuther. No, it hasn't. I think that we are all different and it 
doesn't mean one person is better than another, and I don't think 
I am better than Mr. Mazey. But Mr. Mazey has a much lower boil- 
ing point than I. I can sit here indefinitely and I think I can keep 
a reasonable composure. Mr. Mazey 

Senator Mundt. You forget, Mr. Reuther 

Mr. Reuther. Mr. Mazey was 

Senator Mundt. Many, many times Mr. Rauh kept saying to Mr. 
Mazey, "Don't get angry, don't get angry," and he kept his boiling- 
point down pretty good. 

Mr. Reuther. That only proves my point, that despite Mr. Rauh's 
great effort, Mr. Mazey does have a low boiling point. 

He has been closer to this situation and perhaps emotionally more 
involved in the Kohler thing than I have been, and I make allowances 
for that. 

I think Mr. Mazey and I, if we were sitting down together, and I 
have done that many times, would share the point of view which I 
expressed, which is the point of view of our union. 

I can assure you that I speak here with the authority of this union. 
I know its leadership, and I know its membership, and I know that 



10098 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

my point of view is the official position of our union on the question 
you ask. 

We do recognize the right of a worker legally to go to work if he 
chooses not to strike, although we believe he is in violation of a basic 
moral responsibility to his fellow man. 

Senator Mundt. You will appreciate my position, Mr. Reuther. 
I am just a young man trying to pick up a little education in a big 
city far away from home, and I haven't met very many labor leaders 
and so when I hear the second man in command of the union say 
one thing, I have to accept that until I get the man in command 
say just the opposite. 

Now I accept what you say, because you are the chief. But you 
can understand why I would be confused. 

Mr. Reuther. I don't like that word "chief." Why don't you 
just say I am president of the union. 

Senator Mundt. You are president of the union. That suits me. 

Mr. Reuther. Thank you. 

Senator Mundt. So it is your testimony then that Mr. Mazey was 
not citing correctly the position of the union concerning minority 
members and the right to strike when he said, "I don't think he has"? 

Mr. Reuther. I don't know that Mr. Maze} 7 said that, but if he 
did 

Senator Mundt. This is from the record. 

Mr. Reuther. Sometimes you can skip the first part of a sentence, 
and I don't know how you are reading it, but I do say, Senator 

Senator Mundt. If you have any question, there was a question by 
Senator McClellan and that was his answer, and Mr. Rauh can 
look it up. It is on page 1762. Let us assume he said it. 

Mr. Reuther. I don't think that we ought to waste our time. As 
far as I am concerned, the position of our union is as I have stated. 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators Mc- 
Clellan, Kennedy, Ervin, Goldwater, McNamara, Mundt and Curtis.) 

Senator Mundt. Which is that the minority member, the fellow 
who doesn't decide to strike, who wants to work, has as much right 
to go to the plant and work as a man has to stay out on strike? 

Mr. Reuther. Legally, there is no difference between their rights. 

Senator Mundt. How about ethically, morally, spiritually ? He is 
a free man. 

Does he lose any of his rights of freedom as a member of the mi- 
nority block because he has to work with his hands as a laboring 
man, or does he have it ethically as well as legally? 

Mr. Reuther. I think that philosophically, I think that every mem- 
ber, every human being in a society has the same rights, the right to 
choose to go in, the right to choose not to go in, but I say that the 
human family was able to crawl out the jungle of the past and to 
build a civilization because we began to recognize that there are areas 
of human relationships in which somehow there has to be a social 
point of view in which the position and the problems of the group 
transcend the position of the individual. 

Otherwise, we would all be living in caves yet, seeing who could 
get the biggest club to beat the other fellow's skull in. 

We got to the point where human civilization was possible only 
by recognizing that the total of the human family, whether it was a 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10099 

village or a state or a nation, and ultimately the world, that the whole 
of society has problems that we can resolve only by common de- 
cision, and that the individual has to be bound by those decisions. 

I think a worker who goes into a plant after a democratic decision 
has been made to strike that plant is wrong. He is morally wrong. 
I think that he has abdicated his basic responsibility to his fellow man. 
But legally, he has a right to go in, and no one has a right to inter- 
fere with his legal right to go in. But if you want to talk about moral- 
ity and ethical values, I say a worker, where he acts contrary to the 
democratic decision of another group of workers with respect to 
hours and working conditions, and so forth, I say morally he is on 
very poor ground, in my book. 

Senator Mttndt. Let's rest it on the legal ground, because the man 
who walks in, of course, would have a different point of view philo- 
sophically and morally from you. We could debate that. But we 
will agree that legally he should have that right as a member of a 
minority point of view, just as we hold other minorities in this country 
should have the same rights available to the majority, right? 
Mr. Reuther. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. Will you relate that, and this one puzzles me, and 
I ask this for information — I am not going to pick out anything from 
my congressional hearing and try to get you down on a specific point, 
but I want, for my own information, how you relate that to the fact 
that as I understand it, in your effort to have a closed shop or a union 
shop, you would deny to a minority fellow, this stubborn guy who 
sometimes comes along; and some of them are wonderful people, they 
are independent, high-spirited folks; he is just different, and he says, 
"By George, I want to continue working at my job without belonging 
to a union" ; why shouldn't he have the right, the legal right, to do that ? 
Mr. Reuther. Let's talk about a specific situation. Down in Ten- 
nessee some months back — I think it was one of the last Ford plants 
in which we won a labor board election — there were 380 people who 
voted. The UAW got 379 votes by secret ballot, only 1 worker voted 
against the union ; 379 to 1. 

That fellow could have been the kind of individual you are talking 
about. He just felt that he could handle his own problems in his 
own way, and he didn't have to belong to the union. 

You know, philosophically, I just had to be opposed to the union 
shop. I was opposed to the checkoff. I battled on these things back 
in our union. 

I think that in the early part of the union, my position was a sound 
one. I think that today, in a situation when the union is established, 
and when it was 379 — when 379 workers make a decision, I think the 
one fellow ought to be obligated to go along, because the 379 pay the 
money to make possible the grievance machinery, the arbitrator whom 
we have to pay half of the salary and expenses. 

When he makes a decision on a vacation pay clause of the contract, 
that one fellow gets the extra vacation pay ; when we process a case 
on unemployment compensation, we cover him. He gets all the bene- 
fits, he gets all the services, and our union provides tremendous serv- 
ices, in the medical field in terms of occupational diseases problems. 
We have a clinic where we work on this because we had tremendous 
lead-poisoning problems — every worker in the plant, since we are the 
exclusive bargaining agency under the law, gets the benefit. 



10100 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

It seems to me, Senator Mundt, this principle comes in: We fought 
a revolution in America about taxation without representation. 

Senator Mundt. I am coming to that one. 

Mr. Reuther. All right. I am just getting there before you, be- 
cause I have been through this many times. 

We ought to quit shadow boxing. The point is that if we fight a 
revolution for a principle that says that taxation without representa- 
tion is basically wrong, then what is the other side of the coin ? 

The other side of the coin is that representation without taxation is 
equally wrong. 

Senator Mundt. That doesn't always hold. That is a convenient 
matter of semantics, but it may not be valid. 

Mr. Reuther. If the Ford Motor Co. said to us, and they haven't 

Senator Mundt. You wouldn't deny the vote to all people who don't 
pay taxes, Mr. Reuther, and I am sure of that. I believe in representa- 
tion without taxation. 

Mr. Reuther. When a community votes to increase the millage for 
schools, because we have to build more classrooms to take care of the 
increasing population, and need more money to pay for more school- 
teachers, and you have a vote, I think you will find very few com- 
munities in which 379 would vote for a new school millage tax, and 
only one citizen vote against it. 

But if there were that situation, would the one person who voted 
against the increase in the school millage be able to say, ''Well, I am 
sorry, I don't agree with you. I don't have to pay the tax." They all 
have to pay. 

Senator Mundt. You are not coming to the point where you will 
tell us that you think unions should have a sort of supergovernmental 
power, sort of be a superstructural government. This is different, 

Mr. Reuther. I am saying that in the area where the union takes 
care of the problems of the workers, that the worker who gets the 
benefits should help pay for the cost. If the Ford Motor Co. would 
say to us, "Look, why don't we work out an arrangement whereby this 
one fellow who voted against your union doesn't have to join, but he 
gets none of the benefits. If he has a grievance, you don't process 
it. If you negotiate a pay increase, he doesn't get that. If you im- 
prove the vacation pensions, he doesn't get that, 

''In other words, he doesn't pay for anything, and he doesn't get 
anything." 

We will accept that. I will accept that right now for our union. 
Who do you think creates the pressure for a union shop? 

Senator Mundt. Say that again. I think that sounds pretty im- 
pressive. 

Mr. Reuther. It is fair. It isn't impressive. It is just fair. 

Senator Mundt. Anything that is fair is impressive to me, Mr. 
Reuther. 

Mr. Reuther. I know, but I don't want to doctor it up. I think 
it is fair. 

Senator Mundt. You use your words and I will use mine. I think 
we are talking about the same thing. 

If I understand your proposition, it is this, that these people who 
don't want to join a union should be permitted to continue to earn 
their livelihood in the shop of their choice, provided they didn't come 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 10101 

to the union then to seek benefits for negotiating a contract or settling 
a grievance, and that whatever the union contract provides for union 
members need not, by virtue of that fact, be operative to them, is 
that what you are saying? 

Mr. Reuther. Under the present law, we are legally obligated to 
represent that worker. We cannot deny, we cannot refuse to process 
his grievance. We are the sole bargaining agency for all the workers 
when we are certified. We are certified as the legal representative of 
all the workers and we cannot legally refuse to process his grievance. 

Senator Mundt. I understand that. I am asking you what your 
proposition was? 

Mr. Reuther. We pay the GM umpire, I think, $40,000 a year just 
in salary, not talking about operating his office and staff and travel and 
everything. Yet this one worker who does not want to pay for the 
cost of this gets all the benefits. I don't think that is fair. 

I am opposed to a union shop where the union boss goes up the back 
alley, in the back door and makes the collusive agreement with the 
employer, and makes all the guys join the union. The first contract 
proposal that we made to the General Motors Corp. for a union shop 
says if we can't get 75 percent of the votes in a secret ballot, we 
don't want the union shop. 

When we had the union shop election in Ford, 88,000 workers by 
secret ballot, m a vote conducted by the Government, voted for the 
union shop; 1,000 voted against it. You know where the pressures 
comes from. You go into a local union meeting, as I have done many 
times, when you are talking about contract matters. You are getting 
ready to go in and meet with the employer and negotiate a new con- 
tract. When they don't have a union shop, where you have 98 per- 
cent of the fellows in and the smaller the minority on the outside, 
the greater pressure. You know where the pressure comes from. The 
guy in the shop says, "Look, I am getting tired of paying for the serv- 
ices this other fellow is getting. I want him to pay his share. I am 
getting tired of the hitchhikers and the free riders who are riding the 
gravy train." 

This pressure does not come from the union bosses, to use that 
phrase. It doesn't make any difference to me. The guy in the shop 
feels it is an injustice for him to pay for the cost of the arbitrator, 
the grievance machinery, the lawyers and doctors and everybody else 
we need to provide the service, and the fellow on the next machine 
gets the service. 

Senator Mundt. I can appreciate that. Personally, I think he 
should belong. I think the free rider should not be a free rider. I 
am pointing out what seems to me to be inconsistent. He has a legal 
right to be a free rider if he wants to. He is obnoxious and kind 
of cheating on his fellow workers, but it is his legal right. 

I am thinking in terms of the legal right and your advocacy of 
minority points of view. 

Mr. Reuther. Wouldn't you agree it would be better to put it this 
way: That if the union provides a transportation service to get a 
worker from where he is to where he will have higher wages and all 
these other things, and you say to the fellow, "Come along, we will 
help get you there, we will give you a ride to get you there, but you 

21243— 58— pt. 25, 13 



10102 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

will have to pay your fare. If he doesn't want to pay his fare, he 
will walk." 

Senator Mundt. I agree. 

Mr. Reuther. You want to give him a free ride. 

Senator Mundt. I don't think anybody should be authorized to 
bundle him up and throw him on the bus against his own will. 

Mr. Reuther. The point is, if you make the provision — I agree 
with you on that. As far as I am concerned, you say to that one 
fellow — I don't know whether he is in the union or not in a situation 
like this. Do they have the right-to- work law in Tennessee? They 
have a right-to-work law in Tennessee, so he still may be outside of 
our union. 

I would be very happy, Senator, I would be extremely happy if you 
said that one fellow should not be bundled up and put on the bus, 
but you said, "Okay, he is going to walk." 

Senator Mundt. I would agree to that. 

Mr. Reuther. I would agree to that 100 percent, What I am op- 
posed to is him getting in and taking the best seat on the bus and not 
willing to pay his fare. That is what I am opposed to. I think it is 
wrong, unfair ; I think it is contrary to all the concepts. When you 
get a service, you help pay the cost. 

Senator Mundt. I am not going to pursue this further except to 
say I am happy to have you say for the record that you do recognize 
this legal right for the minority. I recognize this is a difficult prob- 
lem, but I don't subscribe to the point of view that you should coerce 
a fellow who wants to stay out even though you think he ought to be 
in. There ought to be some protection for his rights. 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Mundt, we make one exception. We do 
work it out and we have with a number of religious groups, where 
this is a matter of conscience. Just 2 weeks ago we worked it out. 
The last group was called the Old German Baptist group, a very 
small religious sect. 

They said as a matter of religious concept we cannot belong to any 
group like this. They have agreed to pay for the same amount of 
money. It all goes for charity purposes. They have agreed in case 
of a strike they won't participate in a strike, but they won't go back 
to work. We attempt to respect the rights of an individual. 

But when it is just an economic matter, the guy wanting a free ride 
without wanting to pay his fare, that is where I draw the line. I am 
perfectly willing to say, "You don't have to ride the bus, but then you 
have to walk." 

Senator Mundt. I think maybe it is too complicated to do, but I 
think you could eliminate a lot — I don't like to use the word contro- 
versy, but labor controversy, labor uncertainty, labor mistrust in this 
country — if a mechanism could be devised to make that possible. It 
may be altogether too complicated in a contract. 

But there are a lot of people who are as concerned as I am, that the 
fellow with the minority position, even though he is wrong, should 
not be pushed around. The thing you say sounds very fair, impres- 
sively fair. It may be too complicated to put in a contract, but I wish 
you would give some study in that direction. I think it might be a 
forward-looking step. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10103 

Mr. Reuther. I can assure you that this is an area in which I am 
thinking a great deal because I think it is a problem we have to think 
through. I think what we need on this problem is more light and less 
heat. 

Senator Mundt. I agree. That is what this committee is trying to 
provide. 

Mr. Reuther. I think that first of all there is an exaggerated no- 
tion about how many people belong to unions because they are re- 
quired to. In our union, when we didn't have a union shop, we had 
plants in which we had 99 percent of the fellows that belonged to the 
union before the union shop. I think the number of people who are 
in what you call the minority, if there is only one — I agree with you 
the principle is the same — I think the size of that minority is greatly 
exaggerated. 

It is very much exaggerated. When we can get in Tennessee with 
the right-to-work law, and all these pressures, to get 379 people to 
vote secretly in a ballot conducted by the Government, for the UAW, 
and one against it, I think that is a pretty good recommendation for 
our union. 

(At this point Senator McNamara withdrew from the hearing 
room.) 

Senator Muxdt. On that point, let me ask you a related question. 
South Dakota has a right-to-work law, as Tennessee has. In the in- 
dustries and the plants where we have unions, by far the bigger ma- 
jority, a greater percentage of the employees belong. The minority 
there is very small. 

You say it is true generally. That being true, why does the union, 
as a policy, take such a strong position against a State right-to-work 
law ? I could argue that you have a pretty good position in the na- 
tional right-to- work law, but as a State right-to- work law, why is that 
so injurious ? 

Mr. Reuther. I think primarily the motivation is the thing I tell 
you, the pressure is from the membership. This is the thing you have 
to understand. I have seen situations where the fellow says, "We 
would rather have the union shop to make this handful of free riders 
pay their fare than we would like a wage increase. 

Really, I have been amazed at the attitude of these fellows. When 
you talk about the labor bosses doing these things, you are just kid- 
ding yourself. The pressure is from the rank and file, the guys who 
are paying their fare want everybody to pay their fare. Frankly, 
maybe we can solve this problem in America some day, being able to 
say, "Okay, if you don't pay the fare you don't ride; you walk. You 
don't get the benefits." You know how fast it would take to get these 
guys to come to the union hall to sign their cards ? 

Senator Mundt. Pretty fast. 

Mr. Reuther. If they met a cop on the way, they would get a 
ticket. 

Senator Mundt. That being true, a State right-to- work law — I dis- 
tinguish the two because I share a philosophy of government which 
you have enunciated here, that local government is best and those 
things which local governments can do, they should determine. 



10104 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

This is a field in which local governments at State levels can act 
either way they can. I think there is a great strength in the position 
that this is a State determination. In the literature that you have read 
abou Senator Mundt being antilabor, if you read your own periodicals 
and get confused therefrom, you will find I have never said I am in 
favor of a right-to-work national law. 

A right-to-work law, if you agree, is not necessarily antilabor. I 
should say the opposite. The resistance to a right-to-work law is not 
on the basis of antilabor, but it is antifree right. You say a right-to- 
work law helps free riders to get this quick trip to the bus station. 

(At this point Senator Kennedy left the hearing room.) 

Mr. Reuther. Setting aside your personal attitude, because I don't 
want to discuss that, but I think most of the people who have been 
pushing State right-to- work laws are not motivated by any noble ideas 
of helping the downtrodden workingman, because they are in States 
where the level of wages are substandard, they are in States where 
the general working conditions are bad, and they are the same people 
who fought the legitimate organization of labor over these many 
years. 

It seems to me that the first thing that is wrong with the right-to- 
work law is that it is misnamed because the 5y 2 million unemployed 
in America would like a right-to-work law that would guarantee them 
a right to work. The point is that it is not a right-to- work law. This 
is a law primarily motivated in most States — I don't say this is true 
of every one — I think it is possible for a person to be completely 
sincere in feeling that a right-to- work law philosophically is justified, 
but I do happen to know that the employer groups in the States with 
low wages push right-to-work laws in order to discourage organization 
because they know organization will raise the level of wages and they 
will have to pay a higher level of wages. 

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. In the 16 right-to-work 
States before Indiana came into it, and it has had no impact on the 
wage structure, was somewhere around 60 cents an hour less than the 
rest of the country. 

Senator Mundt. I have some good news for you in connection with 
your fight against unemployment. I associate myself with you in 
trying to get unemployment eliminated, but I wish to point out that 
unemployment and the right-to-work law do not necessarily go hand 
in hand. 

South Dakota, with the right -to-work law, has the lowest, per- 
centage of unemployment in the union. 

Mr. Reuther. Your State is not exactly one of the major industrial 
States of America. 

Senator Mundt. That is correct. We are trying to get into that 
category. 

Now I turn to another point, Mr. Reuther. You send me every 
day, and I suppose you send to all Members of Congress, a little 
magazine called Cope. Are you familiar with that ? 

Mr. Reuther. I know there is one. I don't read the Cope publica- 
tion. 

Senator Mundt. I wonder if you read it as carefully as I do. 

Mr. Reuther. I am sure I don't. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10105 

Senator Mundt. If you don't, you don't read it very well. I have 
been reading it recently because I have become curious about it. You 
are familiar with it ? 

Mr. Reuther. I know that there is a publication like that. 

Senator Mundt. It is called Cope, and it says it is the Committee on 
Pol it ical Education, published by the AFL-CIO, PAC. You, 1 think, 
are connected with that group. Is that financed from union dues? 

Mr. Reuther. I think the COPE organization, Senator Mundt — 
since this bears so closely on the Kohler strike — is financed in the fol- 
lowing ways: They have two kinds of money. They have what is 
called organizational and educational money. This is money con- 
tributed by (lie affiliates of the AFL-CIO, of which the UA W is one. 

They are asked each year to make a contribution which I think is 
equal to 20 cents per member into an educational fund for the purpose 
of putting out educational material dealing witli basic political issues. 
They publish material on the minimum wage. They publish ma- 
terial on the levels of unemployment compensation. 

Right now they are getting out material on the Kennedy-McCarthy 
bill, which is what we hope will be adopted by Congress to meet the 
problems of the unemployed in America. They publish material on 
all kinds of legislative matters, and they also publish voting records 
of the Member of Congress. This money is spent for matters that are 
purely educational in nature. Then, in addition to that 

Senator Mundt. If I may interpolate there, that part comes out of 
the dues money ? 

Mr. Reuther. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. Now go ahead. 

Mr. Reuther. Then each year each affiliated union of the AFL-CIO 
is asked to conduct a voluntary dollar drive among their respective 
members. 

Senator Mundt. If I may stop you there, we expect as 1 of the 11 
areas to get into in this committee, to get into the political activities of 
the labor unions, bad, good, or indifferent, in a separate hearing. 

Mr. Reuther. I assumed we were already in that hearing. 

Senator Mundt. I am afraid we are, but I am not trying to get into it. 
I am trying to stick to the COPE political memo. Unless what you say 
has to do with financing of the COPE political memo, then I think you 
should defer that part of the statement to that hearing. 

Mr. Reuther. I am not familiar enough to talk about it. 

Senator Mundt. You are not familiar with the COPE Political 
Memo? 

Mr. Reuther. I know they have publications. I don't know what 
you call the COPE memo. 

Senator Mundt. I don't call it that. I get it. It is a 4-page news- 
letter. It is like Kiplinger's letter that you probably read. It comes 
out, I think, either once a week or every other week. It is called the 
COPE Political Memo and is published on nice paper. It is well 
printed. I want to know how it is financed. That is all. You told 
me that it is financed — I think you told me — from 20 cents 

Mr. Reuther. I would think — I don't know the publication ; I have 
never seen that one. There are many things I don't see because I 
don't read every piece of literature put out by the AFL-CIO. I would 



10106 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES! EST THE LABOR FIELD 

think — I don't want to testify to this absolutely — I would think this 
is financed out of what is called the educational fund. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, on this particular series of ques- 
tions I am going to wait until after Senator Curtis has asked ques- 
tions because I am going up to my office and get a copy of this and 
show it to Mr. Reuther. 

Mr. Reuther. I would be very happy. 

Senator Mundt. I think you should know what is in this since it 
is being financed from the dues that you assess to the members of the 
union who have to pay them to work. It is rather important. I am 
going into that. I have a question or two on another subject and then 
I will yield to Senator Curtis. 

If I understand your testimony on the subject of violence, you were 
very frank and you said "We trot off to a bad start in this business 
of union organization. We had a lot or roughhousing tactics." A 
fellow by the name of Bennett in the Ford Co. hired some goons and 
thugs and you had a lot of fights. I don't know whether you implied 
that the fault was on one side or another side. I don't care. We do 
know there was a lot of violence in the early days of union 
organization. 

Mr. Reuther. I think you ought to care. 

Senator Mundt. Of course I care. I mean for the purpose of this 
inquiry. 

Mr. Reuther. The LaFollette committee report will show that we 
were the recipients of the violence. The Ford Motor Co. had thou- 
sands of gangsters. They put them right from the penitentiary on 
the payroll as parolees. The Ford Motor Corp. hired thugs in Chi- 
cago and brought them in and beat us up. We were defending our- 
selves in those days. 

Senator Mundt. I have no evidence to the contrary. I will accept 
that. Let me ask you this question. Did any of the labor union 
leaders engage in any violence at all in that era ? 

Mr. Reuther. In self-defense. 

Senator Mundt. Always in self-defense? 

Mr. Reuther. I will show you photographs 

Senator Mundt. I am not arguing. I am simply asking the 
question. 

Mr. Reuther. I will show you photographs of the overpass at 
gate 4, 1937, when myself and another group of people were standing 
on public property and we were beaten up. Here is a picture. Behind 
here are a group of ministers who went out there with us. Here are 
the Ford servicemen who came in, beat us up. These are the same 
kind of people that broke into our homes. We were standing on pub- 
lic property, not private property. We went there to make a dis- 
tribution. This is the kind of situation. Here they are, these same 
thugs working over Mr. Frankenstein. This all came out in the 
reports in that period. Here is the Ford thug with a pair of hand- 
cuffs hanging out of his pocket. This is the result of some of these 
things. Mr. Frankenstein. 

The Chairman. Do these relate to the Kohler strike ? 

Mr. Reuther. I don't think they do, Mr. Chairman, except that 
Senator Mundt was talking about COPE and everything else, and I 
am quite agreeable. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10107 

Senator Mundt. I want to talk, Mr. Reuther, about your presenta- 
tion. You covered five areas, and I am trying to cover the same 
areas you are. 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators 
McClellan, Ervin, Mundt, Curtis, Goldwater, and Kennedy.) 

The Chairman. The Chair was trying to ascertain whether they 
should be made exhibits or not. I am not going to make them ex- 
hibits unless they are related to the Kohler strike. 

Senator Mundt. I have no quarrel with the witness about anything 
he says about Ford. I certainly am not defending him. I don't drive 
a Ford. I drive a Chrysler. And without anybody contradicting it, 
everything you say about that is correct. 

Mr. Reuther. The Ford Motor Co., thank God, and I said in the 
record yesterday, Mrs. Edsel Ford and the Ford family are entitled 
to a great deal of credit. They showed the wisdom and courage to 
get rid of Harry Bennett and his gangsters. 

Senator Mundt. My question was whether or not in that era union 
■officials had ever engaged in any violence. 

Mr. Reuther. And I say to you that in that period we were fighting 
defensively. We were fighting because we were being attacked by 
these mobsters and gangsters. 

Yesterday Senator Goldwater, when I was quoting from the La Fol- 
lette committee, asked me whether there were any specific references 
in the La Follette committee report to the Kohler Co. I would like, 
Mr. Chairman, to put into the record now, sections of the La Follette 
committee, findings in 1939 as they relate specifically to the Kohler Co., 
showing that they had tear gas, had a private arsenal, employed detec- 
tive agencies, and did, in that period, the same improper things that 
they are doing in the current strike. 

Since this bears upon the Kohler strike, I would like to put it into 
the record as an exhibit. 

The Chairman. Without objection, it will be received as exhibit 134 
for reference. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 134" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Senator Mundt. Now, violence has not ceased to be one of the un- 
happy repercussions of labor controversies, has it? 

Mr. Reuther. Unfortunately, there are still situations, although 
they are isolated, where there is violence in a labor-management dis- 
pute. Unfortunately, that is true. 

Senator Mundt. There are, you would say, not as many, they are 
on the decrease, but they still, unhappily, do continue? 

Mr. Reuther. That is right. Actually there are very few, com- 
pared to the number of contracts negotiated peacefully, sensibly, and 
sanely. There are very few incidents. 

Senator Mundt. You are familiar with the 1947 strike in which the 
UAW had with the mechanics union at Chrysler ? 

Mr. Reuther. You will have to say that again. I am afraid I 
don't follow you. 

Senator Mundt. In 1947 the UAW was associated with the me- 
chanics union in a strike against Chrysler. It is reported you had your 
international representatives there, and there was violence. I am not 
alleging that it is your violence. It may have been defensive violence, 
but there was violence. 



10108 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Keuther. You will have to give us more details. We didn't 
have a strike with Chrysler in 1947. 

Senator Mundt. You didn't have it. The mechanics union had it 
and supported it. 

Mr. Reuther. What mechanics' union would that be? MESA? 

Senator Mundt. I will have to check the evidence here to find out 
exactly. 

Mr. Reuther. I don't know that the mechanics' education associa- 
tion has ever had any collective bargaining with the Chrysler Corp. 

Senator Mundt. Detroit Free Press, December 23, 1947: 

Walter P. Reuther, president of the UAW-CIO, guaranteed the full resources 
of his union in this fight. 

This was a local strike of Chrysler mechanics, taking place there 
in the city of Detroit : 

"We have to win this strike," Reuther said at a meeting of 1,200 garage 
mechanics and local UAW officials in Case Technical High School. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Reuther. I don't think that the matter you are referring to re- 
lates to the Chrysler Corp. That is what confused me. 

Senator Mundt. That could be. I understood that it did. I am not 
going to interrogate you about that, but I am simply mentioning as 
we run along there was another one at Dowagiac, Mich., in 1947, 1 be- 
lieve, at the Heddon Co. I don't know whether that is the Heddon 
Fish and Tackle Co., but the Hedden Fish and Tackle Co. at Dowa- 
giac in 1947, and that resulted in violence. 

Can we agree on that without saying who is responsible for it? 
I am not trying to get into responsibility. 

But I am trying to point out that violence has continued beyond 
the age of the 1930's. 

Mr. Reuther. It is quite obvious. There has been violence in the 
Kohler strike and the company has been primarily responsible for it. 

Senator Mundt. One of your representatives is Mr. Thomas W. 
Flynn. Do you know him? 

Mr. Reuther. I know he is a staff member. 

Senator Mundt. He represented the UAW International in the 
Dowagiac, Mich., strike. 

Now I come to another one that I do want to ask you a question or 
two about in the same general area of history. Are you familiar with 
the strike record at Clinton, Mich. ? 

Mr. Reuther. In a general kind of way. I was not closely identi- 
fied with that, but I know about it in a general kind of way. 

Senator Mundt. Do you know if Mr. Mazey was present and par- 
ticipated in that strike situation ? 

Mr. Reuther. I believe that Mr. Mazey was. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Mazey has testified before a committee of 
Congress, that he was, and he testified that he took 400 people with 
him, for whom he was personally responsible. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Mundt. Is it the general policy of the UAW in cases of 
strikes in smaller communities to send in from the outside, and under 
the direction of an international officer — I wouldn't want to call it an 
army, but 400 men, that is quite a bunch of men — is that general 
policy ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10109 

Mr. Reuther. No, it is not general policy, Senator Mundt. If you 
will look at the record of our union in the past, say, 14 years, since I 
have been elected the president of this union, you will find that that 
perhaps has not happened more than twice if more than once. Be- 
cause this is not policy. 

Senator Mundt. I am simply seeking information. I don't know. 
In my research and work on this, I came across that and I want to 
find out. 

Mr. Keuther. I am trying to give you a truthful answer. First of 
all, it is not policy, and it happened, I think, not more than twice 
in the last 14 years. 

(At this point, Senators Kennedy and McNamara withdrew from 
the hearing room. ) 

Mr. Reuther. Maybe that is the only case. Or 12 years. 

Senator Mundt. Those 400 men, how would they be financed ? That 
is quite a bunch. 

Mr. Reuther. I wouldn't know that. They may have been unem- 
ployed. I wouldn't know that. You should have asked Mr. Mazey 
that question when he was here. 

Senator Mundt. I would have ? except that I didn't have this in- 
formation at that time. But I will give you a chance to comment on 
something Mr. Mazey said about it and maybe that will help clarify 
the record. 

You don't know who paid their transportation or how it was fi- 
nanced ? 

Mr. Reuther. No. 

Senator Mundt. This was apparently before you were active in 
theUAW? 

Mr. Reuther. No, I was active in the UAW. 

Senator Mundt. Or had a position of responsibility ? 

Mr. REurHER. The point is, I made it clear the other day that I 
just can be involved in everything. I am just not that good. 

Senator Mundt. Let me quote you what Mr. Mazey said in testify- 
ing before the House Committee on Education and Labor, Labor- 
Management Disputes in Michigan, volume 1, testimony of October 
and November 1947. 

Mr. Mazey is being interrogated. He was asked by the chairman 
of the committee : 

How many pickets were there at Clinton on this day when you went there, 
approximately? 

Mr. Mazey. I brought 400 from Detroit. 

Your testimony is you don't know how he got them or what he paid 
them or how it was financed, but that this was an exceptional situ- 
ation ? 

Mr. Reuther. I think you probably would find that in that sit- 
uation, and I am only speculating, that these people were not paid by 
the international union, I mean the local unions perhaps provided 
gas money. They were probably unemployed workers. I think that 
perhaps is what happened. But this is a very unusual situation. I 
don't think you will find another case like it in the last 12 years. I 
misspoke myself. When I said 14 years, I meant 12 years. I read a 
story at noon that said 14, and it confused me for a moment. I have 
been the president 12 years yesterday. 



10110 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. Continuing the statement : 

The Chairman. Give us an estimate how many were there? 
Mr. Mazey. Probably 550. I didn't count them, so I don't know. 

That would indicate that of the 550, 400 came from Detroit (con- 
tinuing) : 

The Chairman. Now, I continue to read from the Detroit newspaper : 
''The demonstration by the Detroit and Toledo locals is just a sample of what 
is going to happen of this strike." What did you mean by that statement, Mr. 
Mazey? 

Mr. Mazey. I mean that if the strike was to continue we would bring addi- 
tional people, thousands if we had to. 

At that time was that policy of the UAW, to superimpose on a 
community thousands of outside strike supporters, if necessary, to 
win the strike? 

Mr. Reuther. It was not. I think you will find that we have never 
done that, certainly, in the Kohler strike, where we would have had 
more of a justification, because it has been the longest and most bit- 
ter strike. You can check the people who were on that picket line 
and they were primarily Kohler workers. 

So we certainly have not done this, and this is not our policy. I 
don't think you can win a strike from the outside. I think the only 
way you can win a strike is to have the loyalty of the fellows who are 
on strike. 

Senator Mundt. It would seem that way to me. 

Mr. Reuther. I think so, also. 

Senator Mundt. I am quoting Mr. Mazey, and I don't think he was 
at a boiling point ; he may have been, but I don't know. 

Mr. Reuther. If you think he wasn't boiling in front of Congress- 
man Hoffman, you don't know Congressman Hoffman or Mr. Mazey. 

Senator Mundt. Here is something that would cause a lot of people 
to boil what Mr. Mazey said at that same hearing. He was going on 
talking about these strikes, and the speech that Mr. Mazey gave. 

Mr. Hoffman said : 

And during the course of your remarks over a sound truck, did you say, in 
substance, "We're going to demonstrate to employers in small towns" — 

and I am getting interested in that, you implied that South Dakota 
was a community of small towns, and you are right — it is a State 
of very fine, progressive, small towns, and our small towns in this 
country are concerned about what Mr. Mazey said. 
Mr. 'Hoffman ask Mr. Mazey whether he said ; he said : 

Did you say in substance, "We are going to demonstrate to employers in 
small towns that they are not going to push our employees around"? 
Mr. Mazey. Yes, I did, and I meant it. 
Mr. Hoffman. You meant it? 
Mr. Mazey. Exactly. 

Now, it is UAW policy to demonstrate to people in small towns 
that they are not going to push your employees around ? 

Mr. Reuther. It certainly is not, and certainly the Kohler strike 
in Sheboygan, Wis., is in a small town ; the UAW has not taken hun- 
dreds of people in there. We have had relatively few people. On 
one occasion or two occasions, I am told, and this had nothing to do 
with UAW policy, some of the other labor groups up there had dem- 
onstrations to show their support and their solidarity. But certainly 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10111 

the UAW has never taken large groups of people into a small town, 
because I don't think that is how you build the union. 

I think you build the union by trying to build support for it, and 
not by bringing people from the outside to overwhelm people. 

Senator Mundt. All right, But you see the problem we are con- 
fronted with in this committee. Here is Mr. Mazey, who makes this 
statement under oath, as you make yours under oath, before a con- 
gressional committee, as you make yours before a congressional com- 
mittee. It is beamed around the country. After he has made it, he 
is promoted to the No. 2 job in the UAW. I don't suppose in 1947 
he had that high a rank. But now what he says has a lot of impor- 
tance, it causes a lot of concern, it stimulates a lot of letters. 

Mr. Hoffman went on : 

What did you mean that you were going to show employers in small towns 
that they were not going to push you around? 

Mr. Mazey. In this particular case in Clinton, people were on strike, and a 
back-to-work movement was started. Mr. Thomas, the president of the company, 
along with the Chamber of Commerce of Clinton, Mich. 

You have said that you feel that nonstrikers have a right to work. 
Mr. Mazey implies that they are going to bring in thousands of people 
from the big cities, if necessary, to show these small town folks they 
can't engage in that. I am glad to have you say for the record, and 
you are the president, and he is only the secretary-treasurer, so in a 
debate between Mazey and Reuther, I am going to take the opinions 
of Reuther, and I want it in the record. I am glad to know that Mr. 
Mazey does not, in his testimony here, if in fact he does not, represent 
UAW policy. 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Mundt, you will agree in Kohler we did not 
do that. 

Senator Mundt. I will agree. 

Mr. Reuther. That is exactly the point. 

Senator Mundt. But will you agree that at Clinton you did ? 

Mr. Reuther. I am not challenging. I don't know the details. 

Senator Mundt. I made my agreement. 

Will you? 

Will you agree that in Clinton you did ? 

Mr. Reuther. If 400 people came in from the outside, then they 
did. I will quite agree with that. 

Senator Mundt. And Mr. Mazey made these statements. So I 
think it would be very bad policy if that were your policy. I am glad 
to have you say that it is not. 

Mr. Reuther. I think the proof of the pudding is in what we have 
done the last 12 years. I think that is the only place that you will find 
where an officer of this union deliberately took in a group of people 
like that. There may have been local situations where local unions 
got together. In the Kohler thing there were a few demonstrations. 
I mean, they merely demonstrated there their support. But certainly 
in the Kohler thing we didn't take in a lot of outside people in order 
to build a mass picket line. 

There were a lot of Kohler workers in the picket line, but very few 
people other than Kohler workers. 

Senator Mundt. I am sure you are familiar with the so-called 
Burns law, the law against importing strikebreakers across State lines ? 



10112 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Reuther. I am. 

Senator Mundt. Do you feel that is a good law? 

Mr. Reuther. Yes ; I think that is a law that was proper, because 
there used to be professional strikebreakers who were moved from 
Chicago, wherever they happened to be located, to the scene of a 
strike for the purpose of breaking a strike, and I think that was a 
good law. 

Senator Mundt. I think it is good law, too. 

Would you agree that the counterpart is equally desirable, if you 
are not going to import professional strikebreakers en masse, neither 
should the union import professional strike supporters en masse? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, they weren't professional strike supporters. 

Senator Mundt. Well, unprofessional. 

Mr. Reuther. Certainly, Senator Mundt, I think ultimately you 
win or lose a strike based upon the loyalty of the workers involved. 
The problem in Kohler was that we got the loyalty of the workers 
but the company is breaking the strike by getting people in to steal 
their jobs, to take their jobs. 

Senator Mundt. We both agreed that you didn't import strike 
supporters en masse. You had 15 or 25. 

Mr. Reuther. Out of 3,000 people on the picket line, that was a 
very small number. 

Senator Mundt. Some lexicographer can describe for us how many 
people are in a mass. But it seems to me that a counterpart of the 
situation should hold, and I think it should, that you should not 
import professional or unprofessional, or effective strikebreakers from 
the outside, and you should also say that you should not import 
effective outside strike supporters. 

True, you can have some people representing you, Mr. Burkhart, 
Mr. Mazey, and I think that is proper. But I am talking from 
the standpoint that these are the people who man the picket lines, 
and these are the people who carry the signs, and these are the people 
who conduct the boycotts. 

The desire to resist the company should be in the hearts of the 
people employed there, primarily, and should be manifested by them. 

Mr. Reuther. I think ultimately you are strong or weak depending 
upon where the workers in that plant stand with relation to the 
union and on the strike issues itself. 

I think at the point you have to get somebody from the outside to 
do it for you, you are in trouble before you start. 

Senator Mundt. And that holds true equally of the company as 
for the union ? 

Mr. Reuther. That is right. I think that the contest ought to be 
between the company appealing for the workers to offer their labor 
under the terms that the company has offered, and the union repre- 
senting the collective decision of the workers who choose not to offer 
their labor. 

I think that is the contest. The minute, I think, you try to have 
other people come in to decide the contest, I think you have changed 
the rules of the game, and I think you are getting into difficulty, 
whether the union does it or whether the company does. 

I think this will be the source of difficulty. In the Kohler situa- 
tion, if the contest was between the Kohler workers who wanted to 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10113 

hold out their labor power, and there are still more than 2,000 of them 
who were working the day the strike started, who were working the 
day before the strike started, who are still not back in, if the com- 
pany had to win by attracting those people back into the plant, the 
strike would have been settled a long time ago. 

But what did they do ? They go out and hire a fellow who maybe 
never worked in a factory before, doesn't know anything about the 
struggle of the Kohler workers, he is unemployed. He has a wife 
and three kids. He has to eat. So he has the economic pressure driv- 
ing him. They attract him into the plant. Well, he is stealing a 
man's job. 

I feel quite differently, although I don't feel good about a fellow 
who worked in Kohler who goes back to work— I think he has be- 
trayed morally his fellow workers. 

But he is in a different category than the fellow who comes in there 
from the outside who is a strikebreaker and who steals a man's job. 
If the Kohler Co. would have a contest between their ability to attract 
the workers who formerly worked there back into the plant, and the 
workers' ability to keep them out, then you would have what I think to 
be a fair economic contest. 

Senator Mundt. I think to make it fair, though, you would have 
to concede to the company the right to contract people in the labor 
pool of that particular community, if you are going to limit them to 
the ones that were there, some of whom have died, some of whom 
have left, eventually, of coarse, they could never recruit a labor 
force. 

You have to let them work in the labor pool close at home. 

Mr. Reuther. I would hope that the strike wouldn't last that long. 

Senator Mundt. People get born and die very fast in the country. 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Mundt, this is the area in which the answer 
has to be found, to this problem. 

Senator Mundt. That is right. 

Mr. Reuther. I do not condone attempting to win a strike in any 
town, large or small, by outsiders. I do not think that the 

Senator Mundt. I am glad to hear you say that. 

Mr. Reuther. And I don't think the management ought to try to 
win the strike by outsiders. It is the same coin. It is two sides of the 
same coin. I say that we would have settled Kohler strike a long 
time ago if the Kohler Co. had to depend upon its production by get- 
ting the 2,000 strikers who are still out back on the job. But they 
went out and they found people. There are always enough hungry 
people in America, in an employment situation like we have, who are 
pressed hard enough to steal a man's job. 

I say : Look, there are a lot of contemptible things in the world and 
one of the worst things you can do is steal a man's livelihood. A 
strikebreaker does precisely that. 

Senator Mundt. I am glad to have you put them on the same basis, 
and I don't think you and I quarrel very much on that, as a desirability 
and optimum objective, that the strike should be won by the people 
in the community and the company involved, and that outsiders, 
certainly when you are getting them from across State lines, so that 
if they get in trouble they can't even get extradited as sometimes 
happens — I think it is much better, and this suggestion that you make 
makes sense. 



101 14 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

You would be helpful to folks like me who don't claim to be experts 
in this field, but get appointed to jobs like this, if you would have 
Mr. Mazey keep that boiling point down low enough so he would say 
the same thing you said. 

There isn't any reason I should disbelieve him until you come along 
and correct the record. I will believe what you have said. But I 
will accept what he has put into public print as declared policies of 
the union, speaking as the second top man. 

Mr. Chairman, I am happy 

Mr. Reuther. I think, Senator Mundt, it ought to be said, I think 
Mr. Mazey is a responsible union leader, and I think he has made a 
contribution. I think all of us sometimes maybe aren't as discreet 
perhaps as we would like to be, and if we thought things through twice 
we might say them differently. 

I think it would be unfair to create the general impression that 
Mr. Mazey is not a responsible officer. 

Senator Mundt. I am not trying to say that. 

Mr. Reuther. He was active in the fighting of the Communists and 
building our union. I think he has made a great contribution. I 
think there are times when, like everybody else, he is indiscreet. I am 
indiscreet sometimes. I think we all are. But I would not want the 
record to show that Mr. Mazey is not a responsible person, because by 
and large I think he has demonstrated that he is a responsible person. 

Senator Mundt. Are you implying that I said he was not re- 
sponsible ? 

Mr. Reuther. No. 

Senator Mundt. I am trying to point out that on two different 
occasions he read things into the record which I happened to come 
across which I accepted as fact until you came along and said this is his 
boiling point fiction. I recognize that. I think people do that. 

I am happy to yield to the next Senator, Mr. Chairman, except that 
I am coming back later or this afternoon with a surprise package 
for Mr. Reuther. 

I am going to show him a copy of COPE political memo. 

The Chairman. Well, Mr. Reuther, get prepared for a surprise. 

Senator Curtis ? 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Reuther, do you know Jess Ferrazza, ad- 
ministrative assistant to Mr. Mazey ? 

Mr. Reuther. I do. 

Senator Goldwater. I show you an exhibit, exhibit No. 74, and ask 
you if Jess Ferrazza appears on that picture. 

(Photograph handed the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Goldwater. I think he is indicated bv an arrow saving 
No.l. 

Mr. Reuther. Yes; it appears that Mr. Ferrazza is in the center of a 
group of people there. 

Senator Goldwater. That is a picture of four men beating a man, 
one of them using a baseball bat. I am informed that this picture was 
taken during the Ford strike, I think, in 1941. The man being beaten 
was the timekeeper, and Jess Ferrazza was one of the men participating 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10115 

ill that beating. Jess Ferrazza is now the administrative assistant to 
Emil Mazey, isn't that true ? 

Mr. Reuther. He is. 

Senator Goldwater. So in spite of your announced policy of non- 
violence, it seems that those who engage in violence are promoted 
to high position in your union, aren't they ? 

Mr. Reuther. That picture was taken 17 years ago, at a time when 
we were fighting life and death with Ford thugs. This picture was 
taken during the period when the Ford Motor Co. was controlled and 
operated by a Harry Bennett, who had more gangsters under his direc- 
tion than any man in the history of America. This is the company — I 
would like to tell you what happened to me in 1938 in the hands of 
these gangsters. 

This is also back in that period, that far back. If you get the full 
record of what happened on Miller Road in that period, and this is 
where that took place, I presume, you will find that we were on the 
receiving end of 90 percent of the violence. Sure our fellows fought 
back. What do you want us to do, submit to Harry Bennett's 
gangsters ? 

You show me one corporation official in Detroit, either a Ford Motor 
Co. official, a General Motors official, or a Chrysler official, who was 
shot in his home by any member of our union. You are looking at a 
person who was shot by gangsters. You are looking at a person who 
had his home invaded by the Ford gangsters. They admitted it. The 
man who beat me up in my own living room called my office many 
years after, after the Ford Motor Co. had recognized our union, and 
his name was Mr. Bud Holt. He was one of the Ford gangsters who 
broke into my apartment with a fellow by the name of Eel Percelli. 
He couldn't get me, so he talked to my younger brother, who was in 
his office, and my younger brother called me later and he was very 
agitated. 

I said, "What happened?" 

He said, "Well, if what had happened to me happened to you, you 
would be agitated." 

He said that Mr. Holt called up and he said "Look, Mr. Bennett 
told me to call you up and invite you out for dinner." 

My brother said "I don't know you, Mr. Holt," and he said "Yes, 
you do, I was one of the fellows who broke into your brother's house 
and threatened to kill him. That was nothing personal. Mr. Bennett 
just gave me that as an assignment." 

We were fighting out there against the gangsters and getting nc 
help from the police. Who were the police department? Go back. 
They were the kind of people who went to prison for being in league 
with the underworld. 

You drag out a photograph. Sure, this is wrong, but why did we 
get into this kind of thing ? 

Because the company was controlled by gangsters, because they beat 
us up in our homes, they beat us up in public places, and because the 
police department wouldn't protect us. Go back to Mayor Reading 
and the superintendent of police, Mr. Fromm, and you will find that 
they both went to Jackson Prison. 

I think there was a Mr. Brooks, the police commissioner of Dear- 
born, and he was in Harry Bennett's vest pocket; this is the back- 
ground. 



10116 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I say the American people have a right to protect themselves, when 
the law-enforcement officials are in league with the underground, the 
company. 

We have a right to defend ourselves. You show me one corpora- 
tion official who had his home bombed, or his home invaded, or shot 
through the window. 

Do we have to defend ourselves when we are on the receiving end of 
this? 

There are times when a fellow has a right to be indignant. I say 
when you try to smear our union, when you have an isolated picture 
taken back when we were fighting the gangsters and the underworld, 
sure we fought back, otherwise we couldn't survive. What are we 
going to do ? 

Do you want this kind of people to break our union ? You put us 
in a position, Senator Goldwater, where the life of this union is at 
stake because the gangsters are challenging it, and I will give my life 
fighting them. This is what made the Ford Motor Co. a decent place 
to live, the fight our union made. 

I watched workers killed in the Ford Motor Co. when I worked 
there. I think in 1932 I saw a man killed 20 feet from where I worked. 
When the workers protested this, four big gangsters came in and beat 
them up in the plant and threw them out on Miller Road. That is 
what we built a union against. Yet when we have to fight because 
the gangsters are killing us and beating us up, and you get an isolated 
photograph and say "Look at the violence," sure, look at the violence. 

You find a photograph of Walter Reuther beating somebody up, 
and I will show you a dozen photographs of Walter Reuther being 
beat up and shot up. 

I mean, let's keep our proportions in our right relationship. 

Senator Goldwwter. I think you are right. Let us get up to date. 

Mr. Reuther. Let us go back 17 years. 

Senator Goldwater. There was testimony given here that this same 
Mr. Ferrazza tromped on the feet and shoes of a woman in the picket 
line and knocked her shoes off. 

If we want to get up to date, I will pass you another picture and 
ask you if you know Donald Rand. 

Mr. Reuther. Yes, I do. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Rand has identified himself in this pic- 
ture. I believe it is designated as No. 2. This picture shows Donald 
Rand in front of the picket line or in a position, I believe that picture 
is, where Mr. Rand has his fist doubled up and there seems to be quite 
a fight going on behind him. 

Mr. Reuther. I think that there is a No. 2 above Mr. Rand, the 
line going up to the top of the photograph. I understand that there 
is another picture that accompanies this that shows that the man in 
front of Mr. Rand was arrested for disturbing the peace. 

Senator Goldwater. I was only asking you to identify Mr. Rand. 

Mr. Reuther. I know, but I want the record to show that I know 
that. 

Senator Goldwater. That is fine. Do you identify that as show- 
ing Mr. Rand? 

Mr. Reuther. I do. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10117 

Senator Goldwater. Are you aware that the Kohler Co.'s employees 
were kept from going to work on the morning of May 24, 1954 ? Are 
you aware that the picture was taken on that date ? 

Mr. Reuther. I am not aware that the picture was taken on that 
date. I have already testified to the fact that the large numbers of 
pickets in front of the plant did keep the people from going in and 
that was found improper and we ceased. I do not know the dates. 

Senator Goldwater. The same Mr. Rand in connection with this 
instance and Mr. Cornelius Buteyn has testified that Mr. Rand said, 
"He would pull out all the stops if we attempted to unload the clay 
boat." 

Officer Zimmerman testified when he tried to open the line Rand 
told him, "Lay off; we have to try to make this as costly to the Kohler 
Co. as we can." Chief Wagner observed Rand reactivating the picket 
line and ordering the truck drivers, "Come on, get out of here. You 
are just holding up the traffic." 

Yet, Rand was promoted in 1956 to be administrative assistant to 
Mr. Emile Mazey. Mr. Reuther, you defend members and officials 
of your union who engage in violence and then you on the other 
hand abhor violence and state your position as being against violence. 

Mr. Reuther. I am told that Mr. Rand, under oath denied that he 
said that. I accept his word. You know Mr. Conger denied he shot 
Mr. Deis but Mr. Deis, under oath, said he did. These are things that 
happened. Mr. Rand denies that he said this. 

Senator Goldwater. But Mr. Rand was in the picket line. I think 
we have established that. It was mass picketing. 

Mr. Reuther. The picture does not have a sound track. It does 
not prove he said this. 

Senator Goldwater. The picture has nothing to do with the clay 
boat incident at all. It happened in front of the plant. What I am 
getting at is, is it your policy to promote people who engage in 
violence ? 

Mr. Reuther. It is quite obvious that is not our policy or I would 
not be the president of the union. 

Senator Goldwater. They tell me you are a pretty good scrapper. 

Mr. Reuther. I am a pretty good what ? 

Senator Goldwater. A scrapper, fighter. 

Mr. Reuther. You find a picture where I have beaten somebody 
up. I have never beaten a man since this union was organized because 
I have always tried to persuade them. I fought when I was attacked. 
I fought for my life when the gangsters had me on the floor of my 
living room beating me over the head with a blackjack and when it 
broke, they used tables and lamps over my head. I fought them. 

I never attacked anybody on the street. I never attacked an em- 
ployer in his office and home. I have been the recipient. Who do you 
think this is ? Have you got a picture that looks this bad ? 

This happens to be a fellow who was a member of our international 
executive board. Where do you think he was beaten up? In his 
home. By whom ? By paid gangsters. Who paid them ? One of the 
automobile companies. 

I think if they ever solve the Reuther shooting you will find the 
same gangsters involved in that. How did they pay these people? 
They found ways to pay them. This is the other side of the story. 
The question arises, where did it start. 

21243— 58— pt. 25 14 



10118 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES* IN THE LABOR FIELD 

We did not start it. We have fought for the right to live. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Eeuther, I am going to ask you some questions. 
It is my purpose to explore with you the policy and practice of the 
leaders of the United Automobile Workers as they relate to the admin- 
istration of justice. 

As you well know, Mr. Reuther, it is only by maintaining absolute 
respect for the law and administration of justice that any of us, in- 
cluding the United Automobile Workers, will continue as a free nation. 

Assaults upon the integrity of our legal system, when engaged in 
by individuals or by comparatively weak or isolated groups are or- 
dinarily not of sufficient importance or magnitude to become a clear and 
present danger to the present system of law which upholds our free 
institutions. 

If an organization, however, with the enormous resources and na- 
tional scope of the United Automobile Workers were to be directed by 
its leaders into a policy, a regularly established policy of attacking 
our legal system, our judges, our law enforcement officers, or cor- 
rupting or attempting to influence with union funds public officials 
who are entrusted in the community with the enforcement of the laws, 
then I say that such activities on the part of such an extremely power- 
ful and large organization would constitute a grave threat to the whole 
system of law which we as free men rely on. 

Now, turning to the Kohler case, that we have been investigating, 
there has been produced evidence of a number of instances where the 
UAW interfered with and hampered the processes of law. These 
Kohler cases do not stand alone. 

I have a vast number of published accounts which show what ap- 
pears to be the program, policy, and practice of the UAW in regard 
to the administration of justice. If these were just a few isolated 
violations, it would not be serious. It would be regrettable but not 
serious. But I think this typifies a general pattern of attitude. 

The evidence to date points very strongly toward a settled policy 
on the part of the leadership and central organization of the UAW 
which it is no exaggeration to say strikes at the very roots of our 
Republic. It strikes, in a word, at the integrity of our system of law. 

The UAW-CIO is a large and powerful organization and it is well 
financed. The impact of your policy and conduct in this field is great 
and it has given me deep concern for a long time. I find that many 
others are concerned, too. 

After Emile Mazey carried out the UAW program by attacking, 
vilifying, and threatening and intimidating Judge Schlichting, a 
number of the finest groups in the community took a public stand in 
condemnation of these attacks. 

All of the Catholic pastors of Sheboygan Falls and Kohler Village- 
joined in the condemnation of the leaders of the automobile workers. 
Let me repeat their words: 

There comes a time when silence is imprudent and may be harmful to a com- 
munity such as Sheboygan, and that time is now. A resident of Sheboygan 
County has been attacked and severely injured by another man. The attacker 
was tried in the circuit court and convicted by a jury, of assault with intent to 
do bodily harm. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 10119 

Then it goes on to say : 

In the face of all these facts, the secretary-treasurer of the UAW, Eniile 
Mazey, closing his eyes to the fact that the injured man was in danger of dying, 
has al-cused the judge of obvious bias shown against organized labor. 

Continuing the quote: 

He even presumed to question whether the judge was qualified to serve as a 
judge in this community. He has attacked the integrity of a major court of 
this county and deserves to be called decisively to task for his insolence. Law- 
lessness is the result in any society of a community, when law and order are 
disregarded. It is the beginning of anarchy. 

That is what the Catholic clergy said. 

Now, Mr. Reuther, I believe it is pertinent to point out what the 
Protestant clergy, the Sheboygan County Ministerial Association 
said. Here is what they said in part: 

A very grave issue confronts the community. It is not the issue of the strike 
at Kohler. It is the issue of an attack upon the fundamental institutions which 
undergird our common life. 

Then they went on : 

But the basic remedy for an attempt to intimidate the court can only be 
found in the stern indignation of the community. Surely, a leader of labor 
betrays his fellow workers when he seeks to destroy or weaken that judicial 
power which is the bulwark of all groups against injustice even by the 
Government itself. 

Destroy the structure of our liberties and the first group to suffer will be the 
worker. 

Now, in addition to some questions concerning the practice of your 
union seeking to obstruct justice by applying political pressure to 
obtain executive pardons and resisting extradition, I will have some 
questions concerning the practice of your union to hinder justice 
through delaying tactics. 

During our current hearings in the Kohler strike, we have received 
evidence of an attack upon law enforcing agencies. These involve 
physical attacks upon the police and attacks upon the integrity of 
judges and law enforcing officers. There are public records of other 
like instances. 

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

Senator Curtis. I shall inquire into the union policies about these 
things. I shall expect to inquire into the practices of the UAW of 
contributing to campaigns of law enforcing officers, especially in 
areas where there is a labor controversy or likely to be. 

I shall specifically inquire in reference to this in those cases where 
the UAW has sent men in from the outside who have been arrested 
and involved in offenses. I may want to ask some questions con- 
cerning the record as to law violations of some of the top men, the 
leaders of the UAW. 

Now, Mr. Reuther, Emile Mazey's attack on Judge Schlichting was 
played to this committee by tape recording. I understand that it was 
first delivered at a meeting and later broadcast over the radio. My 
question is : Was this a United Auto Workers meeting at which Emile 
Mazey delivered that speech? 

Mr. Reuther. Would you repeat the question, please. 

Senator Curtis. Yes ; I will. I have the question right here. Was 
this a UAW meeting at which Emile Mazey delivered this speech? 



10120 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Reuther. I presume it was a meeting of local 833, the Kohler 
local. 

Senator Curtis. I believe it has been testified that there were 2,000 
people present. Is that estimate about the same as the report you 

Mr. Reuther. I wouldn't know that we would be prepared to 
accept that. 

Senator Curtis. When it was later played over the local radio sta- 
tion, is it true that the UAW paid the cost of the broadcast? 

Mr. Reuther. 1 understand that has been testified to. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Reuther, do you know Thomas J. Flynn? 

Mr. Reuther. I said earlier that I did. 

Senator Curtis. You do. 

Mr. Reuther. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. In what capacity was Mr. Flynn employed by the 
UAW in 1948 during the time of the nylon products company strike 
at Benton Harbor, Mich. ? 

Mr. Reuther. I think that at that time he was an international 
representative. 

Senator Curtis. How did he receive his employment? 

Mr. Reuther. I am not certain I know what you mean. 

Senator Curtis. How did he get his job as an international 
representative ? 

Mr. Reuther. Oh, I see. He was appointed in accordance with the 
constitution. 

Senator Curtis. That is by the president and the executive board ? 

Mr. Reuther. Technically. In this case he was chosen by the re- 
gional director who recommended his appointment and I processed 
that and it was approved by the executive board. 

Senator Curtis. The general way provided is that the president 
and the executive board appoint international representatives, is that 
right? 

Mr. Reuther. Actually, as a practical matter, what happens is that 
the regional director picks a person from one of the locals in his 
region. He has a staff quota, he processes the application and unless 
there is something to the contrary the board approves that. 

Senator Curtis. The appointment comes from the president, does it 
not ? 

Mr. Reuther. Technically, yes; but as a practical matter the man 
chosen is chosen by the regional director in his region. 

Senator Curtis. For what offenses was Flynn arrested in connec- 
tion with the nylon product company strike ? 

Mr. Reuther. I do not know the details although I do know he 
was arrested. 

Senator Curtis. The newspapers referred to it as malicious destruc- 
tion of property. I believe it followed an incident that occurred on 
Octob3r 18, 1948, is that about correct? 

Mr. Reuther. I would not know the exact dates. 

Senator Curtis. Would you know the year ? 

Mr. Reuther. I would think it was roughly 10 years ago. 

Senator Curtis. Who were Mr. Flynn's attorneys ? 

Mr. Reuther. I wouldn't know that. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know a Nicholas Rothe ? 

Mr. Reuther. I do. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FTEL.D 10121 

Senator Curtis. And the newspaper accounts indicate that he was 
the attorney for him. 

Mr. Reuther. If the newspapers report that, I presume it is correct. 

Senator Curtis. Was Mr. Rothe a UA W attorney ? 

Mr. Reuther. No; he was not. I mean in that capacity I have 
not checked. He has done some work for our union. In that situation 
I am not sure he was acting for the union, the international. I am 
not certain he was acting for the international union or the local. 
I would have to check that. 

Senator Curtis. Was the cost of Mr. Flynn's defense borne by the 
union ? 

Mr. Reuther. It probably was but I would have to check the record. 
This is 10 years ago and I was not directly involved and I would not 
remember all these details, but we can certainly check that and pro- 
vide the exact information. I think it is reasonable to assume that it 
was. 

Senator Curtis. You think it is reasonable to assume that it was? 

Mr. REurHER. I do. 

Senator Curtis. Was his case appealed to the Supreme Court of 
Michigan ? 

Mr. Reuther. I am not certain it was, but there again, it is a matter 
of what the facts are. I do not know all these details. 

Senator Curtis. Did the UAW pay for taking his case to the 
Supreme Court of Michigan ? 

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

Mr. Reuther. If in this first case we paid for his legal defense, I 
think again it would be reasonable to assume although I can't testify. 
I can check the recrod. 

Senator Curtis. You have said it is reasonable to assume that, If 
you find it different, let us know. 

(At this point Senator Goldwater withdrew from the hearing 
room.) 

Senator Curtis. What decision was set by the Michigan Supreme 
Court? 

Mr. Reuther. I don't know. I would have to get the facts. Since 
he was sentenced, they may have modified it ; I don't know what the 
court did. 

Senator Curtis. I will read you a couple of paragraphs here. This 
is from the Detroit News, July 15, 1951, July 14 date, headline from 
Benton Harbor, Mich. : 

Thomas J. Flynn, CIO-UAW organizer in the troublesome nylon products 
company strike in 1948 went to prison today. He must serve 18 months to 4 
years for malicious destruction of property. Flynn was originally arrested when 
strikers turned over an auto on October 18, 1948. 

He was tried in September and convicted of malicious destruction of property. 
The case was appealed to the supreme court which ruled against him last April. 
Flynn said he would appeal to the United States Supreme Court, but he failed 
to complete the appeal within the specified time. 

That article says he was sentenced to an 18-month to 4-year term. 
Mr. Reuther, my question is, how long did Mr. Flynn serve ? 
Mr. Reuther. I don't know. I would have to look at the record. 
Senator Curtis. You do not know ? 
Mr. Reuther. I do not know. 

Senator Curtis. You do not know anything about how he got out 
of jail? 



10122 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Reuther. That is not the question you asked. You asked me 
how long he served. 

Senator Curtis. I see. He served for a month and a day. 

Mr. Reuther. If that is what the record shows that is probably so. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Reuther, why was it not necessary for Mr. 
Flynn, your organizer, to serve more than a month and a day ? 

Mr. Reuther. I am really not competent to answer that because 
I did not pardon him. You ought to ask the person who pardoned 
him. 

Senator Curtis. You do not know ? 

Mr. Reuther. I do not. I had nothing to do with this. 

Senator Curtis. You do not know how it happened that he did 
not serve but a month and a day ? 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Curtis, if I knew I would tell you but I do 
not. 

Senator Curtis. I will read from the Detroit press. 

Mr. Reuther. I suppose every story in every paper in the country 
including the Chicago Tribune tells the gospel truth about the 
American labor union. 

Senator Curtis. That is what I am trying to ask you. 

Mr. Reuther. You are giving me information now. You are not 
asking me for it. 

Senator Curtis. You said you did not have it. 

Mr. Reuther. I know; you ought to go to the official records to 
find out. Newspapers are not necessarily official documents. 

Senator Curtis. Let me go on. I have listened for 2 days to tell 
how righteous you are (continuing) : 

Governor Williams commuted the sentence to time served which was only a 
month and a day. 

Now, my question is : Did the UAW or the CIO attack the court in 
that case ? 

Mr. Reuther. I do not know that. As I said before, it is a matter 
of record. It is 10 years back. We will go back and find out. 

Senator Curtis. I think the record shows that you fight these cases 
and if you lose you attack the court. Here is the Michigan CIO News 
for Thursday, April 12, 1951. It is a long editorial by August Scholl. 
I will not put it all in the record, but here is what he says. 

By the way, the Michigan Supreme Court is elected on a non- 
partisan ballot under the constitution of Michigan ? 

Mr. Reuther. They are. They are nominated by the parties, but 
it is a nonpartisan court. 

Senator Curtis (reading) : 

Republicans in the legislature stick the knife in labor's back and then those wh<» 
administer and interpret laws twist the knife. 

There are indications also, that workers cannot expect justice from the highest 
tribunal in Michigan, the State supreme court. 

Now, what you are doing there is exactly what was done in Wis- 
consin. You are carrying on a type of program that as these good 
ministers say, threaten the very things that undergird our way of life. 

Mr. Reuther. That is not a UAW publication you are reading 
from. 

Senator Curtis. I understand that. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10123 

Mr. Reutiier. All right. You are talking about the UAW. You 
said Mr. Mazey carried out a UAW program of attacking a judge and 
I say that is not true. 

Senator Curtis. Ninety percent of the CIO in Michigan are UAW, 
are they not ? Roughly, isn't that true ? 

Mr. Reuther. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Now, let us go to the next question. 

Mr. Reutiier. Let us stop just a minute. Let us not hurry along 
here. The point is, let us keep the facts straight. The CIO News 
is not a UAW publication and we have no responsibility or control 
over its editorial policy. 

Senator Curtis. All right. 

Mr. Reuther. If you want to talk about that, that is your business, 
but don't say it is the UAW because it isn't. 

Senator Curtis. Ninety percent of their members are your mem- 
bers. 

Mr. Reutiier. That is not true, either. 

Senator Curtis. Was Flynn's sentence commuted by the Governor 
of Michigan ? 

Mr. Reuther. I understand it was. 

Senator Curtis. Who was the governor at that time ? 

Mr. Reuther. It must have been Governor Williams. 

Senator Curtis. Did you intercede in behalf of Mr. Flynn and ask 
Governor Williams for clemency in this case or to reduce the sentence 
in any manner ? 

Mr. Reuther. I did not. To my knowledge, no UAW official has 
every talked to Governor Williams about any of these cases. I think 
if those cases were handled, they were handled by lawyers through 
the appropriate channels. 

I have never talked to Governor Williams about any of these mat- 
ters. As a matter of fact, I see him very seldom about anything ex- 
cept legislative matters such as unemployment compensation and these 
things. To my knowledge, no UAW officer has ever discussed these 
kind of matters with the Governor of the State of Michigan. 

I might say, Senator, the Republicans have kicked all of these 
things around and the Governor gets more votes every time. 

Senator Curtis. All right, just a minute here. 

Mr. Reuther. This is not a new idea you have. This is an old rec- 
ord that has been broken over and over. 

Senator Curtis. Just a minute. I asked you if you interceded and 
you said that none of your officers did. 

Mr. Reuther. To my knowledge no UAW officer made direct con- 
tact. 

Senator Curtis. The Detroit News on April 30, 1951 — and I shall 
read it : 

Emile Mazey, UAW treasurer, and Nicholas Rothe, Detroit attorney, re- 
cently came here to ask executive clemency for Flynn. 

Mr. Reuther. It does not prove anything. All I know is that these 
are legal matters handled by lawyers. 

Senator Curtis. Let me go on. It will be established for anybody 
who wants to objectively read the record that you do have a consist- 
ent, settled program of obstructing justice and intimidating courts. 



10124 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Curtis, if you will just pause a moment, the 
simple facts are that here is a union with 730 some-odd international 
representatives and to my knowledge, Mr. Flynn is the only interna- 
tional representative who has ever been convicted of a felony while 
he was a member of this staff. I say this is a pretty good record for 
any organization. 

Senator Curtis. All right. We have heard about this record and 
how honest people are for a long time. 

Mr. Reuther. Isn't it true, or is it true ? 

Senator Curtis. No. Mr. Reuther, I have before me a copy of the 
Detroit Free Press for August 16, 1951. The headline says, "Gov- 
ernor opens jail for labor leader.'' It is under a Lansing headline 
and here is what it says: 

UAW worker, Thomas Flynn, was released from prison by clemency action by 
Governor Williams. Flynn's case has been a controversial issue for 3 years. 
He was sentenced to serve 18 months to 4 years for overturning an automobile 
during a strike August 18, 1948, at the Nylon Products Co., St. Joseph. 

Governor Williams commuted the sentence to the time served which was only 
a month and a day. 

Now, Mr. Reuther, my question is, Is that a correct statement of 
fact? 

Mr. Reuther. As I told you I am not familiar with the details but 
I do know that Mr. Flynn was pardoned by Governor Williams. 1 do 
not know the exact dates, whether it was that period or not. I am not 
disputing that. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Williams 

Mr. Reuther. Mr. Williams is the governor. I am Mr. Reuther. 

Senator Curtis. All right, Mr. Reuther. I have before me another 
newspaper account. This is from the Detroit News for August 17, 
1951. The headline is, "A picketline goon goes free and Soapy pays 
a political debt." 

The story goes on to enumerate some of the facts in the Flynn case 
and among other things it says this: "There never was any doubt 
about his guilt." This article concludes with these two paragraphs, 
and I quote : 

The fact of the matter is that Governor Williams has bowed to the demands 
of his political creditors in the UAW-CIO that he set aside the verdict of the 
court in this case. His action was taken over the protest of both the prosecutor 
and the trial judge. 

In the words of the prosecutor, he proclaimed a double standard of law, one 
for ordinary people and one for unionists on the picket line. 

Mr. Reuther. Is that an editorial or a news story ? 

Senator Curtis. I presume it is an editorial. 

Mr. Reuther. I thought so. Let me tell you about the editorials 
the same people wrote about Mayor Reading who went to prison as 
being on the payroll of the underworld. The same newspaper wrote 
laudatory editorials about that. 

Senator Curtis. I am not offering the article in evidence. 

Mr. REurHER. Are you just practicing reading ? 

Senator Curtis. Was the UAW a political creditor of Governor 
Williams as stated there? 

Mr. Reuther. Will you repeat that ? 

Senator Curtis. Was the UAW a political creditor of Governor 
Williams as stated there ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10125 

Mr. Reuther. We were not. Governor Williams owes us absolutely 
nothing excepting good government that we expect from all govern- 
ment officials. 

Senator Curtis. Now, Mr. Reuther, I have a book that has the facts 
and figures as shown in tables and statements concerning the campaign 
funds in the 1950 campaign in which Governor Williams was involved. 

I want to state first to the chairman and the members of this com- 
mittee, that the purpose of my inquiry is not to deal with the question 
of whether or not a political contribution is a violation of law. I am 
not investigating political contributions. That part of this investi- 
gation will come later. 

I am bringing this in as it relates to the possible corruption of the 
administration of justice. The book I refer to is entitled, "The CIO 
and the Democratic Party," Fay Calkins. This book was published 
by the University of Chicago Press in 1952. It recites that it is a 
research project of the Industrial Relations Center of the University 
of Chicago. The accuracies of the research is attested to as shown 
in the preface by Frederick H. Harbison, professor of industrial 
relations and Avery Ceiserson, associate professor of political science, 
both at the University of Chicago. 

Fay Calkins, at the time of writing the book is a research assistant 
of the national CIO-PAC. On page 130 under the heading of "Fund 
Raising," it says this : 

Since both the State PAC and the State Democratic Party were campaigning 
for the entire statewide Democratic slate in 1950, it is difficult to disentable 
the expenses of the Williams campaign from the others. Party and PAC sources 
indicate that the total and direct contributions to statewide Democratic candi- 
dates amounted to $328,519.68, and that the CIO unions contributed about 
$211,550 or 64 percent of this. 

You have testified that 90 percent of the CIO in Michigan are made 
up of UAW workers. 

Mr. Reuther. That is your testimony. I said that 90 percent were 
not UAW because we never were that large a percentage of the CIO 
membership. Steel workers and other unions have large memberships. 

Senator Curtis. You are an officer in the CIO ? 

Mr. Reuther. I used to be. There is no CIO now. 

Senator Curtis. What were you at the time of the merger ? 

Mr. Reuther. At the time of the merger I was president of the CIO. 

Senator Curtis. Yes. You are the highest official of the CIO in 
the land? 

Mr. Reuther. I had nothing to do with it if a steel workers union 
makes a contribution for a campaign. 

Senator Curtis. Is it still your position that the CIO-UAW is or 
is not a political creditor of Mr. Williams ? 

Mr. Reuther. By political creditor I assume you mean that you 
are entitled to something for your support. 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Reuther. All we get and all we ask is good government. That 
is precisely why I think you are starting your 1960 campaign kind of 
early. It just seems to me 

Senator Curtis. Now, listen, Mr. Reuther 

Mr. Reuther. This won't work, Senator Curtis. Republicans in 
Michigan 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Reuther 



10126 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES' IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Just a moment. The Chair has been rather indul- 
gent about these demonstrations. We are here on Government busi- 
ness. This is no place for abuse. I do not know who you are applaud- 
ing and it makes no difference. I will ask you hereafter to refrain 
from such demonstration so that we may proceed without interruption. 

Ybu are here as a guest of the committee and bear that in mind. 

All right, you may resume, Senator Curtis. 

(At this point the fol owing members were present: Senators Mc- 
Clellan, Mundt, and Curtis.) 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Reuther, the facts Speak for themselves. 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Curtis, we don't —just because some girl who 
worked as a clerk, a clipping clerk, for a group for a couple of months, 
writes a book to get her doctors degree, doesn't make that a fact. We 
challenge these figures. 

The people who handle this matter, Mr. Dudley, who is quoted 
here, made a check and says that these facts are not correct, that these 
figures are not correct. 

You can't just say that they are a fact because some girl wrote this 
book. Let's be reasonable about what constitutes facts. 

Can you swear under oath that these are the facts ? 

Senator Curtis. I am not the witness. 

Mr. Reuther. No, but you say they are facts. 

Senator Curtis. Let me go on. 

Mr. Reuther. I think we ought to be fair. Here is a girl that writes 
a book. She has the right to write a book. But then I have a right 
to say that when she says these are the facts and they aren't the facts, 
you shouldn't be able to use them as though they were the facts. 

Senator Curtis. Let me go on. 

Mr. Reuther. I want to know, are we now proceeding on the basis 
that this is what she claims the facts are ? 

Senator Curtis. All right. 

Mr. Reuther. xVll right. Then I have no argument. 

Senator Curtis. I think her claim is pretty accurate. Let's suppose 
it isn't 64 percent. Let's suppose it is 80 percent, which would be 
over $1,000 coming from one group, and then they go in and ask 
that the courts of our land be disregarded and that special privileges 
be given. 

Mr. Reuther. Mr. Curtis, Senator Curtis, would you agree that 
when the Republican Party at one dinner in Detroit, when Mr. Wilson 
came, raised $280,000 from the executives, in 1 night, that that means 
that the Republicans all belong to General Motors? 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Reuther 

Mr. Reuther. This is the other side of the coin. 

Senator Curtis. No; it isn't. It has nothing to do with it. It is 
another one of your political speeches, and I am getting tired of 
them. 

Mr. Reuther. When a trade union raises money to support people 
who believe in the kind of government geared to the needs of people, 
that is evil. But when the corporations support their people, to have 
the kind of government they want, that is perfectly okay. 

I don't believe in double standards. 

Senator Curtis. Neither do I, Mr. Reuther. 

Mr. Reuther. You are practicing double standards, then. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10127 

Senator Curtis. Listen, Mr. Reuther, I stated to the chairman of 
this committee that the question of political contributions, good or 
bad, violations of law or not, was not what we were debating, or not 
what we were inquiring about. 

I am inquiring about the interference with the administration of 
justice as the pattern has shown over a period of years by your group. 

Mr. Reuther. And I want to say that you are reflecting upon the 
integrity of the governor of the State of Michigan who six times was 
elected by overwhelming majorities of the State of Michigan. 

It is their governor. You may not like him, but they chose him 
and you have no right to challenge his integrity. 

Senator Curtis. Well, you didn't say anything like that to Mr. 
Mazey. 

Has the UAW supported Mr. Williams in subsequent elections since 
1950 ? Can you answer that shortly ? 

Mr. Reuther. The membership of the UAW, through the proper 
procedures, in joint effort with the membership of other CIO unions 
through their State councils, have endorsed Governor Williams for 
reelection each time he ran. 

Senator Curtis. That brings us up to the case of John Gunaca. 
Mr. Reuther, are you familiar — do you know John Gunaca ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, I stated yesterday that I have never met him 
and if he walked in the room, I wouldn't know him. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know who he is ? 

Mr. Reuther. I know him because of these hearings. 

Senator Curtis. We have received testimony here concerning the 
fact that Gunaca was brought into Wisconsin by the UAW, that he 
entered a filling station and took part in administering a brutal beat- 
ing, and that it happened almost 4 years ago. 

You are familiar with that account, aren't you, Mr. Reuther ? 

Mr. Reuther. I know about it ; yes. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Reuther, what officers, representatives, or at- 
torneys of the UAW have intervened with Governor Williams to resist 
the extradition of Gunaca from Michigan to Wisconsin ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Reuther. Did you direct a question? I thought you were just 
reading material. I am sorry. 

Senator Curtis. Certainly I did. I asked you what officers, repre- 
sentatives, or attorneys of the UAW have intervened with Governor 
Williams to resist the extradition of Gunaca from Michigan to Wis- 
consin ? 

Mr. Reuther. And I testified either this morning or yesterday to 
the effect that no officer of the UAW had intervened, that this matter 
was handled by his attorneys. I think this was this morning, with 
Senator Goldwater, that it was handled by his attorneys, and it was the 
attorneys' feeling that he could not get a fair trial because of the emo- 
tionally charged atmosphere in Sheboygan, and that, therefore, they 
persuaded the governor to take steps to insure him a fair trial. 

And if he can get a fair trial, then he ought to go back to Wisconsin 
immediately and stand trial. 

Senator Curtis. Who provided the attorney that so persuaded the 
governor ? 

Mr. Reuther. I testified to that this morning. It has been testified 
to over and over ajjain. 



10128 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. You can do it so much quicker by telling me who 
did rather than making these speeches. 

Mr. Reuther. We said that the UAVY was providing that. 

Senator Curtis. Why withhold? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, if we were withholding it, it wouldn't be in 
the record 25 times before. I mean, I think we ought to be sensible. 

Senator Curtis. Well, there are a lot of things you don't think sensi- 
ble, but we are trying to find out about what is happening here. 

On July 10, 1955, in the Detroit News, I find an article : "Williams 
Keeps Kohler Plea for Union's Extradition." It is dated Lansing, 
July 9, and reads as follows : 

Wisconsin's petition to extradite a Mount Clements unionist accused of bat- 
ing a nonstriker remains in a pigeon hole in Governor Williams' desk. It has 
been nearly a year, and there is every indication that it will stay there for a 
long, long time. 

Mr. Reuther, this is my question : It is true that Governor Williams 
hasn't yet granted extradition, isn't it? 

Mr. Reuther. I presume that is true. It certainly was true as of 
yesterday when we talked about this. I understand that Governor 
Williams is prepared to sign the appropriate papers as soon as a fair 
trial can be assured, and Mr. Gunaca, his attorney, has stated to your 
committee that they are prepared to go back voluntarily if they caa 
get a fair trial. 

Senator Curtis. In the meantime, John Gunaca was to appear as a 
witness in an NLRB hearing at Sheboygan, and he refused to attend. 
The matter was taken before Federal Judge Kenneth B. Grubb in 
Milwaukee. 

Judge Grubb ruled that Governor Williams had no right to grant 
him the request. Judge Grubb's decision was appealed to the United 
States Circuit Court of Appeals. 

My question is: Did the UAW provide Mr. Gunaca with an at- 
torney and the other expense for his appearance before Judge Grubb? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, I don't know specifically when that took place, 
but I assume that since we said that we were providing him legal 
counsel, and if it involved legal counsel at that point, I presume it 
covered that situation. 

But I am told by Mr. Rauh that some of your legal facts there 
are incorrect. I would like to have him straighten the record, if you 
would care to cooperate. 

Senator Curtis. Well, there was an appearance before Judge 
Grubb and the UAW paid the expense, is that right ? 

Mr. Reuther. I don't know. If there was one, I presume we paid 
it. I don't know about the appearance. 

Senator Curtis. Am I right, Mr. Rauh, that the matter also went 
to the circuit court ? 

Mr. Rauh. Yes, sir, but it was not about what you said it was about. 
It was about the question of whether he should testify before the Na- 
tional Labor Relations Board, and, in fact, the actual fact of the matter 
is that the National Labor Relations Board finally admitted they were 
wrong, and that they had no right to take him into Wisconsin under 
the circumstances, and he did testify in Iron Mountain, Mich. 

Senator Curtis. All right. 



IMPROPER ACTirVITIEiS EN' THE LABOR FIELD 10129 

Now, Mr. Reuther, did the UAW provide an attorney and pay the 
other costs for presenting Gimaca's case to the United States Circuit 
Court of Appeals ? 

Mr. Reuther. I said earlier I think that we felt since he had gotten 
into difficulty because he was asked by a subordinate body of the union 
to go to Wisconsin, to Sheboygan, that we felt obligated to try to give 
him a defense so that he could get a fair trial, and that he could 
attempt to defend himself if he were not guilty, and that therefore I 
think we, perhaps, have assumed all the costs of any legal matters 
involved in that procedure. 

Senator Curtis. According to the newspaper accounts, Governor 
Kohler, of Wisconsin, wrote to Governor Williams urging Gunaca's 
extradition. 

The article states, and this is from the Detroit Times of Saturday, 
June 30, 1956, "Williams replied that he would continue to withhold 
action because Gunaca had not been granted a Supreme Court review, 
said Williams." That is referred to this case before Judge Grubb and 
before the circuit court. 

I will ask you, Mr. Rauh, was an appeal taken to the Supreme Court ? 

Mr. Rauh. Yes, sir. It was taken and certiorari was granted by 
the Supreme Court. The Labor Board then confessed error, and that 
there wasn't any right to get him to Wisconsin, and they took the 
matter over and took his deposition in Iron Mountain, Mich. 

Senator Curtis. You paid the expense of that going to the Supreme 
Court, did you ? 

Mr. Rauh. I can answer that better. Yes. I was the attorney. 

(At this point, Senator Kennedy and Senator Goldwater entered 
rhe hearing room. ) 

Senator Curtis. All of those proceedings were to resist extradition, 
weren't they ? 

Mr. Reuther. It was all part of the efforts of the union to try to 
get this man a fair trial because we believed that the emotional climate 
of Sheboygan County was such that the prospects of having a trial 
that could be found to be unfair was real and great and that therefore 
we were trying not to stop him from being tried — I mean, let's keep 
the record clear. I think that Governor Williams felt that in the 
climate of the local situation this may interfere with the normal 
processes of justice. 

He was perfectly willing, however, to do everything he could. And 
Mr. Walter Kohler, who was then Governor of the State of Wiscon- 
sin, is the gentleman whom we have proposed be the arbitrator in the 
Kohler strike, just to get back to that for about 10 seconds, and the 
Kohler Co. has been unwilling to date to accept Mr. Walter Kohler 
as the arbitrator. 

Senator Curtis. That has nothing to do with the question I asked 

Mr. Reuther. Your question had nothing to do with the Kohler 
strike. I was trying to get back to the Kohler strike. 

Senator Curtis. It all relates to your opening statement. 

(At this point, Senator McClellan left the hearing room.) 

Senator Curtis. You came in here and opened up all of these things, 
made the issue of corruption. I contend that the administration of 
justice has been corrupted. 



10130 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Reuther. You can't prove it. You can make the contention 
but you can't prove it. 

Senator Curtis. I think the record will speak for itself, when we 
get through here. 

You mention Governor Kohler. Your own home town paper, the 
Detroit News of March 19, 1957, says "It is not true that he could not 
get a fair trial." 

Mr. Reuther. Do they say that editorially ? 

Senator Curtis. No, they quoted Governor Kohler. 

Mr. Reuther. Governor Kohler said it ? 

Senator Curtis. Governor Kohler said "It is not true that he could 
not get a fair trial." 

Mr. Reuther. I don't think a governor could ever say he doesn't 
think a person could get a fair trial. I think that is understandable. 

Senator Curtis. He is a man of integrity, isn't he? 

Mr. Reuther. I think he is. But I don't think he would say, "Well, 
I think you are right. I don't think he could get a fair trial in She- 
boygan." 

I told Senator Goldwater this morning I am not prepared to say 
that he coudn't get a fair trial on Sheboygan. But I do believe that 
there might be a question in peoples' minds, and, therefore, under 
these circumstances, I think it would be better to move it to another 
county. 

Senator Curtis. You know United States Senator William Prox- 
mire? 

Mr. Reuther. I have met him on one or two occasions, yes. 

Senator Curtis. Well, you know about him, who he is ? 

Mr. Reuther. I do. 

Senator Curtis. According to the Congressional Record, on March 
18, 1958, page 4091, Senator Proxmire said: 

Most regrettable is the one act of particular violence which has been described 
to me, and which was charged to a man who left the State of Wisconsin and 
went to Michigan. It is unfortunate that he has not been extradited. I feel 
very strongly that he should be extradited, because the failure to extradite him 
constitutes a lack of faith in Wisconsin's judgment. 

Do you believe that Mr. Proxmire is a man of integrity and knows 
of the political institutions in Wisconsin ? 

Mr. Reuther. I think he is. I wish you would read the rest of the 
things he said about the Kohler Co., and about where he thinks they 
ought to accept arbitration. 

Senator Curtis. I am not defending 

Mr. Reuther. I know you are not defending. 

Senator Curtis. I am not defending the Kohler Co. or anybody 
else. 

Mr. Reuther. That is all you do, Senator. You keep making ex- 
cuses for a company that is in violation of the law. The record will 
show that you cover up whenever they get their foot in their mouth. 

Senator Curtis. Air. Reuther, the record will show that is not true. 

Mr. Reuther. I think it is true, and I think the record will show 
that. 

Senator Curtis. Well, it isn't. In these hearings, Air. Schuette, 
who is an officer, president of the Sheboygan County Labor Council — 
do you know Mr. Schuette ? 

Mr. Reuther. No, I have never met him. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10131 

Senator Curtis. He testified here, through affidavit presented by 
Mr. Rauh, and I will quote, "That the overwhelming majority of the 
people in Sheboygan are wholeheartedly in support of a strike and 
sympathize with the Kohler union.*' That particular statement is 
found on page 2497. 

Earlier in your testimony, Mr. Eeuther, you agreed to the state- 
ment of Mr. Schuette, didn't you ? 

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

Mr. Eeuther. Well, this is the first — Senator Gold water referred 
to this statement this morning, and I said that I personally am not in 
a position to say that a person can't get a fair trial there because I just 
happen to believe in the average place you ought to get a fair trial. 

But I can understand how in the minds of Mr. Gunaca and his 
attorney they may have doubts. For that reason, since he is the one 
charged and not me, I think he has a right to follow on the advice of 
his attorney. 

I made that very clear. We are kind of repeating ourselves. 

Senator Curtis. Do you agree or not with Mr. Schuette that the 
overwhelming sentiment is for the union % 

Mr. Eeuther. I would think that the people of Sheboygan, 
knowing the facts of the strike, and the antilabor attitude of the 
Kohler Co. and all the other things that they have done, the violence 
in the 1934 strike and all that, that the average person there who 
knows the facts would be sympathetic with the workers. 

Senator Curtis. That sort of contradicts these excuses that have 
been given. 

Mr. Eeuther. Nobody is making excuses. I said Mr. Gunaca and 
his attorney feel that they could get a fair trial in a climate at least 
charged with emotionalism. That is their decision, not mine. 

Senator Curtis. We have your own union officer, Mr. Schuette 

Mr. Eeuther. He is not our own union officer. You have just 
conveniently — he is no more our union officer than Mr. Shols' paper 
was our union paper. 

Senator Curtis. He is the top officer of the CIO and you say the 
CIO News is not your paper ? 

Mr. Eeuther. I am told he is an A. F. of L. member. You see, it 
would be very nice if everything fit into the slot so that the pattern 
you are trying to fabricate would fit together. But this fellow is an 
AFL member. 

Senator Curtis. Listen, I am not trying to fabricate anything. 

Mr. Eeuther. You are working at it very hard. 

Senator Curtis. No, I am not. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Curtis. Here we have this 

Mr. Eeuther. He is a member of the Butchers Union. 

Senator Curtis. All right, We have this labor leader. 

Mr. Eeuther. Now, we got butchers and automobile workers and 
plumbers all in one union. 

Senator Curtis. He is this top labor leader in Sheboygan 

Mr. Eeuther. He is the head of the county council there, or what- 
ever they call it. 

Senator Curtis. He speaks of the strong public sentiment in favor 
of the union in the Wisconsin area. You have expressed your conn- 



10132 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

dence in Governor Kohler. You say it is not true, you couldn't get 
a fair trial there. 

You have expressed your confidence in Mr. Proxmire, Senator 
Proxmire. 

The Detroit News on March 9, 1957, has an article which describes 
Gunaca's attorneys. They mention William Mazey, brother of Emile 
Mazey, UAW-CIO Secretary-Treasurer. 

Mr. Eeuther, has your union borne all of the expense in giving 
representation to Gunaca in reference to presenting his case to Gov- 
ernor Williams ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, as I said earlier, I think that we are assum- 
ing the costs of the legal fees with respect to his case, and if his at- 
torney went to the Governor, or to whomever he spoke, since none of 
the union officers made contact there, I assume that we paid for the 
cost of that. 

Senator Curtis. Who are Gunaca's attorneys ? 

Mr. Reuther. Mr. Marston. 

Senator Curtis. Who else? 

Mr. Reuther. Mr. Charles Marston. 

Senator Curtis. Who else ? 

Mr. Reuther. I think he is the attorney. 

Senator Curtis. Well, it mentioned that William Mazey appeared 
before the Governor in one of these hearings. 

Mr. Reuther. I think he is in the same law firm. But Mr. Mars- 
ton is the attorney for Mr. Gunaca. At least, that is what I have 
been told. 

Senator Curtis. Are they also the UAW attorneys? 

Mr. Reuther. They are not regular UAW attorneys. They have 
done some work for the UAW. 

Senator Curtis. Have they done some work 

Mr. Reuther. In this case, Mr. Gunaca chose Mr. Marston, and 
based upon that arrangement we are paying Mr. Marston. 

Senator Curtis. But they have done work, some work, practically 
every year, would you say ? 

Mr. Reuther. I think that Mr. Marston is on a retainer fee with 
the local union, of which Mr. Gunaca is a member, local 212. But 
Mr. Marston and the people associated in that firm have, from time 
to time, performed certain legal work for the union. 

Senator Curtis. This thing has drug along, and Governor Kohler 
is out of office. Governor Thompson is the Governor of Wisconsin, and 
the same Williams is Governor of Michigan. 

Mr. Reuther. That is right, by the choice of the people. 

Senator Curtis. Governor Thompson, according to the papers, the 
Detroit News of November 7, 1957, wrote Governor Williams again 
asking for extradition of this man. 

Now, I want to refer to an artcle, very briefly, that appeared in the 
Ann Arbor News, the 12th of October 1957. It is entitled, "Williams 
Still Rejecting Wisconsin's Bid for Gunaca." 

That article ends with the sentence, and I quote : 

If anything does happen to prevent a proper trial of the ease, the governor 
will have a hard time explaining his long delay in granting extradition. • 

Now, Mr. Reuther, you would agree that it has been a long time that 
he had denied that extradition, wouldn't you ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES LN T THE LABOR FIELD 10133 

Mr. Reuther. Well, I am learning more about the papers in Mich- 
igan than I have known for a long time, but, you see, the problem here 
is that the Republicans have the paper and Williams has the people, 
so he gets elected every year. This is the situation. 

Senator Curtis. Would you agree that it has been a long time that 
Governor Williams has held that extradition up ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, I would think that every reasonable effort 
should be made to get Mr. Gunaca into the State of Wisconsin at an 
early date so he can be tried in a situation where his attorney and he 
personally, as an individual, feel that the climate is such that it will 
not jeopardize a fair trial, and I think that Governor Williams is 
motivated by that simple, basic fact. 

Senator Curtis. I asked nothing about Governor Williams' motiva- 
tion. I asked you if you didn't agree that 4 years had been a long time 
to hold up an extradition ? 

Mr. Reuther. It is a long time to have this controversy. Sure it 
is a long time. 

Senator Curtis. Yesterday you said that justice delayed was justice 
denied, didn't you ? 

Mr. Reuther. Did I say that ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Reuther. I think it is a very good way to put it and the person 
who originated that did very well. 

Senator Curtis. I think so. 

Mr. Reuther. It is not original. 

The point is this, that in this case, this could be settled in 5 minutes 
if the people in the Sheboygan County— and this is the thing you don't 
seem to understand, Senator Curtis, that this gentleman who spoke as 
the head of the central body of Sheboygan talked about the city of 
Sheboygan, but the jury and so forth is pulled from a county, a big 
county area, and that is the problem that they are worried about, 
I am told. 

It seems to me that when you bring in a representative of labor from 
the city and he says that overwhelmingly the support of the people in 
Sheboygan City is with the strikers, and if they pick the jury just 
from that group that is one thing. But they don't. 

They pick it from a bigger, broader group in which the union's 
position has been presented badly, and I think distorted, and in which 
there is some feeling. 

Senator Curtis. All right. Now, Mr. Reuther, the fact remains that 
the close relationship between the CIO activities, of which IT AW is a 
part, and you were a top officer of the CIO and the Governor of Mich- 
igan, are close. It doesn't make any difference whether Fay Hawkins 
missed that by mentioning that as 64 percent, and it should be 34 per- 
cent, or what, but in other States of the Union, these things do not 
happen; a delay of 4 years. 

All of these delays have been paid for by the ITAW. Have you 
ever talked to Governor Williams at all about Gunaca ? 

Mr. Reuther. I told you I have never in my life talked to Gover- 
nor Williams or any other official of the State of Michigan about Mr. 
Vinson, Mr. Gunaca, about any other, about Mr. Flynn, about any of 
these things. 

I have never talked to Governor Williams about these matters. 

21243— 58— pt. 25—15 



10134 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. But the fact remains that the extradition of 
Gunaca has been delayed and delayed and delayed by Governor Wil- 
liams who was put in office and kept in office by the union. 

Mr. Reuther. It was delayed by the people in Wisconsin who in 5 
minutes can make a shift of the case there and get this behind us. 
But maybe the Republicans in Wisconsin are cooperating with the 
Republicans in Michigan. 

Maybe they would like to go on 6 more years. They could use it in 
the 1960 election, too, when this one is behind us. 

Senator Curtis. I want to go into another case where you financed 
delays. 

Mr. Reuther. Mr. Chairman, I think it is unfair to say. We want 
him tried immediately. 

Senator Curtis. Get on the phone and call up the Governor and 
tell him. 

Mr. Reuther. You call up the Governor of Wisconsin and let him 
get the people in Sheboygan to shift the case, and we will have the 
trial right away. 

Senator Curtis. If you can demand it the way you want it, you 
would have it that way. I agree. And I think you so notified Wil- 
liams. 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Curtis, if you will relax for a minute, I will 
tell you a few things about politics in Michigan. 

Senator Curtis. Well 

Mr. Reuther. For every dollar that we have raised to support peo- 
ple like Governor Williams, the Republicans and big business have 
raised $10. 

Senator Curtis. All right. 

Mr. Reuther. I say if they elect a governor, we don't go around 
saying that everybody is corrupt, that their integrity, that they are 
dealing with the processes of justice. 

It just so happens that the people of Michigan got tired of a Re- 
publican administration that did not deal with the problems of the 
people. 

It seems to me that the best kind of politics you fellows can play is 
to go to work on the union employment situation, do something for the 
farmers, and build some schools for the kids. This is political pay 
dirt. You are digging where there is no pay dirt. 

Senator Curtis. I am not trying to play politics here. 

Mr. Reuther. You are not playing politics ? 

Senator Curtis. No. 

Mr. Reuther. You are reading every editorial of the Republican 
papers of Michigan about Governor Williams, and tomorrow they 
will have editorials saying, "Senator Curtis said the same thing we 
did." 

Obviously you are reading editorials. 

Senator Curtis. You are a past master at diverting and attracting 
attention. 

Mr. Reuther. Are you reading editorials from Republican papers? 

Senator Curtis. The fact remains that you are a political force in 
Michigan, you used that force, you got a pardon for Flynn, you are 
using that force and you are preventing Gunaca from going to trial. 

Mr. Reuther. The facts just don't justify that. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 10135 

Senator Kennedy. Before you leave the Gunaca case, would the 
Senator yield ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Senator Kennedy. It would seem to me that in the case of Gunaca 
there is a disagreement between Governor Williams and the prosecut- 
ing attorney of Sheboygan County. 

Governor Williams, it seems to me, is of the opinion that in view 
of the strife from both sides, in view of the rocks being thrown in the 
windows this week, and in view of the atmosphere, by the testimony 
this committee has received, there seems to be so much bitterness on 
both sides I am not sure it would be possible to get a jury who wouldn't 
have people on it who would vote for Gunaca because he was tied up 
with the union and against Gunaca because he was tied up with the 
union. 

So it seems to me that the best thing to do would be to have the 
prosecuting attorney move it to another area. That seems to be the 
position Governor Williams has taken in this case. 

Mr. Reuther. That is precisely it. 

The Chairman. Well, let's go ahead. 

Senator Curtis. Now, we will go to another case that your union 
is connected with. This is a news article, not an editorial. 

Mr. Reuther. I bet you got an editorial coming up. 

Senator Curtis. No. No. All of the facts have been verified and 
admitted by you. This news article is of February 23, 1956, and 
headed : 

Two UAW officials today were confined to the country jail under 10-day terms 
for contempt of court following the unsuccessful last-minute effort of their at- 
torney to win suspended sentences. They are : James Doddie, an interna- 
tional representative assigned to local 856 during the Great Lakes Greyhound 
strike in 1953 ; and Russell Knowland, chairman of the local grievance com- 
mitte at the time. 

Continuing the quote : 

Both were convicted by Circuit Judge Frank V. Ferguson for violating an 
injunction against mass picketing in the strike. The men, however, were re- 
leased under bond as futile appeals were taken to Michigan and the United 
States Supreme Court. 

Mr. Reuther, is it true that the union provided attorneys and 
financed appeals for these two men who were sentenced to but 10 days 
in jail, to not only the Michigan Supreme Court but the Supreme 
Court of the United States ? 

Mr. Reuther. Again I would like to check the record. 

I thought we were going to talk about the Kohler strike. I would 
have gotten that information had I known it was coming up. But I 
assume that if the cases of these two men had been processed, that 
either the local union or the international, or jointly, they must have 
paid the bill because I am sure that the individuals didn't pay it 
themselves, because they were involved in a court case growing out of 
a labor dispute in which they were involved officially in their 
capacities. 

Senator Curtis. Was that dues money used for that ? 

Mr. Reuther. Obviously it is dues money. 

Senator Curtis. What I mean, there was not a voluntary defense 
fund raised? 

Mr. Reuther. It was dues money obviously. 



10136 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. And money was spent to appeal the case of 2 men 
sentenced to 10 days in jail, not only to the Supreme Court of 
Michigan, but to the Supreme Court of the United States. Your 
far-reaching and powerful and rich organization financed it ? 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Curtis, I am sure if you got into that, the 
thing that was being appealed was not the 10-day sentence. The thing 
that was being appealed perhaps was some basic constitutional ques- 
tion that we felt was involved in that and it was not just limited to 
that situation, but could become a legal precedent that would affect 
us elsewhere. 

You must always remember that in our basic concept of juris- 
prudence, where a judge makes a ruling that you feel begins to 
transgress the normal boundaries of the area of the law in which he 
is making his decisions, the way you avoid the erosion of your basic 
rights of these kind of decisions is to appeal them. That is why we 
have an appeal procedure. 

I am sure if you check, the appeal was not based upon a 10-day 
sentence. There was perhaps some basic legal question involved and 
the only way you can test it was to appeal it. I think, as a matter of 
common sense, a 10-day thing would not be the thing that would take 
a case to the Supreme Court. 

Mr. Rauh says he recalls that case. 

Senator Curtis. I want to ask you this. 

Mr. Reuther. Why don't we set the record straight? Let him 
state why we appeal it since you made such a great point of that. 

Senator Curtis. State so briefly, Mr. Rauh. 

Mr. Rauh. It was appealed because there was a legal question on 
whether a contempt action could be based on affidavits alone. I think 
it was the feeling of the attorneys out there, I remember being called 
by phone, as to whether you could have a legal contempt on affidavits 
rather than on oral testimony. 

That was an important legal question. I think we lost that one. 

Senator Curtis. We always have to find some legal questions to 
appeal on. 

Mr. Reuther. Don't we have an appeal procedure for the purpose 
of using it ? 

Senator Curtis. I know, but ordinary people cannot finance an 
appeal from a 10-day jail sentence to the supreme court of the State 
and then to the United States. 

I want a statement, or will you submit a statement, of the total 
amount of UAW money that was spent in appealing and defending 
the cases of these two men who were sentenced to 10 days in jail, 
Doddie and Nolan ? 

Mr. Reuther. I think with a little time we can give you that in- 
formation, and we shall be happy to do so. I think you need to keep 
in mind that this whole concept of jurisprudence that we have de- 
veloped, that we borrowed originally from the British system and 
have refined and built into our own structure, the only way you can 
prevent the erosion by having local judges or judges at the lower 
levels of our judicial structure make decisions in areas of law that 
erodes the basic and fundamental concepts, is to appeal them to the 
higher courts when you feel that their decision has eroded or moves 
in the direction of tampering with. This is exactly why we don't 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10137 

give a local judge final authority. We want his judgment subject to 
review at a higher level. 

This is precisely why the higher level is divorced from political 
decision, because we want it to be beyond the reach of political deci- 
sion. So this is our concept. 

Obviously a thing is right or wrong, not based upon the amount of 
money you spend, but based upon the principle you are defending. 

The Chairman. The witness will submit the statement of the ex- 
pense involved. It will be placed in the record at this point so he 
who reads may be governed accordingly. 

Mr. Reuther. We shall supply the information, Mr. Chairman. 

(Information referred to follows:) 

Great Lakes Greyhound v. International Union, UAW, etc., Local Unions Nos. 
656, 417 and 563 of International Union, UAW-CIO, Leo H. Russell, A. James 
Doddie, Russell Nolan, Jos. McCusker, Charles Luckett, Charles Riddick, 
James Cooper, Kenneth Thompson, David A. Rogers and Wm. McAulay 

Following is list of charges made by Rothe, Marston, Mazey, Sachs & O'Con- 
nell in the above action : 

Statement dated : 

July 1953 (May services) $637.50 

July 1953 (June services) 210.00 

August 1953 (July services) 705.00 

February 1954 (December 1953 services) 105.00 

September 1954 (August services) 225.00 

November 1954 (October services) 180.00 

January 1955 (November 1954 services) 15.00 

January 1955 (December 1954 services) 52.50 

May 1955 (April services) 112.50 

Total 2, 242. 50 

Senator Curtis. This Detroit News article of February 23, 1956, 
goes on to say : 

Attorney Nicholas Rothe surrendered the two men to Ferguson late yester- 
day — meaning the judge — but he warned that their commitment now would only 
arouse Greyhound workers. 

He said after all these appeals are taken, you should not put the 
men in jail now because it would just arouse Greyhound workers. He 
goes on to say : 

Peaceful labor relations had existed at the company since the strike was 
settled nearly 3 years ago. Putting them in jail will only cause ill feeling. 

That argument has a familiar ring to me. 

Quoting again from your hometown paper, the Detroit News, of 
March 22, 1958 — and this one is about you, Mr. Reuther 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Curtis, pardon me before you move on. I 
would like Mr. Rauh, who knows about that case, to tell you precisely 
what happened. The only trouble is that the Detroit News only re- 
ported part of this. 

Senator Curtis. I want to ask you about this. 

Mr. Reuther. Don't you want us to comment ? 

You just read the Detroit News as though it were lifted right out 
of the Bible. 

Senator Curtis. I do not care to have a legal treatise on all of these 
things. 

The Chairman. No comment. Proceed with the question. 



10138 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Reuther. If you want to editorialize and use the Detroit News 
as a source of reliable information, I can't stop you. I suppose that 
is covered by the four freedoms. 

Go ahead. 

Senator Curtis. We are not concerned about the legal arguments 
in these things. Mr. Rauh is a very learned lawyer. We are not dis- 
puting with the courts on these things. We are showing the pattern 
and program of the UAW and where you spent money and for what 
purposes in delaying these things. This article here says : 

UAW president 

Mr. Reuther. What paper is that ? 

Senator Curtis. This is the Detroit News, March 22, 1958. 

Mr. Reuther. I just want to know it is my hometown paper, that 
is all. 

Senator Curtis (reading) : 

UAW President Walter Reuther had— 
the title of the article is "Seeks To Halt Perfect Circle Strike Inquiry." 
It is referring to this committee here. In that article I find this 
statement : 

UAW President Walter Reuther has opposed the proposed hearings on the 
ground that they would disturb now friendly union-management relations at 
Newcastle. 

Mr. Reuther, have you stated that you were opposed to this com- 
mittee going into the Perfect Circle strike because it would disturb 
friendly relations at Newcastle? 

Mr. Reuther. Are you asking me if I am opposed to it ? 

Senator Curtis. No. I have said, have you stated that you were 
opposed to this committee going into the Perfect Circle strike because 
it would disturb friendly relations at Newcastle? 

Mr. Reuther. I have never stated that publicly, and therefore no 
newspapermen could have gotten that. It is like a lot of other stories. 
I read stories in the Detroit News or some other Detroit papers last 
week that I advocated the abolition of your committee. I have never 
done that. The point is that these are the stories. 

Senator Curtis. Did you make any public statement? 

Mr. Reuther. About the Perfect Circle strike ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Reuther. As it relates to your committee ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Reuther. To my knowledge, I have never publicly discussed 
the Perfect Circle strike as it relates to the functions of your committee. 

Senator Curtis. Have you said so privately? This does not say 
it is a public speech. 

Mr. Reuther. I have discussed it with officers of our union, and I 
happen to share the point of view, and I think it is the point of view 
of the company, that we came out of a bad situation there. I think 
we have made progress in our relationships. We are going into an- 
other set of bargaining sessions. 

I think to get people down here to talk about the sins of the past, 
I think both the union and company made mistakes in that situation, 
would just open up new wounds, create old bitternesses. I don't think 
that is the way you build labor-management relations in America. 

Senator Curtis. All right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10139 

Mr. Reuther. Nor do I think that the future of America is going 
to hinge upon whether you make it more difficult for us to get another 
bargaining agreement down there by opening up all these old wounds. 

I have never said that publicly, and therefore nobody could write a 
story indicating that I had said that publicly. 

I might say that there are many other stories you will read from 
Detroit papers, and their editorials, that are a long way removed from 
the actual facts. 

Senator Curtis. I am bringing them in merely to ask you about 
them. This record will be judged upon what you say here. There is 
a striking similarity to the other pronouncement that these men 
ought not go to jail because it would disturb friendly relations. 

Mr. Reuther. I do not understand, Senator Curtis, how you can go 
through those kind of mental gymnastics and relate the question of 
whether an attorney in a courtroom asked the judge for mercy along 
with the company — I am told by Mr. Rauh when these fellows were 
sentenced — that and my attitude about the Perfect Circle strike. How 
do you get from one to the other one so fast ? 

Senator Curtis. It is a whole pattern all the way through. 

Mr. Reuther. In your mind. 

Senator Curtis. If someone is arrested, he is defended and de- 
fended and he appeals on up to the end. If it is decided against him, 
there is an attack upon the courts. 

Mr. Reuther. I challenge that. 

Senator Curtis. I have some more cases. 

Mr. Reuther. I said this morning that I thought Mr. Mazey was 
indiscreet. I said to Senator Goldwater and I say it again, that as 
far as I am concerned I do not think you challenge the integrity of 
the court. Our lawyers felt the sentence was severe, but that does 
not justify, I think, in my mind any challenge of the court's integrity. 
I disagree and I disassociate myself with any remarks in that direc- 
tion. I said that. 

Senator Curtis. Your disagreement 

Mr. Reuther. You keep sayings this is the UAW program ; UAW 
program and UAW pattern, and it just isn't true. 

Senator Curtis. Now, Mr. Reuther, the UAW record is written 
day to day by the people that carry it out. Their record is not changed 
by what somebody comes before a senatorial committee and presents 
what he says are his individual views. 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Curtis, the point is that you have one judge 
who was criticized by an officer of the union in a bad situation with a 
union that has a record of twenty-some years, with roughly a million 
and a half members, with contracts with 2,600 companies. It seems 
to me — after all, the attack in Michigan was by Mr. Scholl, not by an 
officer of our union. 

How man other situations — supposing there are 3 or 4 others that 
you have not mentioned yet in a period of 20 years with this many 
people involved, do you say that these isolated instances, even though 
I disagree with them, represent an established pattern for our union? 

I don't think you can prove that. 

Senator Curtis. I do not think they are isolated. We will let the 
record speak for itself. 



10140 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Reuther. There are people who criticize the Supreme Court 
decisions. Does that mean they are tampering with the whole struc- 
ture of justice ? 

There are governors who hire people to come to Washington to in- 
tervene on the decisions of the Supreme Court, does that mean they 
are challenging or tampering with justice ? 

Senator Curtis. Will you let met go on ? 

Mr. Reuther. That is why we live in a free country, Ave have a right 
to challenge the decisions of the Government. 

Senator Curtis. This article goes on and says : 

Judge Ferguson, who ordered the unionists into custody by the sheriff's office, 
was rebuked for his actions in a printed press release handed newsmen by Joseph 
McOusker, UAW regional director and members of the executive board. 

Mr. Reuther, you know Joseph McCusker, do you not ? 

Mr. Reuther. I do. 

Senator Curtis. This news release said in part, and I quote — this 
is at the time that Judge Ferguson says that these two men should go 
to jail. Your organization handed out the press release, and this is 
what it said : 

A vindictive judge has had his own way. It is pertinent to point out that Judge 
Ferguson is a brother of Homer Ferguson, Michigan Republican, who was retired 
from the United States Senate in 1954 by the people of Michigan. Nolan and 
Doddie then are being surrendered to serve jail terms to satisfy not justice but 
a judge. 

Mr. Reuther, that is hard to believe. It is another case of the UAW 
attacking a judge in the performance of his duties. It is not any 
wonder that fine citizens such at the Catholic clergymen, the Protes- 
tant ministers, and other groups are alarmed at the conduct of your 
union. 

Mr. Reuther, I want to ask you 

Mr. Reuther. I will say, Senator Curtis, that there are just a lot 
of wonderful clergymen from all three religious faiths who are not 
alarmed with the conduct of our union, who think our union is a decent 
clean union in the forefront of the fight for social justice in America. 
I happen to know a lot of clergymen. I happen to enjoy the friend- 
ship of a lot of people high in the church of all three religions. I think 
the overwhelming majority of our membership are good church people. 

Senator Curtis. I know they are. 

Mr. Reuther. I don't want to make it look that you have suddenly 
discovered that all the church people in America are opposed to our 
union because that is not the truth. 

Senator Curtis. I have never said anything like that, 

Mr. Reuther. I know, but you. would like to imply it. 

Senator Curtis. I have said it is no wonder that such fine citizens 
as Catholic clergymen and Protestant ministers and other groups, we 
have them in the record here as part of the Kohler hearing. 

Mr. Reuther. Mr. Mazey apologized. It seems to me that the 
Christian thing to do is to accept the man's apology when he makes it. 
You people want to extract every ounce for political advantage, but 
it won't work. You have to work with the plight of the farmers and 
the workers and others. 

Senator Curtis. Up to a moment ago we had to listen how righteous 
you were. Now you make another speech. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10141 

Mr. Reuther. You show where I hurt somebody or hit somebody 
or where I was corrupt and I will be willing to defend myself. You 
read one editorial after another. These are the same ones who praised 
Mr. Redding and he went to prison as being tied with the underworld. 
They praised him as a champion of civic virtue. They were just as 
wrong when they wrote editorials about Governor Williams as they 
were when they praised Mayor Redding. 

What makes you think they all have halos because they write 
editorials ? 

Senator Curtis. I am trying to go on with the hearing. 

You referred to Mr. Mazey's apology. I want to read to you a tele- 
gram of Rev. T. Perijohns, minister of the First Methodist Church, 
which was sent to Mr. Mazey in care of this committee. 

Mr. Reuther. Has that been put into the record before? I have 
read it into the record. We might save the time of the committee. 

Senator Curtis. It was put in the Congressional Record ? 

Mr. Reuther. I mean it is in this record, too. 

The Chairman. That telegram has not been placed in this record, 
according to my recollection. 

Senator Curtis. No. [Reading :] 

Your telegram of apology of your irresponsible reference to the clergy of 
Sheboygan arrived too late to be of consequence. In fact, it is 2 years too late. 

The entire telegram can be found on page 4817 of the Congressional 
Record. 

Now, Mr. Reuther — 

Mr. Reuther. I would like to say that Father Carroll in Sheboygan 
said he accepted the apology in the same spirit in which it had been 
made. It sems to me when a man says something that is indiscreet and 
he apologizes publicly, there ought to be enough sense of just simple 
decency to accept that. 

We have letters from clergymen also expressing their point of view, 
but we are not trying to exploit them. They don't all agree with the 
Methodist minister whose telegram you read, and there are people in 
the Methodist Church who don't. That is why we have a tremendous 
country. 

Senator Curtis. Let us go on. You are trying to make a speech all 
the time. I have been trying to ask you for a long time, will you secure 
an official copy of Joseph McCusker's release that he handed out con- 
cerning Judge Ferguson, so it can be placed in our record at this time ? 

Mr. Reuther. I think we can accommodate you on that. We shall 
be happy to do so. 

(At this point, the following members of the Senate Select Commit- 
tee are present: Senators McClellan, Kennedy, Mundt, Curtis, and 
Goldwater.) 

The Chairman. All right. It is ordered. The witness will supply 
the document requested by Senator Curtis. It will be printed in the 
record at this point. The Chair is hopeful that it is a brief document. 

I haven't seen it, and I may be taking some chance in ordering it 
printed in the record. 



10142 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

(The document referred to follows :) 

International Union, United Automobile, 
Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, 

Detroit, Mich. 
For release : Thursday, March 23, 1956. 

The following statement was released today by Joseph MoCusker, codirector 
of UAW Region 1A : 

"A vindictive judge has had his way and James Doddie and Russell Nolan are 
being surrendered to the court to serve 10-day jail terms ordered by the judge, 
Frank B. Ferguson. Obviously it's pertinent to point out that Judge Ferguson 
is a brother of Homer Ferguson, Michigan Republican who was retired, with 
labor's help, from the United States Senate in 1954 by the people of Michigan. 

"The crime these two men committed was that they maintained a picket line 
at the garage of the Great Lakes Greyhound Lines during a strike called by UAW 
Local 656. The strike was called because the company had failed to meet health 
and safety standards in building a new garage. It was settled when the company, 
admitting the merit in the union's demands, spent $74,000 to eliminate the 
hazardous conditions. 

"This crime was committed 2 years ago. The settlement was reached 2 years 
ago. Amicable relations have existed between the UAW and the company since. 

"Both Great Lakes Greyhound and the UAW asked that the charges against 
Doddie and Nolan be dropped when the strike was settled. Judge Ferguson 
refused. 

"Nolan and Doddie, then, are being surrendered today to serve 10-day jail 
terms to satisfy — not justice — but a judge." 

The Chairman. Proceed, Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. A portion of the news release that the UAW re- 
leased, says, in reference to the judge ; 

The men are being surrendered to jail terms to satisfy not justice but a judge — 

and it appears somewhat misleading in some other respects. 

Judge Ferguson pronounced sentence, I think, in this case in 1953. 
So it couldn't have been a matter of revenge. 

Mr. Reuther, is the newspaper entitled "United Automobile Work- 
ers" the official paper of your union ? 

Mr. Reuther. It was at that time; yes. I am sure. 

Senator Curtis. And at that time did it speak for your union ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, it certainly was the official paper of our union. 

Senator Curtis. Well, the April 1956 edition has an article in it 
about the same case. It is entitled "Judge Ferguson has his way. 
Two unionists serve terms." 

I will read the first paragraph in the article : 

Detroit Circuit Judge Frank Ferguson, a brother of Homer Ferguson, ex-GOP 
senator from Michigan, retired from the Senate in 1954 by the people of Michigan, 
gained a measure of revenge late last month. 

Mr. Reuther. That is the same press release. I am sure. 

Senator Curtis. No ; this is the article that appeared in 

Mr. Reuther. I think when you get the press release, I think you 
will find that this is the same press release. 

Senator Curtis. And that press release 

Mr. Reuther. The story was probably written on the basis of the 
press release. 

Senator Curtis. And that press release was by Joseph McCusker, 
was it not ? 

Mr. Reuther. That is what you say, and I presume that is correct. 

Senator Curtis. What position did he have in your union at that 
time? 

Mr. Reuther. He was a regional director. 



IMPROPER ACTHVITIEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 10143 

Senator Curtis. And in your own official paper at that time "gained 
a measure of revenge last month." 

I submit that accusing a judge of pronouncing a sentence for re- 
venge is an attack upon the courts. In fact, it is an attack upon our 
very governmental laws. 

I want to touch just briefly on another case where the UAW attacked 
a judge. This article is from the Supreme Court — I might say that 
many people have criticized courts, but I am talking about the vilifi- 
cation of the judge challenging his integrity and that manner of thing, 
such as it says here, "a measure of revenge." 

This article from the Toledo Blade, dated May 20, 1950, is an account 
of a meeting held in which Mr. Eichard Gosser's actions were in 
question. 

The paper reports that the meeting had an estimated crowd of 2,000. 
I don't want to go into all that the meeting was about, but that article 
has this in it : 

The meeting also produced this action: An attack was made by Mr. Mazey 
on the Sixth District Court of Appeals, singling out Judge Irving Carpenter for 
reversing the ruling in connection with the inspection of the books of the Auto- 
motive Workers Building Corporation. 

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

Senator Curtis. Here you have it again, a huge meeting of 2,000 
people, and Mr. Mazey makes an attack upon the court. He singles out 
the judge. Mr. Mazey is not an individual. Mr. Mazey is the second 
in command in the UAW. 

Now, in the Michigan CIO News on April 5, 1951 : "Emil Mazey, 
UAW secretary-treasurer said, 'The Toledo Blade, I charge, owns and 
controls Judges Fess, Carpenter, and Cahn. These judges did not 
have the courage and the intestinal fortitude to stand up against this 
newspaper because it happens to be a monopolistic newspaper in that 
city. The judges feel they can't get elected if Paul Block, Jr., won't 
support them." 

Mr. Reuther, we could go on indefinitely into some of these things. 
The obstruction of our judicial processes by the UAW is not limited to 
attacks and vilifications upon courts and j udges. Part of the pattern 
is physical attacks upon police officers. The evidence was produced 
here in the Kohler hearings, and it is my recollection that every police 
officer that was asked about it stated that he had been roughed up. 

Mr. Reuther, what office did you hold in the UAW in 1948 at the 
time of the strike in the Chrysler plant in Detroit ? 

Mr. Reuther. 1948 ? I was the president of the UAW. 

Senator Curtis. I beg your pardon ? 

Mr. Reuther. In 1948 1 was the president. 

Senator Curtis. The New York Times of May 18, 1948, carries an 
article entitled, "Chrysler pickets clash with the police. Violence 
flares and threats of strike by 225,000 at GM on May 27 to start." 

Mr. Reuther, what union was involved in the General Motors labor 
controversy in 1948 ? 

Mr. Reuther. What was the date of that, Senator Curtis, that 
clipping? 

Senator Curtis. What union was involved in the General Motors 
labor controversy in 1948 ? 

Mr. Reuther. There was no GM 

Senator Curtis. Chrysler. 



10144 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Reuther. Chrysler ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Reuther. I was asking because that is the one strike that I was 
not involved in, with the major big three, because it took place with 
the Chrysler Corp., between our union, for 14 days at the very time 
that I was fighting for my life after having been shot at that time in 
1948. 

I was not involved in that strike. 

Senator Curtis. What union was it, was the question. 

Mr. Reuther. TheUAW. 

Senator Curtis. I want to read from the same New York Times 
article, a couple of paragraphs : 

Governor acted in Highland Park fracas after Mayor Norm Paterson advised 
him that the local police were unable to cope with the situation. About 15 officers 
of the local force were roughed up, the mayor reported. 

The Detroit Times on May 17, 1948, carries a picture, the heading of 
which is, "Pickets fight police.'' It refers to the violence in the 
Chrysler strike. 

The news article on page 1 has this statement, and I quote : 

State police were ordered to Highland Park plant of the Chrysler Corp. today 
after four persons had been injured in a clash between local police and the UAW- 
CIO pickets. 

I want to ask you, Mr. Reuther : What are the flying squadrons ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Curtis. What are the flying squadrons ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, I explained earlier this morning that in the 
earliest days of our union at a time when the Detroit Police was cor- 
rupt, when the Commissioner of Police was on the payroll of the under- 
world, when the mayor of the city of Detroit was on the payroll of 
the underworld, when they both went to Jackson Prison, and when the 
police department of the city of Dearborn was completely under the 
control of Harry Bennett, we organized flying squadrons to protect 
our lives in the early days, and when that period was behind us, the 
flying squadrons went out of existence. 

I think there aren't more than a couple of local unions that have 
them, essentially in name only. 

Senator Curtis. When was the period over, that you referred to ? 

Mr. Reuther. I think you will find that most of the flying squadrons 
were behind us— well, I would think 12 years ago. 

Senator Curtis. If you were going to fix a time when you would 
say that the use of violence, and I mean clubs and guns and beatings 

Mr. Reuther. We have not used guns. 

Senator Curtis. On the part of management by their goons, in the 
Detroit area, when did that end ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Curtis. My question is : When did it end ? Mr. Reuther, 
my question is : When did it end? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Reuther. Well, Mr. Ken Morris, who is our regional director 
on the east side of Detroit, who, by a miracle was not Killed, because 
they beat him over the head with iron pipes — these were the paid 
gangsters, paid by an employer in the city of Detroit. This happened 
in 1947. I was shot in 1948 and my brother was shot in 1949. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES m THE LABOR FIELD 10145 

This is my brother. 

(The witness displays a photograph.) 

Mr. Reuther. He was shot in his home, not in a picket line, not 
out where he was stomping on people, but shot through the window 
of his own home when he was sitting in the room with his wife. This 
was 1949. 

So you ask me when he abolished all these flying squadrons ? As the 
violence inflicted against our union receded, we did not need these 
flying squadrons. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Reuther, you got lost in your own speech and 
your pictures. 

The question was : When do you say that there was an end on the 
part of using violence by management in the Detroit area ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, I have just showed you that in 1947 Mr. Morris 
was beaten up, in 1948 I was shot, and in 1949 my brother was shot. 

Senator Curtis. That isn't my question. 

Mr. Reuther. If you will be 

Senator Curtis. You have indicated that there was a period of 
trouble behind you. 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Curtis, if you will demonstrate just a small 
percentage of the same concern to help find out who shot me and my 
brother, then you will get the answer to your question. You spend a 
lot of time about 2 fellows who got 10 days in jail. 

I was shot, My brother was shot, Mr. Morris was beaten up within 
an inch of his life with iron bars. Why don't you ask your committee 
to go to work on that? That is in the field of labor-management 
relations. 

You have never suggested that that happen, I understand. 

Senator Curtis. You don't know what I suggested. 

Now, you accuse me of spending a lot of time on men that were 
sentenced to 10 days in jail. The UAW spent 3 or 4 years on that, took 
it to the Supreme Court. 

Mr. Reuther. Because there was a legal principle involved. 

Senator Curtis. There always is. 

The Chairman. Can we close on that and resume tomorrow ? 

The committee will stand in recess until 10 : 30 in the morning. 

Tomorrow we will proceed to the end of the day or to the end of the 
hearings, whichever comes first. 

(Whereupon, at 5 : 25 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 
10 : 30 a, m., Saturday, March 29, 1958.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



SATURDAY, MARCH 29, 1958 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

in the Labor or Management Field, 

Washington, D. C. 
The select committee met at 10 : 30 a. m., pursuant to Senate Reso- 
lution 221, agreed to January 29, 1958, in the Caucus Room, Senate 
Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select 
committee) presiding. 

Present: Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Sena- 
tor Pat McNamara, Democrat, Michigan ; Senator Barry Goldwater, 
Republican, Arizona; 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. 

(At the convening of the session, the following members are 
present: Senators McClellan, Goldwater, and Curtis.) 
The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 
Mr. Reuther, will you resume the stand, please, sir? 

TESTIMONY OF WALTER P. REUTHER ACCOMPANIED BY JOSEPH 
L. RAUH, JR., COUNSEL— Resumed 

Mr. Reuther. Mr. Chairman, I have a short statement here that 
bears upon a very vital legal point as it relates to the — Mr. Chairman, 
if I might inquire, I don't know whether your committee has time and 
a half provisions for Saturday work or not, but I would like to 
know that before I get started. 

The Chairman. No, sir; we haven't, and I think organized labor 
ought to take an interest in the Congress of the United States and 
insist that we get paid for overtime. 

Mr. Reuther. I made the inquiry because I am very sympathetic 
with your problem. In all seriousness, Mr. Chairman, I do think 
that the record ought to be set straight on what the union feels to 
be a very vital legal point as it bears upon the status of the Kohler 
strike. If I might, I would like to read this very short statement 
and put it in the record because it bears upon a matter that both 
Mr. Kohler and Mr. Conger touched upon, and I think it is a. matter 
which ought to be clarified. It deals with the question that came 
up, I understand, in Mr. Kohler's testimony that the company legally 
could not sign an agreement with the UAW. If 1 might, it is a 

10147 



10148 improper activities in the labor field 

very short statement, and I would like to read it, because it is a 
point of great importance because it does bear upon the equity of 
the more than 2,000 Kohler workers who still are on strike. 

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

The Chairman. If I understand, what you are doing is submitting 
a legal opinion that would tend to refute the claim of the Kohler 
Co. that it could not legally sign a contract with the UAW now 
since the UAW does not represent a majority of its employees? 

Mr. Reuther. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Is that the point ? 

Mr. Reuther. That is correct. It is a very short statement. 

The Chairman. Is there objection to hearing the statement? It 
is not evidence. It is actually argument on a legal question. 

Mr. Reuther. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The statement reads 
as follows, and I will quote. 

Mr. Chairman, there is one point concerning the Kohler strike 
which requires clarification. I understand that both Mr. Kohler 
and Mr. Conger have taken the position before this committee that 
it would be illegal for the Kohler Co. to sign an agreement with 
the UAW at this time. We say categorically that they are wrong. 
We say categorically that it is entirely legal for the Kohler Co. to 
sign an agreement with the UAW at this time. Indeed, the UAW 
is the only bargaining agent with which the company can legally 
sign an agreement. 

This is a vital point in this inquiry. If the company is right, a 
new and serious flaw in the Taft-Hartley Act has been uncovered. 
If, as we believe, however, the company is dead wrong on this point, 
then your committee has had exhibited to it the final and unequivocal 
proof of the company's efforts to avoid a settlement with our union. 

Now let's look at the legal situation briefly. On June 19, 1952, 
the UAW was certified by the National Labor Relations Board as 
the exclusive collective bargaining agent of the Kohler production 
and maintenance workers. 

On February 23, 1953, the union and the company entered into a 
collective bargaining agreement. On April 5, 1954, the union went 
out on strike. But our union is as much the legal collective bargain- 
ing agent for the Kohler workers today as it was the day we were 
certified, or the day we signed the 1953 agreement with the company, 
or the day we went out on strike. 

Once a union is certified as the collective bargaining agent, it 
remains the collective bargaining agent unless and until decertifica- 
tion proceedings are instituted and are successful. 

No such decertification proceedings are possible here because of 
the pending unfair labor practice charges against the company and 
the trial examiner's findings sustaining those charges. 

We believe the company knows this to be the law. But if there 
is any doubt about this, I think your committee ought to resolve 
that doubt immediately by getting the opinion of the NLRB on 
the single relevant question of whether the company may legally 
sign an agreement with the UAW today. 

Your committee has already obtained the opinion of the NLRB 
on the minor matter of the meaning and effect of a consent decree 
relating to the bovcott. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10149 

We propose now that your committee get the opinion of the NLRB 
on this major matter of whether it would be legal for the Kohler Co. 
to sign an agreement with the UAW at this time. 

We request that you call the appropriate NLRB official before this 
committee on Monday to resolve this point before you terminate the 
Kohler hearings. 

If the NLRB representative should take the position that we are no 
longer legally entitled to contract for the Kohler workers, then a 
serious legislative problem is presented to your committee. If, as we 
believe, howevr, the NLRB takes the position that it is legal for Kohler 
to sign an agreement with the UAW at this time, then the Kohler Co. 
will stand further exposed as a fuedal, antilabor company seeking at 
all costs, and illegally, to avoid entering into a contract with an honest, 
democratic trade union chosen by the Kohler workers and legally certi- 
fied, as the collective bargaining agency by the United States Gov- 
ernment. 

Mr. Chairman, this is a very serious matter, because if the company's 
position is legally supported, then, in effect, the law would mean that 
a company that refuses to bargain, as this company has refused to 
bargain, and as they have been so found by the trial examiner of the 
National Labor Relations Board after gathering more than 20,000 
pages of sworn testimony over more than 2 years of hearings, then, 
in fact, it would mean that the law would enable a company to defy 
the letter and spirit of the law and refuse to bargain in good faith, and 
while refusing to bargain in good faith, it could then attempt to employ 
strikebreakers to displace workers legally on strike and do such things 
with immunity. 

We think that this is not the meaning of the act. Yet the officials of 
the Kohler Co., both the president, Mr. Kohler, and Mr. Conger, who 
really is responsible for directing the affairs of that company in the 
field of labor or management relations, have said categorically before 
your committee that they cannot legally sign an agreement with our 
union, when the whole body of the law, and all of the precedents to 
date before the National Labor Relations Board clearly indicate that 
the opposite is true ; that our union is the only legally certified bargain- 
ing agency with whom the company can sign an agreement. 

No other agency has been designated by the employees of the Kohler 
Co. 

The UAW is the only agency that, having met the requirements of 
the law by being democratically chosen in a labor board election con- 
ducted by the Labor Board, and having been duly and legally certified, 
we are the only agency with which the Kohler Co. can legally sign an 
agreement. 

And before we could be decertified, if that could happen, the charges 
before the Labor Board now would have to first be disposed of. 

So this is a vital legal point, and we believe that since the company 
has attempted to cast doubt upon this, that your committee would be 
well advised to ask a labor board official to come here and clarify this 
vital legal matter. 

We think that Mr. Conger knows the law. We think he knew the 
law when he violated it 4 years ago, by not bargaining with our union 
in good faith. 

21243— 58— lit. 25 16 



10150 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN" THE LABOR FIELD 

When he says now that they can't legally sign with us, we feel he 
also knows the law today, and that this is just a further example of 
the arrogant defiance of the law and the spirit of the letter of the law 
in this situation, because this company doesn't want to live with a labor 
union, it wants to destroy unions because it is unwilling to deal at 
the bargaining table in good faith with the union of the workers 
choosing as our union is, and the only union which has been legally 
certified by the National Labor Relations Board as the legal bargaining 
agency. 

We feel very strongly about this, because, as I said in my opening 
statement, this is more important than just the status of our union 
or the status of the company. 

This involves the welfare and the well-being of more than 2,000 
workers and their families, and we believe that this is a vital legal 
point that needs clarification. 

The Chairman. Let the Chair make this observation. As I recall, 
the Kohler Co. contends that it could not sign a contract with you 
now, legally, because you no longer represent a majority of its 
employees. 

In other words, that the majority of its employees today do not be- 
long to your union, and, therefore, it could not enter into a contract 

Mr. Retjther. But that has never been legally determined. 

The Chairman. What is involved here is more than a legal question, 
possibly. That would be a question of fact as to whether you do actu- 
ally represent a majority of the employees or do not. Also the Board 
may hold that the test would be whether you represented a majority 
at the time that the strike precipitated. 

They might determine simply upon a legal question, resolve a legal 
issue, or possibly could, and at the same time it might also involve a 
question of fact that they couldn't determine. 

They might give us some opinion as to what they think the law is, 
and yet there may be a question of fact that would have to be resolved. 

The committee will give consideration to your request, I don't want 
it to delay our proceedings this morning. I want us to move along. 
But I can see the possibility of a question of fact as well as a legal 
question involved. 

Mr. Reuther. Mr. Chairman, may I make one further very brief 
observation ? 

It seems to me that the problem here evolves around these two 
essential points : 

First of all, who legally, under the law, has the right to determine 
which bargaining agency, if any, workers want, The act is clear. 
Only the Avorkers make that determination, and the Kohler workers 
made that determination when they chose our union, and no other 
union has been so chosen by vote of the workers. 

What is the procedure? The procedure is that they need to do it 
through the procedures of the National Labor Relations Board, so 
that having gotten a majority of workers' votes through such pro- 
cedure, the Labor Board, acting as the agency of the Federal Govern- 
ment, can then legally certify. 

Here again, our union is the only union which has met these legal 
requirements. Until another union has met these legal requirements, 
we, therefore, under the meaning of the act, are the only legally 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10151 

designated bargaining agency with whom the company can sign a 
collective bargaining agreement.. 

The Chairman. The Chair will do this: I will instruct the chief 
counsel to present to the chief legal adviser of the National Labor 
Relations Board the statement which you have presented here this 
morning, and get a preliminary report as to what his position is 
with respect to the question raised. 

Mr. Reuther. Thank you. 

The Chairman. After we get that report, then the committee can 
determine whether it will proceed any further. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, I have a question about this 
development. 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. In part, Mr. Reuther, on the point you have 
raised, which is a very interesting one, I wonder whether in part 
this question you have raised isn't involved in this pei\ding decision 
of the NLRB which seems to take an awful long time, and not 
being a lawyer I think all legal procedure takes a pretty long time, 
but isn't that one of the things that ultimately must be decided upon 
from the Examiners report? We had quite a colloquy the other day, 
and that is one step in your procedure. There is a Board decision 
pending, I presume, which would seem to me should throw some light 
on this. 

Mr. Reuther. But the Kohler Co. raises, Senator Mundt, the mat- 
ter of the legal bar. They say that legally they cannot sign an 
agreement with our union and, therefore, they can't terminate the 
strike by signing such an agreement. This is what they claim. The 
whole history of the Labor Board has been that they can sign with 
us. Now, if at a later date employees in a given plant through the 
processes and procedures of the Labor Board, choose some other 
agency as their bargaining agency, other than the UAW, at that 
point the status of the contract would change. But between now 
and that determination through the procedures of the Labor Board, 
the Kohler Co. can legally — in fact, we are the only group they can 
legally sign a contract with. 

Senator Mundt. Let me ask you in connection with that, assuming 
just for the sake of the examination that your point of view is valid, 
who, in your opinion, would then vote? Just the people on strike, 
or would the people now working for Kohler, would they vote? 
Who would participate in it? 

Mr. Reuther. There cannot be a vote under Labor Board pro- 
cedures as long as there are unfair labor practice charges pending. 

The Board must first dispose of those before any vote could be 
held with respect to determining a bargaining agency. 

Therefore, until the Labor Board disposes of the pending unfair 
labor practice charges, no such action is possible. 

(At this point members present: Senators McClellan, Mundt, 
Curtis, and Goldwater.) 

Senator Mundt. What you would really have if you went ahead 
would be the fellows outside of the plant bargaining for the fellows 
working in the plant. 

Mr. Reuther. Yes, but you must remember the fellows outside *>f 
the plant are the fellows who choose the bargaining agency. 

Senator Mundt. I am not arguing that, 



10152 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES INT THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Reutiier. The Kohler Co. is trying to squeeze them out and 
the trial examiner has found them guilty of being in violation of 
the law of the land. He has also found that they were guilty of 
all the tilings the LaFollette committee found management guilty 
of — buying munitions, hiring spies, and doing many other reprehen- 
sible tilings. 

Senator Mundt. I am not arguing the point. 

Mr. Reuther. I am. 

Senator Mundt. Did you agree with this ? 

If the mechanics work like you feel they should, you would have 
in fact the employees who are not working bargaining for the 2,000 
employees who are working. 

Mr. Reuther. If the Labor Board put them back in the plant 
they will be working. This is what the Labor Board has before it. 
The Labor Board trial examiner has recommended that these people 
be taken back on their jobs. If its recommendations are upheld, 
then the Kohler workers who are on strike plus the Kohler workers 
who have gone back will be the proper employees and the strike- 
breakers who were the new people brought in will be on the outside 
unless the company needed more employees. 

Senator Mundt. In short your position is that they should go 
ahead and bargain without holding another vote on the part of the 
employees, is that it ? 

Mr. Reuther. The vote was held and we are certain filed. Until 
the Labor Board disposes of this matter, they are unable legally 
to sign with any other group but they are able to sign with us. 
There are many precedents for this in the history of the Labor Board. 
For the company to say that there is a legal bar — this is a very con- 
venient thing they have raised — this is their attempt to absolve them- 
selves of the responsibility of being in violation of the law by saying, 
"We can't even do it legally even if they wanted to." 

They don't pretend they want to. Even if they wanted to, they 
say we can't do it because there is a legal bar. That is not true. 

Senator Mundt. Let me ask you this. In your opinion is there 
any such phenomenon as a company ever winning a strike or a union 
ever losing a strike. Has that thing ever happened '? 

Mr. Reuther. There have been strikes lost by unions and there 
have been strikes lost by companies. I suppose when the union wins 
the company loses. 

Senator Mundt. I am not talking about — when — you don't get 
what you are asking him — you want so many cents an hour and you 
get less. I am talking about this kind of a case, where you have a 
strike because you want to organize a plant for the first time and 
have a union. That is the kind of case we have here. 

This strike involves primarily whether the union is going to be the 
bargaining agent for the company. I think that is your position 
rather than wages that is involved in the controversy. 

Mr. Reuther. That is where you are wrong, Senator Mundt. This 
strike was not over recognition. We were recognized. We were the 
duly chosen agency that was legally certified. The strike was over. 
Contractural matters — what the company has done is converted this 
strike over contractural matters into a fight to destroy our union as a 
bargaining agent. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10153 

Senator Mundt. You had a contract the year before? 

Mr. Reuther. That is why they are in violation of the law. 
Senator Mundt. This was over a renewal. Sometimes you say a 
company wins one and sometimes they lose one, sometimes the union 
wins one and sometimes you lose one ? 

Mr. Reuther. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. I would like to know who decides when somebody 
has won ? Who decides who wins ? 

Mr. Reuther. It depends on whether you. are arguing about 

Senator Mundt. Let us not take this strike. Let us take a hypo- 
thetical case. 

Mr. Reuther. Let us suppose there is a set of negotiations tak- 
ing place between the TTATV and employer A and we are asking for 
X cents an hour wage increase, and we are asking for B improvements 
in our pension and other things, and we can't resolve it by the give 
and take at the bargaining table. 

The membership feels that the pension thing is so important that 
they get a lot of old timers who can't keep up with the speed of the 
assembly line and they think they ought to have a pension but the 
pension benefits are too low for them to live on with their social 
security and this is the issue. 

They resolve the wage question. The fellows want another $50 more 
a month on pensions, and they strike on that. If they finally settle 
without getting any of that $50 then I would think that the company 
won that argument, But if they get all of it, I would think the union 
won. If they got $25 instead of $50, I would think it was a compro- 
mise. That is a legitimate argument. That is the area in which the 
Kohler strike should have been waged but was not waged. The Kohler 
strike became a strike to destroy the union, not to settle the issues — to 
destroy the union. 

I say the law does not permit an employer to determine whether or 
not the bargaining agency chosen by the workers is the proper one or 
whether they should have a bargaining agency at all. 

This is the point I disagreed with Senator Goldwater on Face the 
Nation. I think he misstates what the law is. The law does not per- 
mit an employer to make a determination as to which agency shall be 
the agency to bargain for a group of employees nor does it permit the 
employer to determine whether there shall be an agency at all. 

This is exclusively a decision that only the Avorkers involved have a 
legal right to determine. 

Senator Mundt. Is there something in the law or should there be 
something in the law which provides that after a long continuing strike, 
a year or 2 years or 3 years, the employer has a right to ask for another 
vote and ask the men to vote again if there is any doubt. 

Mr. Reuther. All the law specifically provides is that the workers 
can do that. 

Senator Mundt. I know the workers can do that by decertification. 

Mr. Reuther. The law provide that workers can petition for de- 
certification. They can decide to join some other union. If I was a 
worker belonging to certain unions I know in America I would do my 
best to clean it up or get another union. So the law provides for this. 

Senator Mundt. I know that. I am asking whether there is or you 
feel there should be anything in the law that the owner could say let 



10154 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 

us have another vote. If the people vote your way your are in, if they 
vote this other union's way they are. 

If they vote no union there is none. Do you think there should be 
a mechanism whereby the employer under certain circumstances could 
say let us have another vote ? 

Mr. Reuther. Under the law an employer can initiate procedural 
steps but the derision can be made only by the workers. 

Senator Mundt. That's right. They make the vote. 

Mr. Reuther. All right. But in this case the company is trying to 
make that decision by saying that legally they cannot sign with our 
union. That is subterfuge. They are trying to shield their moral 
responsibility to bargain in good faith by raising a legal obstacle when 
there are no legal obstacles. 

This company legally can sign with our union and legally can sign 
with no other union. 

Senator Mundt. That is a legal point which we agreed yesterday 
country boys like you and me cannot settle. 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Mundt, it is not that complicated. 

The Chairman. Mr. Conger, I see you have approached the com- 
mittee. 

TESTIMONY OF LYMAN C. CONGEE— Resumed 

Mr. Conger. The question Mr. Kohler and I raised here was not 
raised here for the first time. It was raised as of February 10, 1955, 
in this Labor Board proceeding that is now pending. 

It will be decided in that proceeding, and what the committee is now 
being asked to do is to get somebody, possibly legal counsel or some- 
body else, from the Board over here to tell us what the Board is going 
to decide. 

I wish we could get that information but I don't think we can get 
it that promptly. This is a question that is not going to be decided by 
legal counsel for the Board or anyone else except the members of the 
Board themselves. 

It will be decided in due time. Until it is, there must remain that 
question. There has been some talk about the delay in this case. 

I want to point out that this case was not filed until months after 
the strike, although everything that was in it then was well-known to 
the union before the strike. 

It was not filed until after mass picketing had failed. There have 
been six different sets of amended charges and we believe that case 
has been delayed by the union for the very reason that Mr. Reuther 
states, it constitutes a bar to an election. 

Mr. Reuther. Mr. Chairman, this is just 

The Chairman. The Chair makes this observation. I rather think 
this question of whether the union remains the bargaining agent for the 
employees is a question that is now before the National Labor Relations 
Board, as I understand it from the testimony as it has developed. 

Whether the issue involves a question of fact or purely a legal inter- 
pretation of the law, I am not sure. The only thing I have in mind, I 
make it very clear, I will send this memorandum down there that Mr. 
Reuther has submitted and ask for their comment on it — a preliminary 
comment on it — from the chief legal adviser of the NLRB. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10155 

If he says that the question of fact is involved in this hearing before 
the Board, that will end it. There will be nothing further this com- 
mittee can do about it. 

If he says it is not involved, it is not an issue and he wishes to express 
some view or give his interpretation of the law, the committee may well 
receive that for its information. 

But I don't think or I am not sure whether there is a question of fact 
in it or not. 

I did understand that this is one of the issues now before the National 
Labor Relations Board. Whether it is there properly or not, I am not 
undertaking to say. 

People get in law suits — I think it holds true with reference to 
strikes — they raise every doggone thing they can think of. 

Mr. Reuther. Mr. Chairman, I think the record should be crystal 
clear that the UAW has done everything humanly and legally possible 
to expedite the disposition of the unfair labor practice charges before 
the National Labor Relations Board. 

Mr. Conger knows that to be true, but when a company has been bar- 
gaining in bad faith for 4 years, it is difficult for them to talk about 
these things in keeping with the facts. 

The Chairman. Let me say I don't believe, Mr. Reuther, you, repre- 
senting the union, and Mr. Conger, representing the company are going 
to reach any agreement at all. 

I think we might as well just go on with the testimony. 

Mr. Reuther. I agree with that, Mr. Chairman, excepting that I 
don't think the company ought to be able to hide their immorality and 
unwillingness to sit down in good faith by saying legally they can't do 
it. 

Legally, they can sign an agreement with our union. They don't 
want to. 

The Chairman. Obviously that is a matter of difference of opinion 
between you and Mr. Conger. 

Mr. Reuther. The Labor Board has been administering the law 
and has done precisely what we say the law means. 

The Chairman. You may be correct. The Chair is not arguing 
with you. 

Mr. Reuther. I understand. 

The Chairman. I simply say it is a matter that will have to be 
resolved. 

Mr. Reuther. I would like to read this one little paragraph, be- 
cause it is somewhat germane, from President Eisenhower, because it 
characterizes the Kohler Co. so well. 

He said in that speech in September 1952 : 

Today in America unions have a secure place in our industrial life. Only 
a handful of unreconstructed reactioners harbor the ugly thought of breaking 
unions and depriving working men and women of their right to join the union 
of their choice. 

That is exactly what is involved here. 

The Chairman. You would not think that the President had in 
mind Kohler when he said that, would you ? 

Mr. Reuther. If he knew about them he would have. 

The Chairman. Maybe he didn't know about that. 

Mr. Conger. May I request permission to file our own legal memo- 
randum ? 



10156 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN' THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. You may file a legal memorandum. Senator 
Curtis. 

Mr. Reuther. Mr. Chairman, Senator Mundt made a commitment 
to me. I think commitments made in good faith should be carried 
out. 

He said he had a surprise package for me this morning. 

Senator Mundt. I have it here all secretly hidden away, and we 
will talk about it later. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. 

Senator Curtis, when we recessed yesterday, was recognized and 
I am going to recognize him first. 

Senator Curtis. I will yield to Senator Mundt within limitations. 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. I don't want to keep the witness in suspense. 
Having the surprise package along, I want to show it to him. 

I don't think he has ever seen this political memo for COPE, 
but I have it here and if you will look at it, Mr. Reuther, this is the 
publication of your organization that I was talking about that you 
said you had never seen. 

Mr. Reuther. I appreciate very much your broadening my under- 
standing of these things. I now have myself a couple of copies. 
What is the date of yours, Senator Mundt, if I may ask. 

Senator Mundt. January 27, 1958. 

Mr. Reuther. I have later ones than that. I will give you my 
copies when the meeting is over. 

I would like to read you a couple of headlines out of this so you 
know why we put these things out. 

Senator Mundt. I want to talk about it. Go ahead, your headline 
may be interesting. I think I know the one you are going to read. 

Mr. Reuther. I will start with the first one. I have several. This 
is the political memo from COPE. I might say that I inquired 
last night — up to this time I had not seen this and I have asked my 
secretary to see that I get these, they are pretty good. 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators 
McClellan, Mundt, Curtis, and Goldwater.) 

Senator Mundt. I think maybe before you read it you ought to 
tell us who is responsible for it, who finances it. 

Mr. Reuther. That is precisely what I wanted to do. It is put 
out as a publication by the Committee on Political Education, which 
is a committee of the AFL-CIO, from the Washington office, and I 
am told that 50 percent of the copies that are circulated are paid 
for out of educational funds made available by the affiliated unions 
of the AFL-CIO and approximately 50 percent is paid for by sub- 
scription. 

I think it is a dollar a year. I would recommend it. I think it 
is worth the dollar. I would like to read just several headings. 

Senator Mundt. 81 5-1 6th Street W., Washington, is that the 
CIO headquarters? 

Mr. Reuther. That is the AFL-CIO headquarters. That is the 
headquarters of the United Labor Movement. 

Senator Mundt. Is that also the TJAW headquarters ? 

Mr. Reuther. No; it is not the UAW headquarters. 

Senator Mundt. You are speaking about this now in your capacity 
as vice president of the AFL-CIO ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10157 

Mr. Reuther. Well, I can speak in either capacity. If you would 
prefer it that way, that is quite agreeable. 

Senator Mundt. I am just trying to find out whose periodical it is. 

It is not the periodical of UAW. 

Mr. Reuther. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. It is the periodical of AFL-CIO ? 

Mr. Reuther. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. So you are speaking as a vice president about 
this. 

Mr. Reuther. Very well. This is the political memo from COPE, 
dated February 24, and the first item listed here in the headline is 
"Total of Unemployed Reaches 8- Year High." The next item is 
"Traditional GOP Farm District Almost Goes Democratic," and the 
third headline is "Administration Accused of Whistling in the Dark 
on the Economic Situation." 

The next item on the inside page is "$100,000 dinner may earn 
billions for oil crowd." 

That was that dinner where the Republicans in Texas raised 
$100,000 without too much finesse. Under that there is a very 
curious little item that I didn't realize was here 

Senator Mundt. If you realize it is there, I will be glad to have 
you read it. I know what it is. 

Mr. Reuther. It says here, and I am sure you would be interested 
in this : 

Records of campaign considerations on file with the Secretary of the Senate 
and the Clerk of the House show that oil and gas interests have frequently 
made large contributions to political candidates. In 1954, for example, Senator 
Karl Mundt, Republican of South Dakota, received $2,500 of Texas Oil money 
for his successful reelection. Mundt voted for the gas bill in 1956. 

It is these kinds of things that we get out to our people. 

Senator Mundt. Of course, anybody who lives in Texas who makes 
a contribution is an oil and gas king, I suppose. 

Mr. Reuther. Here is one dated March 10 : "Living Costs Hit All- 
Time High as Unemployment Keeps Rising." The next one is 
"More Workers Receiving Jobless Insurance Payments Than Ever 
Before." Here is one of March 24, the first heading is "Unemployment 
hits 16-year high." 

The second heading is "Industrial Production Drops to 4- Year low." 

The next one says "Consumer Debt at All-Time Record." The next 
one says "Bankruptcy Hits Postdepression Peaks." The next one 
deals with the plight of American farmers. This is what is in this 
memo. I think it is good reading, and I think we ought to get a little 
bigger circulation. 

Senator Mundt. It is a little bit cursory, based on an analysis of 24 
hours, and I have an analysis of 6 months. 

Mr. Reuther. I should be most interested in that. 

Senator Mundt. Before that, I would like to find out how the 50 
percent which is contributed by the CIO-AFL is raised. Is that raised 
by dues money or by voluntary contribution ? 

Mr. Reuther. As I explained, I have been advised that approxi- 
mately half of the circulation of this memo is covered by subscriptions, 
$1 a year. 

Senator Mundt. I am not interested in that part. 



10158 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES LN T THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Reuther. The other half would be paid for by what we call 
educational funds, and the educational funds would have as their 
source dues income of the union affiliated with the AFL-CIO. 

Senator Mundt. So it would be honest and fair to say that the 50 
percent which is contributed by the union is contributed from money 
which is collected by compulsion from union members? 

Mr. Reuther. No ; I don't say that. 

Senator Mundt. Does a union member have an option whether he 
pays his dues or not ? 

Mr. Reuther. The point is this is a matter of law. If you have a 
contract that requires you to be in good standing in a union to work in 
a plant, and an employer and a union have worked that out. as the law 
provides, then legally they are required to pay their dues in order to 
be in good standing. 

Senator Mundt. Isn't that compulsion ? 

Mr. Reuther. When you say compulsion is sounds like somebody 
is having their arm broken. The point is it is the law. 

Senator Mundt. Taxes are compulsory. We do not pay taxes be- 
cause we want to, but that is the law. We are compelled to pay them. 
So a man pays dues maybe because he wants to, but he has to pay them 
whether he wants to or not, because that is the law, that is compulsion. 

Mr. Reuther. I told you yesterday in our union, and I use as an 
illustration the Ford glass plant near Memphis, Tenn., 379 workers 
voted for the UAW by secret ballot in a labor board election, and only 
one worker voted against the UAW. 

Now, in that case, 379 voluntarily wanted to belong to our union, 
and I believe if you will check, I will bet you find the other fellow 
joined because he felt that when that many people want to do some- 
thing, it must be right. 

So the minority that you people keep talking about, and you would 
like to make it look as big as three mountains put together, is a very 
small minority, in the kind of a union that I represent. I am not talk- 
ing about a union that makes a collusive agreement with the boss, up 
the back alley, in the back door, sign a contract, a sweetheart agreement, 
and the workers the next morning are told they belong to a union. 

I am talking about a union that is democratic, that works to build 
membership, based upon membership loyalty, membership under- 
standing, and membership participation. In our union it is a small 
fraction of our total membership who are there because legally they 
are required to be there. 

Senator Mundt. All that is not in dispute. The question is whether 
or not you agree with me that a man who has no choice but to pay 
dues, when he belong to an organization, pays them under compulsion. 
If you can figure any other language to define it, I would like to have 
it. 

Mr. Reuther. Well, let's say he is under both a moral and the legal 
compulsion to meet his obligations, as do all of the other workers who 
democratically have chosen the union involved as their legal bar- 
gaining agency, and have worked out a bargaining contract 
accordingly. 

It sounds better when you put it that way. 

Senator Mundt. All right. But it adds all up to compulsion. Like 
taxes, you can say you pay taxes because you are patriotic, because 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10159 

you want the cause of freedom to live, because you believe in democracy, 
but you pay them because the law says you have to pay them and that 
is compulsion. 

Mr. Reuther. The community can only get the things done neces- 
sary to have a civilized community if its citizens share the cost of 
financing these things, and the union, which represents the industrial 
citizen in the factory, it can do for the industrial citizen what needs 
to be done there only if the industrial citizens finance its activities. 

Senator Mundt. All right. So we are right back. I don't care 
what the reasons are. I am simply pointing out that the 50 percent 
which is contributed to this political memo by COPE is collected by 
compulsion. I am not saying it is wrong. I am trying to set the 
stage to see whether it is right. 

Mr. Reuther. Well in this little plant in Tennessee, 379 voted for 
the UAW and 1 didn't. 

Senator Mundt. And one didn't and the 

Mr. Reuther. Don't tell me that the 379 are there by compulsion. 
They are not there. The 1 fellow might be, but not the 379. 

Senator Mundt. The one fellow is, he is there by compulsion. 

Mr. Reuther. What percentage is the 1 out of 380 ? 

Senator Mundt. I am not talking about that. But they all pay by 
compulson. 

Mr. Reuther. I don't pay my dues out of compulsion. I pay it be- 
cause I want to pay it. 

Senator Mundt. What would happen if you didn't want to ? 

Mr. Reuther. But I do not want to. I want to pay it. 

Senator Mundt. That is begging the question. I am asking what 
would happen if you didn't want to pay it. 

Mr. Reuther. Let's be sensible for a minute. If you and I want to 
belong to a union, even though a law says you have to pay it, but we 
want to pay it because we want to pay it, isn't it incorrect to say we 
are paying it only because the laws makes us ? 

I pay my dues because I want to pay them. I paid them before the 
law required me to pay them. 

Senator Mundt. What determines whether something is compulsory 
is whether or not you can get by without paying them if you don't want 
to pay them. 

Mr. Reuther. You are wrong. You are absolutely wrong about 
that. What determines whether a thing is compulsory is whether 
you will be willing to do it without the compulsion, and if you do it 
without the compulsion then it is not compulsory. 

Senator Mundt. Would you settle for this : Would you be willing to 
agree that if a man belong the union or if he works in a shop in which 
there is a union contract, he has no choice but to pay his dues ? 

Mr. Reuther. I say that one lonely fellow down in Tennessee, he 
may be compelled to pay dues. The 379 do it because they believe they 
want to do it. 

If you say they are compelled, then you don't understand the whole 
processes of democracy in the Labor Board. When they vote secretly 
379 for the UAW, they are not compelled to vote that way. They want 
to vote that way, and they are in the union voluntarily. The one fellow 
may be there because the law requires him to be, if you have a union 
shop. 

In Tennessee that isn't the case. 



10160 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. If you pay the dues, why don't you eliminate the 
checkoff of dues? Why don't you just open up some changes and 
let the people come rushing in and deposit their dues all the time? 

Mr. Reuther. That is what we did in the plant I am talking about. 
There was no checkoff there, because there was no agreement, Check- 
off comes after the agreement is signed. 

Senator Mundt. You like to have a checkoff in the agreement, 
don't you ? 

Mr.* Reuther. That is a matter, really, of convenience. It is just 
a matter of convenience. 

Senator Mundt. To the dues-paying member or to the union? 

Mr. Reuther. To the clues-paying member and the union. After 
all, the workers decide. They have to sign authorization cards for 
checkoffs. This is all done democratically. The trouble is some 
of you fellows have not really worked on this thing. You have not 
done your homework on how this thing works. The point is this is the 
way it works. I know, because this is my job. 

Senator Mundt. How much does the AFL-CIO put into this 
thing every year. 

Mr. Reuther. Do you mean the total costs ? 

Senator Mundt. Yes, your 50 percent, 

Mr. Reuther. I don't know that, but we can find out. It isn't very 
much. 

Senator Mundt. Can you put it in the record at this point? 

Mr. Reuther. I cannot put it in at this point 

Senator Mundt. I would like to know what the printing costs 
are, what you pay the reporters, the researchers. 

Mr. Reuther. We will get what goes into this, the production 
costs, the mailing, and, let's say, for a period of a year. 
* The Chairman. When presented, it may be printed in the record 
at this point. 

(The document referred to follows :) 

Cost of Political Memo from COPE 

1956: 

Printing and mailing $42, 216. 90 

Income from subscriptions 11, 345. 83 

1957: 

Printing and mailing 47,671.84 

Income from subscriptions 15, 281. 55 

Political Memo from COPE is one of the responsibilities of the publicity- 
director of AFL-CIO COPE. In 1956 and 1957 it was published biweekly. He 
has use of the facilities of the entire COPE organization. It is impossible to 
make an allocation of costs to Political Memo from COPE specifically. The 
publication has no staff and no reporters. Mailing is handled by the printer 
and the costs of such mailing are included in the figures above. The printing 
and mailing costs are borne by the AFL-CIO general fund and the COPE 
educational fund. 

Mr. Reuther. Do you know where I get in trouble with you, 
Senator Mundt? I just don't want you to tell me I pay my dues 
because I am compelled to. 

Senator Mundt. I am sure that is true. 

Mr. Reuther. I pay my dues because I want to. And the 379 
guys in this plant pay their dues to our union because they want to. 

Senator Mundt. I am sure that is true of Walter Reuther and I 
am sure that is true of a majority of the members that belong to 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FEEL.D 10161 

your union, but I am equall)' - confident, nature being what it is, 
that some members pay their dues because they have no other choice. 

Mr. Reuther. That is a very insignificant minority. When the 
Ford vote was taken by the Labor Board, it was 88,000 to 1,000. 
If you can get that kind of majority in South Dakota, you would 
be very secure politically. 

Senator Mundt. I am working on it. 

Mr. Reuther. Well, you got a lot of unfinished work to do. 

Senator Mtjndt. This is the point that you seemingly refuse to 
admit, which is just as plain as the path to the country schoolhouse, 
and that is this, that simply because you have a 80 percent majority 
or 90 percent majority, you have no right to crush a minority, even 
though he is one. Pie has a right under our Constitution and in 
this country, and in our concept of freedom, lie has a right of self- 
expression and self-determination, and the right to determine what 
he does with his income, just as the 99.5 percent might have that out- 
voted him. You have to realize that. 

Mr. Reuther. All right. I don't argue with that. My argument 
with you is that you just say that all the dues collected to help pay 
for this is collected under compulsion. 

It is always better to stick to a specific thing because you can get 
lost in the realm of generalities. In the Ford situation, 379 workers 
in Tennessee voluntarily, by democratic secret ballot, counted by the 
Government of the United States, chose our union, and I say when 
you tell me that they are paying their dues under compulsion, you 
are wrong. 

One fellow, he may be. I don't know that. But in Tennessee, you 
have a right-to-work law, so even that wouldn't be true. 

But suppose you didn't have a right-to-work law ? It gets back to 
our discussion yesterday, Senator Mundt. 

If we fought the revolution as we did, because we believed that 
taxation without representation was a violation of basic democratic 
rights, then I say the other side of the coin, representation without 
taxation, is equally valid, and a worker who gets all the benefits, who 
gets all the privileges, and all the protection, and all the wage increases 
and the pension benefits, and the services of our social security depart- 
ment, our medical staff, and our legal staff, every worker who is entitled 
to those benefits, ought to help share the cost of making them possible 
just as when you live in a community where we need better schools, 
everybody has to pay their share of the tax to make those better schools. 

And if you can figure out a way where that one lonely fellow can't 
get a free ride, I will be with you. But when you try to say "Well, there 
is a violation of a basic human right, you are making this fellow do 
something," we don't want to make him do anything, but we don't 
want him to get all the benefits, unless he is willing to share the costs 
that makes them possible. 

Senator Mundt. Yesterday, we agreed that the fellow should not 
be entitled to a free ride which brought with him on that journey 
the benefits which were made available through union operations in 
union contracts. You told me you were working trying to figure out 
some contracts which would provide for that kind of contingency. 

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

Senator Mundt. I recognize that Tennessee must be your blue rib- 
bon case because you have mentioned that one a dozen times. 



10162 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

You always come back to Tennessee. That is your best one. 

Mr. Reuther. Do you want some more ? 

Senator Mundt. I don't think you have any better ones, because 
you have that one down to 1, and you can't have any better than 1 
dissenter. 

Mr. Reuther. We have some where everybody voted for the union. 

Senator Mundt. That would eliminate the problems on those, but 
you wouldn't have a problem of minority representation. 

Let's proceed with the next step. It is not legal, is it, for money 
collected by unions as dues money, it is not legal for unions to use dues 
money for political purposes. Federal political purposes. 

(At this point, the following members of the committee were pres- 
ent: Senators McClellan, McNamara, Goldwater, Mundt, and Curtis.) 

Mr. Reuther. It is illegal, as I understand the meaning of the law, 
for a union to use dues money for purposes of contributions to candi- 
dates in Federal elections or to political parties for activities related 
to Federal elections. That is generally, I think, the definition. 

Senator Mundt. That is correct. 

Now, I want to discuss with you a little bit what this memo does 
because I have analyzed it and worked with the staff on it; a series 
of publications of COPE for the first part of 1957, the COPE political 
memo. 

You have in your union, I suppose, not only Democrats, but you 
have some Republicans who are dues-paying members. Even though 
their chief is a pretty strong Democratic politician, you must have 
some Republicans in your union. 

Mr. Reuther. Pretty strong? You fellows think I practically own 
the Democratic Party. 

Senator Mundt. I don't think that. I think you have a mortgage 
on it in some areas, but you have not foreclosed. 

I would like to say that the question is, do you have some Republicans 
in your union? 

Mr. Reuther. Let me say this about that. I think there is no 
question that we have some Republicans^ A good example is the fact 
that what we call our national steering committee — this is really, in our 
union, the group that politically works together. We have politicians 
in our union. We have caucuses and people run against each other. 

The group I am a party of, we have our own caucus and we have Re- 
publicans in our top steering committee caucus. The fellow who was 
the member of the State legislature, who was a Republican legislator 
in New Jersey for many, many years, in the last election ran for Re- 
publican mayor of Paterson, N. J., with our support. 

So we have Republicans and we respect their point of view. 

Senator Mundt. You have independents, and neither Democrats or 
Republicans. 

Mr. Reuther. The problem is that you fellows get your arithmetic 
mixed up because you don't work at this, and sometimes you substitute 
your prejudice for the facts. 

Senator Mundt. Did you ever do that, Mr. Reuther ? 

Mr. Reuther. This is what Senator Goldwater 

Senator Mundt. You say Senators do that. Have you ever done 
that ? 

Mr. Reuther. I think perhaps there have been times when I did 
that, but I try not to make a practice of it. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10163 

Senator Mundt. That is what you call a human frailty which we all 
share. 

Mr. Reuther. The other day Senator Goldwater, and I think per- 
haps he was just worked up and he forgot the facts, said in his "Face 
the Nation" program, and I have the transcript 

Senator Mundt. Why don't you wait until Senator Goldwater is in 
the committee room. 

Mr. Reuther. He is right here. I would not dare do this if he 
were not here. Senator Goldwater said 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Rauh shot at me when I was not here. 

Mr. Reuther. Mr. Rauh, I am surprised at you. You should not 
do a thing like that. 

Senator Mundt. He did. He will admit it. 

Mr. Reuther. I have been saving this waiting to tell Senator Gold- 
water that he was wrong. Here is what happened : Really the measure- 
ment and the department of democracy is the ability of people to dis- 
agree politically but to be rational and to be honest and to be sane 
about it, because as I said the other day, the Communists get con- 
formity — I mean they get unity by conformity by making everybody 
goosestep to the party line. 

A free world, a free country has to get unity in diversity. 

Senator Goldwater can be against the things I believe in politically 
and I will respect his differences. But when peoples' motives are 
challenged, when you are threatening the very future of the free world 
if you don't agree with some point of view, this is where we get in 
trouble. 

Senator Mundt. Will you try to kill him off politically if he dis- 
agrees with you ? 

Mr. Reuther. I won't. I would like to argue the issues. 

Senator Mundt. You would not like to exterminate him politically 
if he does not agree with you ? 

Mr. Reuther. Give me a little time and I will tell you. 

Senator Mundt. Will you answer that question yes or no ? 

Mr. Reuther. I think you have your right to your political point 
of view. I think it is kind of antiquated in spots. You have a right 
to it. 

You have a right to think that my philosophy is completely real- 
istic. But as free Americans we ought to be big enough, intelligent 
enough, tolerant enough, there ought to be enough democracy in the 
department to be able to discuss political issues in the free market place 
of ideas on their merits and not go around saying people are more 
dangerous than the Sputnik, people are the most dangerous people 
in the world, and to try to get people not to measure and judge and 
evaluate the merits of a person's political point of view on the merits 
of that point of view, but to try to color by prejudice and scare words 
and smears to that it is evaluated in a climate in which rational evalua- 
tion is not possible, this is where we get in trouble. 

If you think the Communists are not happy about it, then you don't 
know anything about how they plan the dynamics of what they are 
trying to do. 

The great hope of the world is the ability of America, our free 
political system, our economic system between labor and management 
and other economic and political groups, to develop the kind of sense 



10164 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

of common purpose, of unity, the broad common denominators of 
democratic survival and within that broad framework of a contest 
of values. 

But when you begin to have the contest of values jeopardize the 
outer framework by talking about Sputniks and loyalties and so forth, 
you are doing a great disservice to American democracy. 

Senator Goldwater went on the radio the other day — television — and 
he said — it is in this transcript — I won't quote it because the letter I 
am going to read raises it — he said there, that in the Wayne University 
in Detroit, Mich., 40 percent of the people there in our union had ex- 
pressed Eepublican leanings or Republican attitudes. 

He said that on the national hookup. The next day — that was 
March 16 at 4 : 30 to 5 O'clock in the af ternoon — and on March 17 the 
professor at Wayne University, Dr. Kornhauser, who made this survey, 
sent this letter to Senator Goldwater. 

I want to read a short piece of it : 

Dear Senator Goldwater : During your appearance on the TV program Face 
the Nation I understood you to say that 40 percent of the UAW members are 
Republicans as revealed by a Wayne University survey. 

This figure is seriously in error. Since I am sure you do not wish to mislead 
the public on this matter, nor to base your own thinking on grossly incorrect facts, 
I am writing to give you our actual findings. 

The only careful sampling survey of UAW voting which has been conducted by 
Wayne State University was carried on under my direction in 1952 and 1953. 

Our study showed that among UAW members in the Detroit Metropolitan Area 
not 40 percent but only 11 percent stated that they were either Republicans or 
had Republican leanings. 

You say it is the discrepancy between 40 percent and 11 percent 
that gets into these kind of arguments when people instead of trying 
to understand what the other fellow stands for, what he is trying to do, 
and try to demolish his political position based upon having a better 
position yourself, by debunking his or showing up its weaknesses and 
its inadequacies. But we don't do that. 

In this situation, you just look and I will show you what has been 
going on. That is what this hearing is about. Here is a situation 
where on January 

Senator Mundt. You are still on my question ? 

Mr. Reuther. I am right on your question. 

On January 28 as reported by the Detroit Times, on January 21, 
Senator Goldwater made a speech in Detroit. 

He had a perfect right to. He lias a right to make a speech any 
place that he can get an audience. But what did he say ? 

He didn't say I disagree with Reuther's support of the Kennedy- 
McCarthy bill to raise unemployment compensation because it is 
too much, he didn't say I disagree with Reuther's support of Presi- 
dent Eisenhower's aid to education bill because I am against educa- 
tion, and he is on the record of the votes in the Congress. 

He has voted against a number of bills. He didn't say these 
things. He didn't say I am against Reuther trying to get more 
wages. He said, and I quote from the Detroit Times: 

That Walter Reuther and the UAW are a more dangerous menace than the 
sputniks or anything that Russia might do. 

That was the 21st of January. This is just a sampling of it. I 
can bring it in by the truck load. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10165 

Senator Mundt. That would not make you very dangerous. Sput- 
niks are not dangerous. They are weather beeping things going 
around. There is no warhead in the sputnik. That does not make 
you dangerous. 

Mr. Reuther. Any tiling the Russians can do I take to mean 
treachery, immorality, inhumanity, every indecent thing they are 
incapable of. 

Senator Mundt. You cannot abominate communism, Mr. Reuther, 
anymore than I do. I have been working on this problem as long 
as you have. 

I just point out that a sputnik is a little old thing flying around 
without any warhead or dynamite and that does not make you 
dangerous. I don't know how dangerous you are. Maybe you are 
not at all. A sputnik is not. 

Mr. Reuther. You cannot be cute enough to wash this one up. 

Senator Mundt. I am just calling your attention to it. 

Mr. Reuther. Here on February il in the Washington Post, the 
text of a letter, it says : 

Printed below is a text of one of the letters sent out by H. J. Porter, Repub- 
lican National Committee member from Texas, announcing last night, "Appreci- 
ation Dinner for House Republican Leader Joseph W. Martin." 

On the stationery it says, "H. J. Porter, member from Texas" and 
gives his address and so forth, and reads : 

Dear Sir : We are having an appreciation dinner honoring the Honorable 
Joseph W. Martin, Jr., speaker of the 80th and 83d Congress at the Rice Hotel, 
Crystal Ballroom, Houston, February 10, 7 p. m. 

Joe Martin has always been a friend of Texas, especially the oil- and gas- 
producing industries. 

He mustered two-thirds of the Republican votes in the House each time 
the gas bill passed. 

As speaker of the 83d Congress he led the fight for adoption of the tidelands 
ownership bill. 

It will be up to Joe Martin to muster at least 65 percent of the Republican 
votes in order to pass the gas bill this year. 

He has put the Republican members from northern and eastern consuming 
areas on the spot politically because the bill is not popular due to the distortion 
of facts by newspaper columnists and others. 

The dinner must raise substantial amounts of money for the Republican 
Party as part of these will go towards the election of Republican Congress- 
men and Senators. 

Here is the punch line : 

Walter Reuther is the dominant figure in the Democratic Party and will 
pick the Democratic nominee for President in 1960. 

I don't know why all the other Democrats don't go out of business, 
if I am going to do this. 

Even though we may not approve of everything Eisenhower has done, the 
Republican Party is the party of private enterprise and free economy. 

I say the Democratic Party is just as much the party of free enter- 
prise, and Franklin D. Roosevelt did more to save free enterprise in 
America in the depression than all the Republicans in the last 50 
years. That is what I happened to think. 

Senator Mundt. I am interested in it. 

Will you answer my question, Mr. Reuther? 

The Chairman. Let the Chair observe, are we going to have 
political debate all day ? 

21243— 58— pt. 25 17 



10166 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Reuther. That is what we have been doing for 2 days. 

Senator Mundt. I don't know. I have seen Mr. Reuther at the 
Democratic convention. 

The Chairman. The Chair has undertaken to bring; these hearings 
to a conclusion today and I announce now we are going to run into the 
night if it takes that to do it. So we can proceed now. 

Mr. Reuther. If you can tell me how I can explain to the Kohler 
workers the relationship between the discussion of these COPE pam- 
phlets and their strike, then I will agree with you that we are on the 
beam. 

We are not talking about the Kohler strike, we are talking about 
politics. 

The Chairman. I understand that. 

Mr. Reuther. I, in Texas 

The Chairman. Just a moment, please. I understand that. The 
Chair is calling that to the attention of all concerned. 

I am not condemning the witness for what he is saying. It has prob- 
ably been invited. But I am pointing out that these hearings in my 
judgment are getting off track. 

Mr. Reuther. I agree with you. 

The Chairman. I am simply further pointing out that if we are 
going to open up all of this now, we are going to have a long protracted 
hearing obviously. 

I have been already admonished by other members of the committee 
that they have some things to say. I am just hoping that we can stay 
on the real issue again and bring these hearings to a conclusion. 

Senator Mundt. We are on precisely the issue raised by the witness 
at the beginning of his 90-minute dissertation which I enjoyed and 
which I did not try to shut off and which I thought was pertinent. 

One of the five points to which he devoted a great amount of elo- 
quence and some evidence was the question of whether or not demo- 
cratic processes function in the organization of which he is the head, 
and with considerable pride he said that he thought they did. 

Am I correct about that, Mr. Reuther ? Didn't you present that to 
us in your initial statement ? 

Mr. Reuther. I talked about democratic processes because the whole 
question of democratic process internally in the union is what is prop- 
erly before your committee and not the question of the broad question 
of politics in America. 

Senator Mundt. You brought in the politics in America. 

Mr. Reuther. I did not. 

Senator Mundt. I am simply working up to some questions about the 
use of union funds from the standpoint of democratic processes in the 
union. 

I don't object to your reading the letter that you read of the Texas 
dinner. We have all read that before. 

You read it with much more emphasis than I have ever heard it 
read before, and I enjoyed the way you read it. But it was old hat 
because it has been in the papers and debated around senatorial 
corridors. 

Certainly I would not stop you from concluding what you are read- 
ing. If you want to say more on that subject, you go right ahead. I 
have some questions when you get through. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES LN THE LABOR FIELD 10167 

Mr. Rettther. I will take a minute. Senator Mundt, there is one 
rhino; we ought to be sensible enough and big enough as individuals to 
do. Let us be honest with each other. 

You don't agree with me politically and I respect your right to not 
agree with me. I don't agree with you. Let us be honest, 

You want to talk politics and I am willing to talk politics, but let us 
not confuse it with the Kohler strike. 

Senator Mundt. It has nothing to do with the Kohler strike. I am 
talking about the Reuther testimony. 

I am not trying to relate this to the Kohler strike. I am talking 
about the Reuther testimony to which I listened attentively for 90 
minutes. 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Mundt, the point is that it is not an accident 
that Senator Goldwater attacks my union and myself on this date, 
and the next couple of days after that, Texas pops up with a Republican 
dinner, Senator Knowland hits me in California, Senator Potter hits 
Reuther, all in a week's time, This is not by accident. This is by 
design. 

This hearing that you fellows have been carrying on for the last 
week is a part of the design. I can tell you now it won't work. 

The way you can dig political work is to work on the employment 
problem, on the educational problem, on the security problem of this 
country. 

These are the things that America needs doing and these are the 
things people want done. 

America, if they could tune in on this, would feel sad, because at 
the time when we have top priority things to do in America, when we 
face tremendous responsibilities in the world, when the Russian steel 
industry is squeezing out every ton of steel they can get for armaments 
and for economic penetration, our industries are limping along at 5Q 
percent. 

These are the things you. ought to be dealing with. If you people 
would show the same concern for the unemployed and the plight of the 
farmers and the need for adequate education, you would get a great 
deal more support from the American people. 

The Republican Party is losing because it is out of touch with the 
needs of people. 

Senator Mundt. You are practicing the speech you are going to 
give at the next Democratic practice. 

Mr. Reuther. I don't need any practice. 

Senator Mundt. Since I won't be there, I am glad to hear it, 

I would like to ask you some questions to get some answers. 

Mr. Reuther. You fellows quit doing these kinds of things, and I 
won't need to defend my union so vigorously. 

Senator Goldwater. Would the Senator yield ? 

Senator Mundt. Yes, briefly, because I have some questions. 

Senator Goldwater. It will be brief because Mr. Reuther has men- 
tioned my name and a letter came from Mr. Kornhauser from "Wayne 
University, which I have answered by the way. 

Mr. Reuther. I am sure you have. 

Senator Goldwater. I agree with you and you have said several 
times during this hearing that in the course of off-the-cuff appear- 
ances before groups we can become confused. 



10168 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I told Mr. Kornhauser that I was confusing Wayne University with 
a survey made by Union Education Services of Chicago University and 
Cornell and Columbia researches which reveal that 41 percent of union 
labor question is Republican. 

I called Mr. Kornhauser's attention to this fact ; that a thesis done 
by Mr. Donald Brown, for his master of arts degree from Wayne 
University, which was approved by Mr. Kornhauser, showed that 71 
percent of union members who are independent voters, 63 percent of 
union members who are Democrats, and 100 percent of the union mem- 
bers who are Republicans are opposed to any union political action. 

I had both of these reports on the table in front of me. I explained 
to Mr. Kornhauser and I am sure you will see the letter, and you 
recognize the fact that we, who appear in the public, occasionally get 
our universities mixed up and we get other things mixed up. 

I am glad to hear you say we ought to be sane about this. I agree 
with you on that. I think all of us in public life use intemperate lan- 
guage at times. 

In fact, I often said that there are words of mine floating around 
in the ether that I would like to reach up, grab and eat. I don't see 
how you can sit there and make those statements and be perfectly clear 
with your conscience when you said that I needed a psychiatrist, 

I might agree with you on that, 

Mr. Reuther. I never said that, Senator. 

Senator Goldwater. Yes. You said it in Detroit. 

Mr. Reuther. No. I said if you really believed that I am more 
dangerous than the Russians that you would need one. I don't think 
you believe that. I think this is just part of the technique you are 
using. I don't think you believe that. 

Senator Goldwater. We will talk about whether I believe it or not 
later on. You called me a moral coward and a political hypocrite. 
I recognize that you were a little insensate that day. You were mad. 

Mr. Reuther. I had reason to be. 

Senator Goldwater. You were mad because you were not allowed 
to appear first and upset a year's routine of the committee. 

I am glad that you have recognized that all of us in public life are 
occasionally not inclined but we occasionally get into intemperance 
after which we are sometimes sorry. 

For instance, while I didn't come right out and call you a liar, I 
think I inferred that you were one. I should not have done that. 
I had no reason to base the charge of liar against you, but it was a 
statement. I made it, and it was an intemperate statement. 

I hope I don't make intemperate statements in the future. I think 
you hope so, too. 

About the speech in Michigan, I wrote you a letter that you never 
answered. I wish you had answered it. I asked you to tell me what 
in this speech was a lie, was wrong. 

I have never had an answer from you. I have it completely docu- 
mented. 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators 
McClellan, McXamara, Mundt, Curtis, and Goldwater.) 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Goldwater, to my knowledge, and I just 
asked one of my administrative assistants, the only letter that I re- 
ceived from you, to the best of my knowledge, in the last several years, 



IMPROPER ACTJVITIEiS IN THE LABOR FTELD 10169 

was the letter that you sent in response to my proposal that we try to 
settle the argument between you and I in a civilized way and not in 
a name-calling contest, by trying to pick a panel of clergymen to sit 
down to find out whether or not you could substantiate your charge 
that I was more dangerous and the UAW was more dangerous. 

You responded to that by quoting about 12 pages of the record of 
Mr. Vincent's testimony. To my knowledge, that is the only letter 
I have received from you in the last 2 years. 

I don't know if I received any before that. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Reuther, either the Post Office Depart- 
ment isn't working right or your secretaries aren't giving you the 
letters, because 

Mr. Reuther. You can be sure that when you write me, my secretary 
gets that to me very quickly. 

Senator Goldwater. I recall another letter that I wrote you that 
you answered, and that was regarding the subject that Senator Mundt 
was querying you about yesterday, namely what were you going to do 
about the men in your union who took the fifth amendment. You 
answered that letter. In fact, I have not a voluminous file from you, 
but we have on several occasions exchanged letters. I remind you, 
please look in your file because I remember this letter distinctly that 
I wrote you and asked you to point out what in my Michigan speech 
was wrong, and I haven't had an aswer. It is over in my files. Now, 
maybe we need that nickel's postage. I don't know. I hope we don't. 
But if we are not getting good enough service to get a letter from 
Washington to Detroit, maybe we ought to go to a nickel. 

That is all I have. 

Mr. Reuther. May I comment on this a moment ? 

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry. Senator Mundt and I have been going 
back and forth. 

You see, I am deeply concerned about where we are going in this 
world, because I have been around in this world. I worked in the 
Soviet Union. I know something about communism. I worked in the 
German underground, fighting to build forces against nazism. I have 
been in India and Africa and all over the world, working with people 
to try to bmld a democratic trade union to fight the Communists, be- 
cause I believe that the only way we can beat the Communists is to 
prove that democracy can do a better job of meeting basic human 
problems. 

I am worried about where we are going in America, because I believe 
that the Communists cannot beat us, but I think we can destroy our- 
selves from within by being dragged into the kind of irrational debates 
where instead of talking about issues, we are just tearing people apart 
by hurling charges that get more reckless as the name-calling contest 
steps up its tempo. 

I got very much hurt, Senator Goldwater, when you said before this 
committee, when Mr. Hoffa was here, you said to him, and I have the 
transcript right here in front of me, on page 4,964, of August 20, 1957 — 
how would you feel if you met with your family and your friends, and 
this happened the way it did, one night at my home, over the radio and 
over the television it says that Senator Goldwater told Mr. James 
Hoffa, as he sat in this very chair that I am sitting in, and as you gentle- 
men sat around that table, you said to him, and here is the record, you 



10170 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

said you don't hope that he and I would fight. You say, "I do not like 
to ever suggest to let you and him fight," meaning Walter Reuther 
and Jimmie Hoffa, "But for the good of the union movement, 1 am 
very hopeful that your philosophy prevails." 

You said that. 

Senator Goldwater. Let me interrupt you. 

Mr. Reuther. No ; let me finish. 

Senator Goldwater. I don't want you to finish until I interrupt you. 

Mr. Reuther. I will be patient. 

Senator Goldwater. You are a meticulous person about having the 
whole context read. You have taken something out of context. You 
didn't read what I said before. I had been querying Mr. Hoffa re- 
garding his attitude of political attitude by unions, and he said that 
he didn't feel that unions should be active in politics, not in so many 
words, but that was the subject of his remarks. It was to that that 
I was referring. I knew you were going to bring that up. I am 
sorry you took it out of context, because you are perfectly religious 
in adhering to complete statements. I suggest to you that you go back 
and read the entire context of the little colloquy between Mr. Hoffa 
and myself, and I think you will admit that you were wrong. I was 
referring to a specific 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Goldwater, I agree completely with what 
you say. This was a give and take between you and Mr. Hoffa about 
labor political activities, and Mr. Hoffa said at that time that he doesn't 
get involved in politics, and that he doesn't want the kind of a union 
that Reuther is trying to run, and it was back and forth. 

That motivated you to say that you hoped, while you didn't want 
Mr. Hoffa and I — you didn't want to suggest that we have a fight, that 
you hoped that his philosophy would prevail. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Reuther, to make it perfectly clear and 
cut this short, as to Mr. Hoff a's attitude toward the union participation 
with dues moneys and politics, I still hope his philosophy prevails or 
anybody else in the union movement who has it. 

Mr. Reuther. All right. 

I would like to finish. What bothers me, Senator Goldwater, and 
I say this not as the president of the UAW, and I say it to you not as a 
United States Senator, I say this to you as one human being to another, 
what bothers me about this is this : That you said that day that you 
hoped Mr. Hoff a's philosophy would prevail, because, in the give and 
take, you felt that he was not involved in political activity, and that 
was the essential distinction between his philosophy and mine. 

I might say there are many other very important distinctions. But 
that is the thing you were talking about. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Reuther, I agree with you. Let me say 
this, I don't agree with Jimmie Hoffa 's activities in his union, but I do 
agree with that one philosophy that he expressed when he was sit- 
ting right where you are, and I still agree with it, and I still say that 
I hope there are other union leaders who feel that it is morally wrong 
to take the money from a Democrat or from a Republican and use it 
against his man or his party. 

Mr. Reuther. Yes; but that isn't what Mr. Hoffa believes. Let 
me finish. 

Senator Goldwater. I don't know what he believes. I only know 
what he said here that day and that is what I was referring to. 



IMPROPE'R ACTIVITLEiS IN THE LABOR FIELD 10171 

Mr. Reuther. Let's not talk about what Mr. Hoffa believes. Let's 
talk about you and I, now. We are talking about Barry Goldwater, 
citizen, human l>eing, Walter Reuther, citizen, human being. 

Nothing to do with your official position or my official position, but 
talking man to man about a fundamental problem. How do you 
and I as members of a free society conduct ourselves so as not to 
bring into jeopardy the freedoms that we have in common with our 
fellow man. That is the question. What bothers me, Senator Gold- 
water, or citizen Goldwater, this is what bothers me, that a week 
later after you said this, on August 20, in which you said that you 
hoped Mr. Hoffa's philosophy would prevail, you were on a Meet 
the Press television program. I think it was September 2. I was 
in England working to try to help build forces there that would 
understand what America was trying to do. I was in Europe help- 
ing to work out a program for India in the metal industry where 
we are fighting the Communists because they are beginning to move 
into the steel industry as it expands. While I am over there, you 
make a statement that I should have stayed in the Soviet Union, 
because I would have been more comfortable there. But lay that 
aside. Lay that aside. 

Mr. Marquis Childs asked you a question. 

He pursued this question. When he asked you why you made this 
statement about Mr. Hoffa in the light of Mr. Hoffa's wrongdoings 
and so forth, that he was later expressed with being responsible 
for, you said that you didn't know about all these things, and that 
therefore if you had known these things about Mr. Hoffa's activity 
in politics, you wouldn't have said this. 

This is what you said, and I can read all the transcripts here, if 
you want me to. That bothered me. Because I thought that at one 
time you had attacked Mr. Hoffa about many of the things he had 
done. So we began to look around. What did we find? Well, we 
didn't have to search very far, because on August 22, 1957, the 
Congressional Record says on page 14195, here is what it says : 

Mr. Goldwater. Clark Mullenhoff of the Des Moines Register, whose columns 
are carried by other midwestern newspapers, represents admirably the present 
day's writers' interests in the wrongdoings of certain labor leaders. 

The fact that his ability and crusading heart are recognized is evident by 
his having been awarded the Xeiman fellowship at Harvard. 

Then you go on including the Heywood Broun and the Raymond 
Clapper awards in 1956. Then you say, and I quote from Senator 
Goldwater : 

It was my pleasure to liave inserted into the Congressional Record back in 
1956 several columns written by this man covering the misdoings of James 
Hoffa. 

Then I get one of these columns of Mr. Mollenhoff, and this is the 
heading : 

Expense account unlimited. Hoffa gains power in Michigan politics. 

And then it outlines all of Mr. Hoffa's political activities. It is 
James Hoffa who tried to capture the Democratic Party, not Walter 
Reuther, as the facts in Michigan will prove conclusively. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman ? 

Mr. Reuther. Senator ( iroldwater, you must have known about these 
things. This is what bothers me. 



10172 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Mr. Reuther, just a moment. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry ? 

The Chairman. State your parliamentary inquiry. 

Senator Curtis. My parliamentary inquiry is : Is a witness' interro- 
gation of a member of the committee, Senator Goldwater 

Mr. Reuther. I am talking to him as a human being, not as a 
Senator. 

Senator Curtis. And his debate about Jimmie Hoffa, is that within 
the purview of the resolution that the Senate passed assigning the work 
of this committee? 

The Chairman. The Chair has indicated, and now I will make it 
very plain, that I think the hearing, this particular series of hearings, 
have gone far afield. 

The Chair is not going to take the responsibility for it. 

Each Senator is a Senator in his own right, and when he asks a ques- 
tion and he elicits an answer that gets the hearing off track, the Senator 
who asked the question must take that responsibility. 

I had hoped that these hearings could be organized and these facts 
presented in such a way as to make a good, clear record. But the 
Chair's position and plan for the presentation of these hearings was 
not agreed to. I did not organize these hearings. I did not arrange 
for the presentation of them, as I have others. 

Therefore, I shall not accept the full responsibility for this thing 
getting off track. 

I had in mind to have Mr. Reuther and Mr. Kohler come before the 
committee right in the beginning and clearly define the issues as to 
what they regarded as the improper practices on the part of the other. 

Then I had in mind to try to confine the hearing to those issues. But 
we have not been able to do that. I should like to see you get back on 
the track here, ask questions that are really relevant to this hearing, 
and if you will do that, I will exact the answers from the witness ac- 
cordingly. 

Senator Mundt. I think I still have the floor, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. My questions are very relevant to the witness' testi- 
mony, in fact the initial testimony that he brought in. He talked to us 
at considerable length about the procedures, the virtues and the good 
behavior of the UAW, before he talked about Kohler, and I thought 
that was proper. 

I want to explore how the theories operate in practice. I don't want 
to assume the responsibility that you indicated I would have to assume, 
that when I ask a question, I assume the responsibility for the answer. 
These answers sometimes get kind of complicated and I don't want 
to assume the responsibility of what Mr. Reuther says any more than 
he wants to assume the responsibility for what I say. But I hope now 
to get this part of the record behind us, between you and Mr. Gold- 
water, Mr. Reuther, citizen A and citizen B, and see if we can't get 
some short answers to what I hope I can make as short inquiries. 

Do you believe, Mr. Reuther, that Republicans in your union, of 
which you say, I think, you have 11 percent, have the right to expect 
that none of the dues moneys that they pay to the union are used to 
defeat the party to which they belong or to discredit the convictions 
which they hold, politically ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 10173 

You can answer that in one word. 

Mr. Keuther. Senator, I have deep respect for the membership of 
our union who may believe in the Republican Party as the best vehicle 
for having done at the governmental levels those things that need 
doing. 

I respect that. I told you before that we have supported Repub- 
lican candidates. 

Senator Mundt. Let's just stick now to the question. 

Mr. Reuther. The answer is I respect their rights as well as I know 
they respect mine. 

Senator Mundt. Will the reporter read the question ? 

(As requested, the pending question was read by the reporter.) 

Mr. Reuther. My answer to that is that we are not spending their 
money, contrary to the statement you make. We are not spending 
dues money for straight political matters. We are spending dues 
money for those things that relate to our collective bargaining 
functions. 

You, if you can tell me how you can separate the breadbox and the 
ballot box, how you can separate the levels of our supplementary un- 
employment benefits, and the fact that in Indiana where we have a 
contract that says that the tens of thousands of unemployed workers 
are entitled to a supplementary benefit in addition to their unemploy- 
ment compensation but they can't get it because a Republican State 
Legislature has passed a bill, you tell me how we can divorce the 
breadbox and the ballot box and then maybe we can talk about this. 

Senator Mundt. You still didn't get the question. 

Would you read it again, Mr. Reporter ? 

Mr. Reuther. Yes, I did. I said that we are not spending union 
money contrary to anybody's political philosophy or doing violence 
to their political feelings. 

Senator Mundt. I know what you said. Would you read the ques- 
tion again, please. 

(The pending question was read by the reporter, as requested.) 

Mr. Reuther. My answer to that is yes. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

Mr. Reuther. But I think that you should know that we do not 
make choices based upon a party label. We make a choice based upon 
the issue where there is a Republican legislature who is willing to 
vote for a bill to make it possible to collect supplementary unemploy- 
ment benefit plans, we will support that Republican. If a Democrat 
is for it and a Republican is against it, we will support the Democrat. 
It is the issue that determines our choice, not the party or the 
candidate. 

Senator Mundt. My questions are not even directed to that. 

Mr. Reuther. But it is germane. 

Senator Mundt. I hunted carefully for an issue of the political 
memo, COPE, which is not a political campaign issue, isn't during 
a political campaign, and the research that I have done is 1957 when 
there is no election. We are talking now not about politics, per se, 
campaigning. I want to direct some questions to what you have af- 
firmatively answered that you do believe that members should not be 
forced to pay dues to the organization to which they belong in the 
expectation that part of their dues money is used to discredit their 
party or their political belief. 



10174 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

You have said yes to that. 

Now, according to the records of the Clerk of the House, last year 
the Committee for Political Education spent $670,984.79. You are 
going to break that down for us in pursuance with your promise as 
to what portion of that was spent for COPE, this memo. I am 
sure it would be a small percentage of it, but whatever it is, it is, and if 
you find my figure is wrong, you can correct that. 

This also came from the House of Representatives, where, by the 
way, Mr. Rauh, I did check and found out that 35 percent of the 
money received by ADA for its nonpolitical activities came from the 
UAW. 

Mr. Rauh. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. I thought you argued about that yesterday. 

All right, if it is correct, stop right there. 

Now, in this survey of 23 issues of the memo — when I say the 
memo, we are talking about the document from which you read the 
headlines, and we are talking about, the surprise package because you 
didn't know about it until yesterday, but you made a cursory study 
of it for the last 24 hours — I want to relate this to the somewhat more 
detailed study I have made from January 10 to December 12, 1957, 
in those 23 issues, Mr. Reuther, there are 56 allusions to the President, 
the Vice President, and the Republican administration all of them 
distinctly unfavorable. 

Do you feel that is a legitimate use of the money that the Repub- 
lican members of your organization pay in dues? I am talking about 
minority points of view. 

Mr. Reuther. I will tell you what I will do, Senator Mundt. You 
get your voting record, Senator Curtis' voting record, and Senator 
Goldwater's, and I will show you that on basic issues we have sup- 
ported the fundamental President Eisenhower position more than 
you have. 

Senator Mundt. You are talking about the union. 

Mr. Reuther. No, I am talking about the AFL-CIO. 

Senator Mundt. I am talking about the memo. 

Mr. Reuther. We have given the President more support on fun- 
damental issues than you. 

Senator Mundt. Will you read the question again, please. 

Your answer doesn't bear upon the question. 

Mr. Reuther. Read the question, please. 

(The pending question was read by the reporter, as requested.) 

Mr. Reuther. I think certainly we have a right to say that we 
disagree with this thing that the President is doing because we have 
resolutions adopted through the democratic processes of the union 
that commit us to a certain policy. But what about the things we 
support him on ? What about aid to education, foreign aid, recipro- 
cal trade, unemployment compensation and so forth, that you people 
oppose that we support him on ? 

Senator Mundt. I don't know how you support him, but I do know 
in the issues of COPE, the memo, 23 of them, from January 10 to 
December 12, and that includes the bunch, 56 allusions to the Presi- 
dent, the Vice President and the administration, all of them are dis- 
tinctly unfavorable. Maybe you support him in quiet and attack 
him in public. I don't know who you support or what you support 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 10175 

on the issues. But this is the record of the publication paid for to 
the extent of 50 percent from dues money which members of the union 
have to pay even though they are Republicans. 

Would you agree with me 

Mr. Keuther. Senator Mundt, I may say that if we support die 
President when we think he is right, we have a right to oppose him 
when we think he is wrong. What about when we run an article in 
there that says we think the President is right and everybody ought 
to support his efforts to get Federal Aid to education? 

What about where we attend a conference called where the Presi- 
dent speaks, where we try to mobilize broad support for the foreign 
aid program ? What about when we work with the Department of 
Labor to try to get support for the Reciprocal Trade Agreement 
extension ? 

Is this supporting the administration ? 

You don't support him in these areas. 

Senator Mundt. What about this one: What about the issue of 
February 7, 1957, and I quote from it : 

The cost of living has risen to an all-time high. Everything is booming, as 
they say, including payments for food, clothing, shelter, medical care, books, 
entertainment — 

and on February 7, the commodity index showed that the prices were 
holding steady. They were not at that time booming. When you 
tell the members of your publication that they are booming as part 
of a political persuasive paragraph, it seems to me you are using 
money collected from dues-paying members to try to discredit the 
position that the Republican members of your union hold. 

Mr. Reutiier. Senator Mundt, when we report to our membership 
that it is a stroke of genius to have the cost of living going up at the 
same time unemployment is going up, we are reporting a fact. You 
can't deny the fact that unemployment is going up. 

Senator Mundt. You can report that as a fact, as of now, but you 
couldn't report that as a fact at the time it was printed, which was 
February 7, 1957. That is the point I am making. I am quoting 
from that issue at the time when your statement wasn't factual. 

Mr. Reuther. A year ago we said that we were headed for trouble. 
You go back. What happened ? You fellows were calling us the 
prophets of doom and gloom. We knew a year ago we were in 
trouble, because the imbalance in the economy was developing at that 
time. 

Senator Mundt. You are using the wrong tense. Your articles say 
the cost of living has risen, has risen, has risen, not is going to rise. 
I am pointing out that when you say things which are within the 
realm 

Mr. Reuther. Do you challenge that ? The cost of living has gone 
up every month for the last 18 months, except for 2 months. Do 
you challenge that fact ? 

Senator Mundt. I challenge the fact as of February 7, 1957, be- 
cause at that time we were on a plateau. 

Mr. Reuther. I beg your pardon. I beg your pardon. You just 
haven't done your homework again. You get in trouble every time. 



10176 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Mundt. Let me tell you about your homework. A little 
later you made another statement, May 2, 1957 : 

The cost of living increasing faster under the Eisenhower administration than 
at any other peacetime period of history. 

As a matter of fact, the rise in the commodity index of 1946 to 1948, 
peacetime, was so much higher than the time that you made the com- 
parison, and if you do your homework you will find that to be true, 
that this statement is ludicrous, the kind of statement that politicians 
make but it is not a factual statement. 

Mr. Eetjther. Senator Mundt, I would recommend that no Repub- 
lican politician seek re-election on the platform that the cost of living 
has not gone up. 

Senator Mundt. I am not arguing that point. 

Mr. Rettther. I think he is going to be in really serious trouble. 

Senator Mundt. I am talking about your dues paying funds, on 
May 2, 1957, when you say that the cost of living is increasing faster 
under the Eisenhower administration than any other peacetime period 
in history, is demonstrably false, mathematically, because in the peace- 
time years of 1946-48, it increased at a much faster rate. Would you 
deny that ? 

Would you deny that it increased at a faster rate in 1946-48 ? 

Mr. Reuther. I say that the cost of living has gone up according 
to the figures that I have been given every month in the past 18 months 
excepting for 2 months, and the 2 months it did not go up, did not 
go down, it just was flat. Senator Mundt, do you want some nice, 
juicy quotes, attacking the administration ? 

Senator Mundt. No. I would like the answer to my question. 

Mr. Reuther. I answered your question. 

Senator Mundt. No, you haven't answered. Will you deny under 
oath, or I will take you out from under oath for this one 

Mr. Reuther. No, I want under oath. 

Senator Mundt. I am not trying to get you in trouble. I just want 
a statement from Walter Reuther, wearing either his CIO hat, his 
UAW hat, or his Democratic hat, I want to ask you this question : Do 
you deny that the cost of living rose faster from 1946 to 1948 than it 
did at the time you said it was rising at an unparalleled speed in peace- 
time history in your article of May 2 ? 

That statement is wrong. 

Mr. Reuther. Well, I don't think we have ever charged that the 
cost of living ■ 

Senator Mundt. The cost of living, this is your charge, not mine; 
you pay for it, I don't. I guess I read it more often than you do, but 
it is your periodical. "The cost of living increasing faster under the 
Eisenhower administration than at any other peacetime period in 
history." That is not true. It is not a fact. 

Mr. Reuther. The point is I think that any competent economist 
will tell you that when you isolate the brief period following the last 
war in which we were still having the impact of the shortages that came 
out of the war period because of the curtailment of civilian production, 
you isolate that period, and that statement is sound, and therefore 
factual. 

You see, your are playing with words. Is this really the important 
thino- in America ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 10177 

Senator Mundt. Eliminate the ones with exceptions to the program 
and yon can make it sound good. 

Mr. Rei tiieii. I know, but the point is that the war created pres- 
sures on the economy that were abnormal. We have to isolate those 
abnormal pressures. 

Senator Mundt. The words that you used in your periodical say 
"Any other peacetime period of history." You just include the whole 
shebang. 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Mundt, what are you trying to prove ? You 
are trying to prove that we use our publications to unfairly criticize 
the administration, which is Republican. 

Is that what you are saying ? 

Senator Mundt. In this particular instance. 

Mr. Reuther. All right. I say to you, you take your voting record 
in the Senate, you take Senator Curtis' voting record in the Senate, 
you take Senator Goldwater's voting record in the Senate, on the 
fundamental issues, aid to education, foreign aid, reciprocal trade, un- 
employment compensation, and we are in support of the President of 
the United States more than you are. 

(At this point, members of the committee present : Senators McClel- 
lan, McXamara, Mundt, Goldwater, and Curtis.) 

Senator Mundt. If I let you pick the issues, of course, that is true. 

Mr. Reuther. Isn't education an important issue? Is foreign aid 
an important issue? Is unemployment compensation, is social se- 
curity ? These are the really basic top priority matters. 

Senator Mundt. There are a lot of other issues. 

Mr. Reuther. You fellows are out of step with Ike a lot more than 
we are. We are much more in support. When Jim Mitchell wants 
help on the Reciprocal Trade Agreement, or Mr. Dulles needs aid on 
the foreign aid, he doesn't come to Senator Mundt, Senator Curtis, and 
Senator Goldwater, but he comes to the AFL-CIO because we give 
him support. 

Senator Mundt. Let me give you another illustration. You warp 
the facts and slant them politically. That is a legitimate maneuver, 
apparently, that politicians in both parties engage in, in America. 
But when you do it with dues paying money, what is supposed to be 
education, then I say you are denying the creed to which you subscribe 
when you said yes to my question, that you did not think it was proper 
to take dues paying money from a Republican, a member of your 
union, for the purpose of defeating his party or discrediting their 
convictions. 

It is equally improper if you do it with a Democrat. 

Mr. Reuther. I said that we don't spend money contrary to the 
principle that you state. We make decisions not based upon whether 
a fellow is a Republican or who he is, but as a person. We make deci- 
sions on where he stands on issues. Then I said, take the "SUB" 
matter in Indiana. There is a lot of fancy talk in America, a lot of 
noble words about free enterprise and collective bargaining, and so 
forth. Everybody is in favor of free collective bargaining like every- 
body is in favor of motherhood. 

What happens? We sit at the bargaining table and in good faith, 
work out with the General Motors and other corporations, as the steel 
workers do it, other unions do it, we work out a contract that provides 



10178 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

that when a wage earner is unemployed through no fault of his own, 
and he is eligible for unemployment compensation that the difference 
between 65 percent of his wage and the level of unemployment com- 
pensation is supplanted out of the fund. 

The General Motors Corp. has put roughly $97 million in our "SUB"' 
fund for our many workers. There have been tens of thousands un- 
employed workers in Indiana. There have been hundreds of thousands 
unemployed workers in the whole of Indiana. Those workers and their 
families and the corner merchants have been denied millions of dollars 
in benefits because a Republican controlled legislature in that State 
said you cannot integrate "SUB" unemployment compensation. You 
tell me that when we support a Republican or a Democrat in order to 
remove the legislative roadblocks so that we can implement out 
"SUB" agreement that we are violating a sacred principle. I say no. 

Senator Mundt. I never told you that. That is your own strawman 
you are knocking down. I never mentioned this "SOB." 

Mr. Reuther. It is not "SOB," it is "SUB." 

Senator Mundt. I don't know what it is. Don't say I told that to 
you. You told that to me. You should study this periodical to which 
you put in a lot of money. Let me summarize it for you. 

There are 100 direct references, in these 23 issues, to administrative 
policies and actions. Every one of them is unfavorable. You may 
have supported some thing some place. I don't know. I am talking 
about this periodical published by union dues paying funds. Twenty- 
three issues carefully analyzed. 

One-hundred direct references to the administration policies and 
actions, all of them unfavorable. Not one single reference to any 
benefits derived by workers from administration policies or adminis- 
tration programs for labor or welfare are ever mentioned even in 
passing. 

You tell me that is not political slanting ? 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Mundt, I tell you very frankly that if you 
will look at the record of the AFL-CIO and the record of the UAW, 
you will find that we have supported the Administration on many of 
the most basic issues 

Senator Mundt. I am not arguing that. I know you have. What 
I am pointing out is what you tell your members through your periodi- 
cals which you compel them to pay with dues money, whether Repub- 
licans or Democrats, there are 100 references. 

Mr. Reuther. How do you think we get the membership to see 

Senator Mundt. Your support reminds me of a fellow winking at 
a girl in the dark. You know it but nobody else knows it. 

Mr. Reuther. Let me read you a couple of statements here attacking 
the President. This says : 

The threat of an ever expanding Federal Government is to me a more serious 
threat than communism. To hear a President tell us, as Mr. Eisenhower has, 
that we must educate the American people to the need for Federal aid for 
domestic schools, welfare and health programs astonishes me. 

Then it accuses the President of subverting the United States econ- 
omy and betraying the people's trust. Isn't that a sharp indictment? 

Senator Mundt. It is a criticism. 

Mr. Reuther. It sure is. It was made by Senator Goldwater. 
Quotes from his speeches. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10179 

Senator Goldwater. I am glad you made it because it could be said 
again. 

Mr. Reuther. All right. You are criticizing us 

Senator Mundt. Either you have not done your homework very well 
on the Senator from South Dakota or my record is pretty good because 
every time you accuse somebody you accuse Senator Goldwater. 

Mr. Reuther. I am trying to be kind to you. 

Senator Mundt. I appreciate that. I am being kind to you. 

The Chairman. The Chairman plans to recess for lunch in the next 
few minutes. 

Senator Mundt. We can recess at 12 : 30 if we can get some brief 
answers. 

Mr. Reuther. What time are we meeting in the morning, Mr. 
Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Just a moment. Senator Goldwater advised the 
Chair he would like to make a brief statement before we recess. You 
may proceed now. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, it is not a statement in total. I 
wanted to put the record straight because Mr. Reuther only read part 
of the transcript of the "Meet the Press program" he referred to on 
Sunday, September 1. 

I will read the whole thing. 

Mr. Childs. Senator Goldwater, I would like to ask you about the hearings for 
a moment, too. You said after a colloquy with Jimmie Hoffa of the Teamsters, 
"For the good of the union movement I am very hopeful your philosophy prevails." 
And you had been talking presumably just before about Walter Reuther. 

Senator Goldwater. That is right. 

Mr. Childs. In the light of all that has developed in those hearings, do you 
still hope that Mr. Hoffa's philosophy prevails? 

Senator Goldwater. Well, Mr. Childs, I think you should have read the whole 
thing and it is too long to read here. We were talking about uni<Tn participation 
in politics and Mr. Hoffa just previous to my remark there had said that he 
didn't feel it was right for the unions to participate in politics the way that Mr. 
Reuther did and that is where I said, and I quote : "Well, I hope your philosophy 
prevails." I certainly would not want to see Mr. Hoffa's philosophy in organi- 
zational work in the use of money or anything else, but I do agree with him 
that unions should not participate in politics the way Mr. Reuther does. 

Mr. Childs. Well, Mr. Hoffa has been in politics, too. He has supported Sen- 
ator Ferguson and other candidates. Do you believe it is the way they partici- 
pate or that they should not participate at all? 

Senator Goldwater. If you will read back in there, you will see he had just 
told me he didn't believe that the dues money of members should be used in 
polities. He didn't believe that unions should seek to dominate a political party 
and I agree with him. Subsequently during the course of the hearings it came 
out that he had supported not one but many political candidates. It never came 
out in the hearings that he had supported men above the local ranks, but you and 
I know that this is true. 

Mr. Childs. That he did support them above the local ranks? 

Senator Goldwater. Yes, and had he told me that at the time I couldn't be in 
agreement with him. 

Mr. Chairman 

Mr. Reuther. Senator, that is my point. 

Senator Goldwater. Just a moment, Mr. Reuther, I am not through. 

Mr. Reuther. I am sorry. 

Senator Goldwater. Having put the record straight in there I just 
want to try to finish briefly what Mr. Reuther was starting to try to 
set up, an atmosphere in which the two of us could argue with each 
other. I am perfectly happy to set up any kind of an atmosphere 



10180 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

that is fair but I just want to advise Mr. Reuther of one thing. That 
he is going to continue to be attacked by me. 

I am not attacking his union. I am going to attack Mr. Reuther 
because I don't believe in his economic or his political philosophy. 

Mr. Reuther. Attack me on the issues and destroy the merits of the 
issues. 

Senator Goldwater. I would suggest, Mr. Reuther, that you do 
the same and quit calling me a moral coward and a political hypocrite, 
a man that ought to see a psychiatrist and Lord knows what else you 
told the boys in the back room. 

Mr. Reuther. Senator 

The Chairman. Can you folks not get off somewhere and talk this 
out? 

Mr. Reuther. I invited him to set up a panel of clergymen so that 
we could sit down sensibly and sanely and see if he could prove that I 
am more dangerous and my union than the Russians. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, I think the clergymen of She- 
boygan have already judged Mr. Reuther and his union. 

Mr. Reuther. The point, Senator Goldwater, that you seem to 
forget — you read the transcript of "Meet the Press," and you said 
there, had you known that Mr. Hoffa had supported candidates above 
the local level you the would not have made the charge that you hoped 
his philosophy would prevail — the point that I made was that you 
said on the 22d of August 1957, several days later, when you stood on 
the floor of the Senate— and I quote from the Congressional Record 
at page 14195 : 

It was my pleasure to have inserted in the Congressional Record back in 1956 
several columns written by this man covering the misdoings of Jimmy Hoffa, and 
this is one of the columns outlining Jimmy Hoffa's support of candidates above 
the local level. • 

Therefore, you were either inserting columns in the record you had 
not read or your memory was conveniently very short, one or the 
other. 

The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 12 : 25 p. m., the committee recessed to reconvene at 
2 p. m., the same day.) 

(At this point, members of the committee present : Senators McClel- 
lan, McNamara, Mundt, Curtis, and Goldwater.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

(At the reconvening of the session the following members were 
present: Senators McClellan, Mundt, Goldwater, and Curtis.) 
The Chairman. The Committee will come to order. 

TESTIMONY OF WALTER P. REUTHER, ACCOMPANIED BY JOSEPH 
L. RATJH, JR., COUNSEL— Resumed 

The Chairman. Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. I was asking the witness questions, and I express 
the hope that I could probably conclude questions in this area in the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10181 

next 10 or 15 minutes, I believe, depending, of course, a little bit on the 
length of the answers. 

I don't want to shut any witness off from making any kind of answer 
he wants to make, just so long as eventually we get a yes or no answer 
to my question, to which a yes or no answer would be a proper response. 

We had been discussing the little surprise package, the political 
memo from COPE. I simply want to say in that connection, because 
1 want to be completely fair with Mr. Reuther, that my examination of 
these 23 copies of memo and the examination that I had made of it by 
my staff, confirmed in my opinion the fact that this has to be con- 
sidered a politically biased periodical. 

I have given you some quotations and some statements which in my 
opinion justify that fact, I have given you some suggestions. 

But I do feel, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Reuther should be given 
permission to put into the record at this point an analysis that he 
makes of these issues from January 10 to December 12, and if he can 
show that there is something that an objective witness can call political 
balance in them, he is entitled to make that presentation. I wouldn't 
expect him to do it today, because he didn't know about the periodicals 
until yesterday. He did a little homework on them last night, and 
came up with a few headlines as a result of his survey, but I think he 
should have had one of his administrative assistants make that analysis 
if he desires and present the information in the record at this point. 

Would that be a fair arrangement, Mr. Reuther ? 

Mr. Reuther. I think that would be fair, but I would like to point 
out, Senator Mundt, that I am not contesting that we take positions 
on issues. What I am contesting is that the material contained in 
COPE is there based upon a partisan approach. We are nonpartisan 
in our attitudes, and when a Republican is right, we support him, and 
when he is wrong, we oppose him on the issues, and the same thing is 
equally true of the Democrats. If you say we are being partisan, I 
think that is incorrect. 

We are being very sharp on the issues, and not based upon the party 
labels, but based upon the issues. 

Senator Mundt. My conviction is that you are being partisan. My 
conviction is that the pattern of selected articles that you put in shows 
a very specific partisan basis. 

I believe that. I have tried to demonstrate it. But I think you 
should have the same opportunity to do a careful survey job to present 
evidence to refute it, if the evidence is available. 

That is the thing we are trying to establish, is it or is it not a periodi- 
cal carrying a pattern of political bias. 

Mr. Reuther. I think that is fair enough, and I shall avail myself 
of your offer, if it is agreeable with the Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. You could put it in at this point in the record at 
the time you have it available, or whatever date line there would be. 

The Chairman. Without objection, and the Chair has no objection. 
That may be done. 

Mr. Reporter, on receipt of it, you will print it in the record at this 
point. 



21243— 58— pt. 25 18 



10182 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

(The document referred to follows :) 

Committee on Political Education, 

Washington, D. C, April 8, 1958. 
Mr. Walter Reuthee, 

President, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement 
Workers of America, Detroit, Mich. 

Dear Mb. President: After reviewing your recent testimony before the Mc- 
Clellan committee, more particularly the comments Senator Mundt made about 
our COPE memo, I thought it advisable to make a thorough check of our 
material. 

Inasmuch as you are going to comment to the committee on these articles 
mentioned by Senator Mundt after you have a chance to study them, I am en- 
closing a memo prepared by Dick Dashiell, our director of public relations. I 
sincerely hope it will be helpful to you. 

With kind personal regards, I am 
Fraternally yours, 

James L. MoDevitt, National Director. 

Enclosure. 

April 3, 1958. 
Memorandum to : James L. McDevitt. 
From : Dick Dashiell. 
Subject : Discussion of COPE memo by Senator Mundt at hearings of McClellan 

committee. March 29, 1958, during interrogation of President Walter Reuther 

of the UAW. 

Senator Mundt implied strongly that the political memo from COPE was 
partisan and that it supported only Democrats. Although the Senator did not 
say so in so many words, any neutral person would draw from his remarks the 
plain inference that the COPE memo never criticized Democrats. 

Mundt told Reuther that in the 23 issues of the memo from January 10 to 
December 12, 1957, there were "56 allusions" to President Eisenhower, Vice 
President Nixon and their administration. He said "all of them are distinctly 
unfavorable." He did not point out that many of these "allusions" carried no 
comment whatsoever but were plain recital of the facts. 

At any rate, in checking through those issues, I have noted at least eight 
instances in which the memo was critical of Democrats. They are in the memos 
of January 10, April 4, May 30, July 11, July 25, and August 22. Inasmuch as 
Senator Mundt named the issue of January 10, 1957 specifically, it is of interest 
that in that very issue the memo criticized southern Democrats for their vote 
on the filibuster-civil rights legislation and listed their names in the roll call 
vote. Moreover, on page 3, we even complimented Gov. Harold Handley of 
Indiana for speaking out against the right-to-work bill. Handley later allowed 
the right-to-work bill to become law without his signature, but our story about 
him does show that we are quick to compliment a Republican when we think he 
has clone or said the right thing. 

I also checked the COPE memo for 1956 and found at least nine stories criti- 
cal of Democrats. They are in the memos of February 2, February 16, March 
1, April 12, May 10, July 19, August 16, October 25, and November 22. 

During the colloquy between Senator Mundt and President Reuther, Mundt 
said : 

"What about this one (speaking of 'unfavorable allusions' to the Eisenhower 
administration) : What about the issue of February 7, 1957, and I quote from 
it: 'The cost of living has risen to an all-time high. Everything is booming, 
as they say, including payments for food, clothing, shelter, medical care, books, 
entertainment,' and on February 7, the commodity index showed that the prices 
were holding steady. They were not at that time booming." 

Mundt contended that we told our members that prices were booming as part 
of what he called "a political persuasive paragraph." He repeated that the 
paragraph was not factual. However, Mundt had carefully omitted reading the 
whole item, which was as follows : 

"Chairman William McChesney Martin of the Federal Reserve Board told 
the Joint Congressional Economic Committee that a rise of only 1 point in the 
Consumer Price Index costs the American public $2,500 million a year. 

"That means, then, that Americans now are paying about $7,500 million more 
a year for goods and services than they were 12 months ago inasmuch as the 
cost of living has risen 3 points on the index to an all-time record. Everything 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 10183 

is booming, as they say, including payments for food, clothing, shelter, medical 
care, books, entertainment, etc., etc., etc. 

"P. S. : From the New York Times, January 10, 1957: 'The Department of 
Agriculture forecast today that consumers would pay higher prices for meat 
this year'." 

When taken in the context as presented in the first paragraph, the statement 
is sound and Mundt is guilty of distortion. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Reuther, do you know Mr. Charles K. John- 
son, one of the UAW subregional directors ? 

I believe he would come in the category of the 725 directors that 
you have. 

Mr. Reuther. We have a Robert Johnson, who is a regional director 
in region 4 of our union, but not a Charles Johnson. 

Senator Mundt. Where is region 4? 

Mr. Reuther. Region 4 would be Illinois and Iowa, I think. 

Senator Mundt. I think this must be Robert Johnson. 

Mr. Reuther. It is Robert Johnson, yes. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

I want to read you a short statement from the March 10, 1956, issue 
of Newsweek, and ask you a question or two about it. 

It quotes Mr. Johnson as follows, and I quote him as it appears in 
the magazine : 

Although I am the one who implemented this move — I should go back a little 
bit and tell you the story deals with what is alleged to be, and I use the word 
alleged advisedly, what is alleged to be a political plot or a political maneuver 
engineered with dues money from UAW headquarters in New York, by your 
Mr. Johnson. 

He says : 

Although lam the one — 

he says in quotation marks in Newsweek — 

Although I am the one who implemented this move in this particular area, it 
is really a national program out of Detroit. 

We are starting on a course that will allow us to deliver Illinois in 1960 to 
the candidates we think best for labor. 

Now, do you consider in Detroit that you have a program to deliver 
to Illinois the candidates that you think best for labor, and is it na- 
tional in scope? Are you trying to deliver every State with the 
candidates you think best ? 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Mundt, I learned about that story that you 
quoted from, and that was the first time that I had knowledge of what 
had taken place, according to that article, in Peoria, 111. I talked to 
Mr. Johnson about it. He denies having said that. He says he has 
been misquoted. I want to emphatically say that there is no effort on 
the part of our union or the AFL-CIO, or any other segment of the 
American labor movement to my knowledge, to capture any political 
party. 

I think political parties can be effective instrumentalities for mak- 
ing democracy work. 

I believe in a two-party system, but only as they would be repre- 
sentative. I would be opposed to any group, whether it be labor, 
farmers, or business groups, or any group capturing either of the 
parties, because at that point they would be no longer representative 
and they would no longer be responsive to the needs of the people. 



10184 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I disclaim any knowledge of this. Mr. Johnson says that it is not 
true that he stated what he is being quoted as saying. 

Senator Mundt. I think we can spell out this situation, then, and 
dispose of it in the testimony very quickly by a series of rather short 
questions, which I think can be answered with comparatively short 
answers. 

The articles goes on to outline in some detail how the program is 
to be worked out at the local level through local No. 974, and that 
Mr. Johnson has said that there is a determined effort by local 974 
to capture the Democratic machinery of Peoria, 111., for the union. 

As I take it, you tell me, No. 1, you know of no such effort, and, 
No. 2, that Mr. Johnson denies to you that he is involved in such 
a plot or program. Is that right % 

Mr. Reuther. I made it very emphatic, and the answer is in the 
affirmative. We are not now nor have we ever been, and we do not 
intend to become, a party to an effort to capture any party. We are 
trying to work with parties, we are not trying to capture them, and 
Mr. Johnson denies that he said that. 

Senator Mundt. Would such an activity come within your under- 
standing of the traditional functions of trade unionism? 

Mr. Reuther. I think that this essentially is the fundamental differ- 
ence between the approach to American' problems and politics in 
America as contrasted to what I think is the pattern in most of 
Europe. 

In most of Europe the labor movement is based upon a philosophy 
that labor must develop its own political instrument, and there are 
labor parties, of a character in most of the free nations or Europe 
with whom we are associated within the free- world alliance. 

That is true of the Scandinavian countries ; it is true of England ; 
it is true of most of the other European nations. 

The American labor movement has worked within the framework 
of the two-party system. 

We are not trying to replace the free-enterprise system. We are 
trying to make it more socially responsible to the needs of the people. 

Therefore, we are committed to work within the framework of the 
two-party system. We are not wedded to either party, although we 
work and support candidates in both parties. 

Sure, the record is clear that while we have supported some 200 
Republicans at various levels of our governmental structure in the 
past years, we have supported many more Democrats. But we are 
not trying to capture any party. In Michigan, where this charge is 
made, it is untrue, and if you went into an objective analysis 

Senator Mundt. Peoria, 111. 

Mr. Reuther. I know, but this charge is made generally. We are 
not trying to capture the party there. We are not trying to capture 
the party anywhere, because at the point we would capture it, it 
would then be a narrow party that woidd not be an effective instru- 
ment because it would no longer be representative, and it would de- 
feat the very purpose that only a representative party can meet. 

Senator Mundt. On the point that you mentioned, that you sup- 
port candidates in both parties, the Congressional Quarterly, in its 
issue of March 21, verifies that statement with emphasis. The Con- 
gressional Quarterly survey reports the contributions by labor groups 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10185 

in the 1956 campaign showed that of an expenditure of $1,078,852 in 
Federal political campaigns, you did contribute $3,9&5 to the Repub- 
lican candidates. 

That is the exception that proves the rule. 

Mr. Reuther. Yes. I say it very candidly, that we support mostly 
Democrats; the trouble is it is getting harder and harder to find a 
Republican worthy of our support, This is our trouble. You are 
the answer to that. We can't make you differently. 

Senator Mundt. You seem to have great difficulty when out of 
$1,078,000, it gets down to that. This money, I presume, is not what 
we are talking about here, it is not dues money ? 

Mr. Reuther. That is voluntary money, and the Gore committee 
report, Senator Mundt, lists this in great detail. I would like to put 
in the record at this point exactly what the facts are. 

You want to talk about politics. I thought we were going to talk 
about the Kohler strike. 

Senator Mundt. I am talking about what Reuther talks about. 
And he talks about a lot of other things besides the Kohler strike. 

Mr. Reuther. I am perfectly willing to talk about it. 

Senator Mundt. There is no quarrel about that. Do you want to 
put something in the record ? Go ahead. 

Mr. Reuttier. All right, Mr. Chairman, I would like to put into 
the record this very short — I will read it. It will only take a minute. 
These were the political contributions which were set forth in the 
Gore committee, which is the proper committee of the United States 
Senate to investigate these matters, and I appeared before that com- 
mittee and your two distinguished Republican colleagues were there 
at the time I appeared. 

The Gore committee report reveals the following facts, and I quote : 

1956— 

according to the Gore committee report — 

the Republican Party raised $32,430,587, and spent $26,874,873, while the Demo- 
cratic Party raised $12,891,141 and spent $11,770,724. 

All labor groups together, and this includes the AFL-CIO, and 
all the nonaffiliated, the railroad groups that are not affiliated, the 
mine workers, and all labor groups combined, representing some- 
where around 17 million organized workers, all labor groups com- 
bined raised $2,578,181 and spent $2,162,337. Of this, 17 principal 
labor committees raised $1,912,990 and spent $2,162,337. 

Included in the labor group's work, the AFL-CIO COPE raised 
$995,536 and spent $989,722, and the UAW raised $162,235 and spent 
$256,105. The moneys in excess of that were moneys we had raised 
at an earlier period. 

In contrast to the moneys raised, less than $1 million by the roughly 
14 million members of the AFL-CIO, through their efforts, in contrast 
to that, 12 families contributed $1,040,526 to the Republican Party, 
more than the 14 million AFL-CIO COPE members contributed. One 
family, the Du Pont family, contributed to the Republican Party 
$248,423. In other words, that was considerably more than we col- 
lected from our one and a half million members. 

Thirty-seven General Motors executives gave more than $500 each 
for a total of $163,250, a sum greater than we collected from our one 



10186 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

and a half million members. Members of the Business Advisory Coun- 
cil of the United States Department of Commerce gave to GOP $500 
or more of contributions, for a total, from the members of this com- 
mittee, advisers to Mr. Weeks in the Department of Commerce, 
$268,499, or much more than we collected from our total membership. 

They raised $100,000 in that Texas dinner we talked about, and 
there, for a while, it looked as though it was too tainted for the Re- 
publicans to keep, but they finally decided to keep it. 

Mr. C. E. Wilson came to Detroit and in one evening raised $280,000 
for the Republican Party of Michigan. Who do you think was there ? 
All the corporation executives, and they had a right to be there. They 
have a right to be there. But when you get, as we did in 1956, $162,365 
from our membership in the whole country, and we spend that to sup- 
port candidates who support the issues that we believe relate to the 
needs of our people and the people of America, somehow that takes on 
some very dangerous connotations in the minds of certain people. 

But when big corporations, and the record is all there, when they 
can raise millions and millions of dollars, when 12 families can give 
more than the whole labor movement raised, that is perfectly all right. 
I say, Senator Mundt, we spend money for educational purposes. The 
courts found that we have a legal right to do it. We are within the 
law. When it comes to moneys that are in the category of Federal 
elections, we spend voluntary money, as we have a right to do. 

We are living within, I think, the framework of the law. 

(Members of the committee present: Senators McClellan, Mundt, 
Curtis, and Gold water.) 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Reuther, I am not challenging you as doing 
anything illegal. I am glad you read everything you did in there 
because I would like to have you put in the record the answers to these 
questions, which I know will take a while, which we can rest with and 
work on when we get to this area of our committee investigation. 

Will you put in the record at this point how much money was spent 
politically in 1954 1 and 1956 by the AFL-CIO ? I cannot ask you for 
other union money. You are the vice president of that. In a State 
or National elections which were run on a partisan basis. I am not 
interested in the judgeships, and so forth, or mayors. 

Mr. Reuther. In partisan elections ? 

Senator Mundt. Yes. No. 2, how the money was raised. No. 3, 
how it was distributed or spent. No. 4, what steps, if any, were taken 
to divorce this union activity and these union activities from the regu- 
lar salaried employees of the union whose salaries are paid from union 
dues? 2 

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

Mr. Reuther. It is all in the committee's report. The Gore com- 
mittee. 



1 From letter sent to Senator McClellan from Walter Reuther on April 29, 1958 : "Since 
the APL— CIO was formed in December 1955, and its committee on political education was 
formed on February 1, 1956, there was no AFL-CIO or COPE in 1954 and hence no figures 
exist for that year." 

2 Statement taken from letter sent to Senator McClellan from Walter Reuther, April 29, 
1958 : "We were asked 'What steps, if any, were taken to divorce this union's activities 
and these union activities from the regular salaried employees of the union whose salaries 
are paid from union dues.' I am informed that between September 14, 1956, and November 
6, 1956, salaries and expenses of employees connected directly or indirectly with the 
Federal election campaign were paid from the 'individual contributions account' consisting 
entirely of voluntary political contributions by AFL-CIO members. These salaries and 
expenses totaled Jpll2, 628.58." 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10187 

Senator Mundt. I want you to condense it so we will have it in just 
that position to what you read. 

Mr. Reuther. It is available in the Gore committee report and I 
shall see it is transferred to the committee. 

Senator Mundt. And put it at this point in the record so we have the 
two together. 

(The document referred to follows :) 

Committee on Political Education 
Schedule of expenses and income 

INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTIONS FUND 

Feb. 1 through Dec. 31, 1956 : * 

Income : Cumulative 

Contributions $559, 666. 10 

Distribution of literature 21. 00 

Total income 559,687.10 

Expenses : 

Travel 40, 765. 45 

Salaries 71, 863. 13 

Taxes and pension fund 5, 937. 01 

Salaries, shipping receipt books 9, 772, 64 

Radio and TV 7, 984. 33 

Postage and express 6, 152. 74 

Printing 43, 004. 28 

Telephone and telegrams 5,706.16 

Stationery and office supplies 3, 154. 78 

Receipt books 20, 269. 44 

Contributions 456, 293. 55 

Total expenses 670,903.51 

Total expenses over income (—111,216.41) 

Jan. 1 through Dec. 31, 1957 : 
Income : 

Contributions 227, 081. 94 

Refunds of special allocations 1, 942. 37 

Total income 229, 024. 31 

Expenses : 

Salaries 4, 776. 78 

Travel 1,270.35 

Taxes, pension and insurance 3, 880. 47 

Postage and express 2, 998. 52 

Stationery and office supplies 57. 89 

Telephone and telegrams 80. 14 

Printing 15, 743. 58 

Receipt books 14, 349. 72 

Radio. TV, and recordings 3. 134. 99 

Contributions 28, 913. 00 

Total expenses 75, 205. 44 

i COPE formed Feb. 1, 1956. 



10188 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



EDUCATIONAL ACCOUNT 

Feb. 1, through Dec. 31, 1956 : 

Income : Cumulative 

Contributions $286, 275. 00 

Distribution of literature 483.75 

COPE Memo (subscriptions) 11,345.83 

How To Win (sales) 5,435.25 

Speakers Book (sales) 1, 305. 00 

Total income 304, 844. 83 

Expenses : 

Salaries 52, 739. 82 

Taxes and pension 4, 742. 08 

Postage and express 4,016.08 

Rent, moving, and storage 1, 141. 05 

Books, periodicals, and subscriptions 2, 017. 23 

Printing 86, 550. 71 

Travel 6,073.82 

Telephone and telegrams 369. 18 

Equipment and maintenance 255. 00 

Stationery and office supplies 2, 917. 09 

Radio and TV 49,651.92 

Contributions 57, 839. 14 

Total expenses 268, 313. 12 

Total income over expenses 36, 531. 71 

Jan. 1 through Dec. 31, 1957 : 
Income : 

Contributions 255, 868. 07 

COPE Memo (subscriptions) 15,281.55 

How To Win (sales) 1,931.25 

Speaker's Book (sales) 119.20 

Total income 273, 200. 07 

Expenses : 

Salaries 35, 130. 11 

Travel 25, 817. 67 

Taxes, pension, and insurance 634. 18 

Postage and express 3, 032. 48 

Telephone and telegrams 414. 59 

Stationery and office expense 3, 508. 54 

Books, periodicals, and subscriptions 735. 86 

Printing 5, 273. 69 

Radio, TV and recordings 2, 719. 91 

Contributions 27, 350. 00 

Total expenses 104, 617. 03 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 10189 

COPE Contributions 

Year 1956: cumulative 

Presidential election $56, 500. 00 

Senatorial candidates 148, 375. 00 

Congressional candidates 148, 242. 28 

Gubernatorial candidates 24, 500. 00 

AFL-CIO State and city bodies 107, 415. 41 

Non-AFL-CIO organizations 29, 100. 00 

Total 514, 132. 69 

Year 1957 : 

Senatorial candidates 24, 663. 00 

Congressional candidates 4, 250. 00 

AFL-CIO State and city bodies 25, 850. 00 

Non-AFL-CIO organizations 1, 500. 00 

Total | 56, 263. 00 

Who Determines Where and How Much Money Which Is Spent Politically 

Is Spent 

No money is contributed to any candidate until that candidate is endorsed by 
the State body or lower appropriate unit. In the majority of cases this endorse- 
ment action is by special convention of duly elected delegates and in no case is 
it by a body smaller than the duly elected State executive board or executive 
board of the lower appropriate unit of the AFL, CIO or AFL-CIO central body 
(i. e. county organizations may endorse candidates for county office, city or- 
ganizations may endorse candidates for city office, etc.). 

Following endorsement, a recommendation is made to the national director of 
COPE. The national director of COPE consults his staff, including the area 
director concerned, and the COPE operating committee, consisting of the 
secretary-treasurers and/or political education representatives of 28 national and 
international unions. 

If the recommendation of the State organization is approved by the national 
director of COPE after this procedure, the contribution is forwarded to the 
State organization for delivery to the endorsed candidate, a receipt is secured 
and is kept on file in the national office of COPE. 

All accounts are audited periodically. All reports, as required by law, are filed 
with the proper agencies of Congress. 

Senator Mundt. Finally, who determines where and how the money 
which is spent politically is spent? I am not doing this in terms of 
any law violations. 

Mr. Reuther. You want that in a memo ? 

Senator Mundt. Yes. The reason is that it would be one of our re- 
sponsibilities to look into the problem of whether any new legislation 
is needed in this field. I am not making any allegations of any im- 
proper or illegal activities. We do have to find out whether new 
legislation is needed in this field, and it may be from your standpoint 
and the standpoint of corporations. 

In that connection I would like to ask you this question : Do you 
feel the Federal Corrupt Practices Act was designed to prevent both 
the expenditure of union funds and the expenditure of corporation 
funds for political purposes, or do you construe it just to be applicable 
to corporations ? 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Mundt, I have here a magazine that bears on 
the point you raised. 

Senator Mundt. Answer the question first. 



10190 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Reuther. I maintain that the trade union movement in America 
in the area in which it is spending what we call organizational or edu- 
cational funds is merely carrying on his legal right to exercise the 
right to disseminate its point of view on issues, and this is an area in 
which we have a legal right. 

Corporations have that same legal right. If you will look at this 
magazine called Nation's Business, July 1956, there is a large head- 
line across the top of the page which says, "Business in Politics.*' 
How far can you get ? Then there is a paragraph which reads : 

Paid for salaries to employees who spent part of their time in political activ- 
ity. Union staff members spend a lot of time politicking. The late Senator 
Taft's campaign got help from management employees drawing full salaries from 
their companies. 

The Ford Motor Co. does this. They have their people spending 
time during elections. I think they have a legal right, So do we. 
But when it comes to financing Federal campaigns and making con- 
tributions to candidates, we adhere strictly to the law and we use only 
voluntary funds. 

Senator Mundt. Is your answer in the affirmative that you feel the 
Federal Corrupt Practices Act was to be applied equally to corpora- 
tions and unions ? 

Mr. Reuther. That is right. If Time magazine, the Life magazine, 
to be accurate — and that is a business, it is a company organized to 
publish a magazine for the purpose of making a profit — if that maga- 
zine can run a full-page editorial and have five or seven million circu- 
lation and be subsidized by special mailing privileges, subsidized by 
the taxpayers of the United States, in which they run a full-page 
editorial endorsing a candidate, then our union can do the same thing 
and General Motors can do the same thing. 

Senator Mundt. I am just trying to establish for the record 

Mr. Reuther. The General Motors Corp. contributed as their 
records will show, between 1947 and 1950 — the General Motors Corp. 
gave to educational groups, to propaganda groups, $4.5 million, and 
if you will trace down that money you will find it was used to peddle 
their ideas through many organizations that are doing that. 

Senator Mundt. Just answer the question. 

Mr. Reuther. I say they have a right, 

Senator Mundt. All right, Answer 2 or 3 quick questions and we 
will button this up because when you have provided the information 
I have asked for which you will put in the record at this point, we are 
going later in these hearings to the whole sticky problem of what 
legitimate functions unions should play in politics and what they 
should not. 

But at this juncture, so we can see that we have a meeting of minds, 
you have told me, I believe, that you feel the Federal Corrupt Prac- 
tices Act now intends to apply the restrictions against political activi- 
ties equally to unions and to corporations. Would you go with me on 
this point? If that is or is not true, that whatever laws are written in 
the field of political activities — new laws — should apply equally to 
union activities and corporation activities? 

Mr. Reuther. First of all, the existing legislation already provides 
that neither a trade union nor a corporation 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR MELD 10191 

Senator Mundt. We have agreed on that. We are looking ahead. 

Mr. Reuther. All right. I am opposed to any effort to abridge the 
right of self-expression whether it be by the spoken word or the 
printed word, and I am in favor of permitting every American to 
express his point of view. I say that when a newspaper runs an 
editorial as newspapers do on candidates 

Senator Mundt. We are not arguing for new laws. We are saying 
if new laws are to be written, if they are to be written, would you go 
along with the point of view that they should deal similarly and 
equally with corporations and unions. Maybe we don't need any 
new laws. Maybe we do. 

Mr. Reuther. I don't think you need new laws. 

Senator Mundt. The point is, do you agree they should be kept in 
balance as I have suggested ? 

Mr. Reuther. I would like to see the legislation you are talking 
about and maybe I can answer it more intelligently. I am not going 
to get into a discussion where you are talking about hypothetical 
abstracts. 

Senator Mundt. You are not willing to apply to the principle that 
whatever applies to the unions should apply to corporations and 
whatever applies to corporations should apply to unions in the field 
of political activity. You won't take that principle and accept it? 

Mr. Reuther. The law is already there with respect to contribu- 
tions of Federal candidates, parties, and so forth. 

Senator Mundt. We are looking ahead. 

Mr. Reuther. With respect to the question of freedom of expression 
I would not want to infringe on that as it relates to any group in 
America. 

Senator Mundt. About how long do you think it would take for you 
to provide for the record the material we requested ? 

Mr. Reuther. I don't know. 

Senator Mundt. Just a rough guess. Two weeks, three weeks ? 

Mr. Reuther. I might say we will do it as quickly as we can. 

Senator Mundt. Within a month certainly ? 

Mr. Reuther. I am sure it can be done even quicker than that. We 
will do it as quickly as we can. 

Senator Mundt. I am not trying to press you for time. 

Mr. Reuther. I understand that. 

Senator Mundt. I don't want any delayed tactics which gets us by 
the adjournment of Congress. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, when we recessed last night I had 
started to ask some questions. All of them were pertinent to the Kohler 
strike and I shall continue in that. In the testimony that has been 
adduced here through the weeks, we have found considerable material 
in the Kohler situation that is of value on the question that we voted 
to investigate. 

The treatment of police, the appeals, the attack upon judges, the 
refusal of extradiction and so on was so shocking that I turned to the 
news mediums of the country, which I believe is an institution of in- 
tegrity, to see what happens in other situations where the UAW was 
the union involved. 



10192 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I had about completed my references to these other strikes and 1 
have just a few questions further in that regard. 

Mr. Reuther, do you remember the Square-D strike in Detroit in 
the latter part of 1954 ? You may answer yes or no. 

Mr. Reuther. There was a strike in the city of Detroit at the 
Square-D Co. by another union, not by the UAW. 

Senator Curtis. I take it your answer is "yes." Was the union 
involved the UE ? 

Mr. Reuther. That is right. The strike was called by the UE. 

Senator Curtis. All right; when you have answered keep still for 
the next one. Was it alleged at that time that some of the UE leader- 
ship was communistic ? 

Mr. Reuther. Oh, it was alleged much before that time, Senator 
Curtis. I happen to be 

Senator Curtis. Just a minute, you answered the question and I 
have not yielded to you for a speech. 

The Detroit Press of September 4, 1954, quoted Emil Mazey, secre- 
tary-treasurer of the UAW-CIO, as follows : 

The workers have been caught in a squeeze play by unscrupulous manage- 
ment and the communism leadership of the United Electrical Workers. 

Is it true, Mr. Reuther, that later the UAW supported the Square-D 

Mr. Reuther. It is true, Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. I find in the Detroit Press 

Mr. Reuther. Mr. Chairman, I am a very patient man but I am still 
an American citizen with certain rights and I am going to exercise 
them whether the Senator wants me to or not. 

Senator Curtis. You are the only witness in this entire Republic of 
ours that comes here and attempts to dominate a committee. I shall 
ask the questions. 

The Chairman. Just one moment. 

Mr. Reuther. I never answered the question. 

The Chairman. Just one moment. There is not anybody going to 
dominate this committee as long as I am in this chair. Ask the ques- 
tion and the witness answer. 

Mr. Reuther. Mr. Chairman, I did not finish my answer. 

The Chairman. The witness answer the question and make brief 
explanations. It is quite proper for a witness to do that if he desires. 

Mr. Reuther. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The record will show that I have not even given an extremely brief 
answer to the last question, and yet Senator Curtis chops me off. I 
don't think that is fair. 

The Chairman. All right ; let us proceed. 

Mr. Reuther. I would like the last question repeated so I might 
answer it my way. 

Senator Curtis. It has already been answered. 

Mr. Reuther. It has not been answered. You are asking, I have not 
answered. I would like to have it reread. 

Senator Curtis. I would like to have the reporter read the question 
and answer. 

The Chairman. Read the question and answer and if the witness de- 
sires to make any explanation, the Chair will grant that permission. 

(The pending question and answer were read by the reporter.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 10193 

The Chairman. All right. What is the question now? Do you 
know ? Answer it. 

Mr. Reuther. I think the question was did we support that strike, 
and I said yes to that. And the second question was, referring to a 
quote from Mr. Mazey, of saying that the Communists were involved 
in this situation, and I think that that ought to be clarified, because 
we are not in the habit of supporting situations where the Communist 
leadership is involved, because we kicked these Communists out of the 
CIO, and I had a great deal to do with that, and the UAW had a 
great deal to do with that. 

Here was a situation where a group of workers had a strike, and it 
is true they were being victimized, on the one hand, by a company that 
wouldn't give them what they were entitled to, and they were being 
victimized by Communist leadership. 

We supported them because we were working to take that union 
away from the Communist-controlled union, and we did. That group 
is now in our union and that is why we supported them, to take them 
away from the Communists. 

I don't want the implication to be that we supported them because 
we were supporting Communists. 

The Chairman. Next question. 

Senator Curtis. I had no intention of doing that. 

I find that the Detroit Free Press, on September 10, the same year, 
states : 

The plant was harassed by mass picketing, reinforced by UAW members. 

On the next day, the same paper said that a UAW picket told the 
police : 

You are wasting your time here. We are going to follow those workers to 
their homes. You can look for trouble there. 

Mr. Reuther, is it true that on September 14, 1954, the International 
CAW-CIO gave its approval to the strike ? 

Mr. Reuther. I do not know the exact dates, but as I said earlier, 
at the point where we felt it was possible to liberate these workers from 
Communist-dominated leadership in the Communist-controlled UE, 
we gave the official sanction and support as a part of our efforts to win 
these workers over, and we did so win them over and liberate them 
from Communist domination. 

Senator Curtis. All right. 

The Detroit Free Press on September 14, 1954, says that the Inter- 
actional UAW-CIO gave its approval for the first time Monday to 
mass picketing by the locals in support of the bitter 91-day strike at the 
Square-D plant. 

The announcement concerned 14 locals with 200,000 employees, and 
pledged their "full moral, physical, and financial support to the 
Square-D workers." Later on in the month, on the 24th, the Detroit 
Free Press carried the news item of Emil Mazey's denunciation of 
Judge Skillman. 

Do you remember whether or not Mr. Mazey did make a statement 
about Judge Skillman ? 

Mr Reuther. I do not. This is the first time that has ever been 
called to my attention. I know nothing about it. 



10194 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. I beg your pardon for not prefacing these remarks 
by stating that 1 was not trying to bring the Communist issue in at 
all. I am pursuing my theme of your practice, meaning your union, 
toward the administration of justice. 

Mr. Reuther, was your union engaged in a strike at the Bell Air- 
craft Corp. in Buffalo, N. Y., in 1949 ? 

Mr. Reuther. I think it was. 

Senator Curtis. The Buffalo Evening News of September 3, 1949, 
quoted a union spokesman to the effect that, and I quote : 

That little commando raid, the union's march on the Bell plant on August 
39th, was just a skirmish, just to show what we could do that they couldn't 
expect. 

The same paper on September 28, 1949, carried the story that the 
strikers attacked several carloads of workers and stoned a school bus 
carrying senior high school students to Niagara Falls in the apparent 
belief that it was carrying workers. 

One car containing workers was smashed by strikers. Women and 
children were being used on picket lines. The paper also says that the 
judge of the children's court stated that he would entertain proceedings 
against any parent who places his child in a position of like physical 
danger or injury. And on the next day, the same paper summarized 
the incidents as follows : 

Clubs and fists flew, rocks were hurled, and tear gas was used as a renewal of 
violence shook the Bell Aircraft strike scene. Sheriff Meisner reported that 28 
of his deputies had been hurt by a hail of rocks and clubs. 

Sixteen unionists, including six women, were held. The incident 
opposed a motorcade of workers coming into the plant. 

Mr. Reuther, I do not ask you to agree to the accuracy of the news 
reporting of that time. But my question is : Did all of this happen 
after you became — or is all of this alleged to have happened — after 
you became president of the UAW-CIO ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, if it took place in 1947 

Senator Curtis. 1949. 

Mr. Reuther. 1949. It was during the period that I was president 
of the UAW. 

Senator Curtis. Now, here is something else following the pattern. 
The Buffalo Evening News of October 5, 1949, states that the Greater 
Buffalo Industrial Union Council, CIO — this is the council, the CIO, 
to be distinguished from the UAW itself — adopted a resolution con- 
demning the Niagara law enforcement agency's legal and judicial 
departments for their activities in the Bell strike. 

The same paper, on October 13, 1949, quotes Walter P. Reuther in 
a personal appearance before the Bell strikers as saying that the in- 
ternational union will "mobilize the full power of the American labor 
unions until the white flag is raised over the Bell Aircraft Corp. 
plant." 

Do you recall making that statement ? 

Mr. Reuther. I do not. It is possible I could have made it. 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Reuther. But it seems to me that you ought to realize what 
we are talking about when we talk about the full power of our union. 
It means the full support of our union financially and organizationally 
to support the strikers to win. 



IMPROPER ACTiTVITIE© IN THE LABOR FIELD 10195 

But I think, Senator Curtis, that I cannot sit here and just take any 
report you take out of any paper and accept that as a fact. I don't 
want to keep challenging you, but I would like to give you an illustra- 
tion. 

Yesterday I sat on this witness stand and I talked about my attitude 
about violence and other things. Here is a typical example. Maybe 
6 years from now some Senator is going to read this headline as though 
it were gospel truth. Here is the Chicago Daily Tribune with a big 
headline, "Reuther O. K.s Goon Trial. UAW Backing of Leftwing 
ADA Bared," as though it was a big secret. 

Then it goes on, "Hires Ex-Reds, Boss Admits." 

But nobody that sat here yesterday thinks that I O. K.'d goon trials, 
and so forth. As the record shows, Senator Curtis, I have been the 
victim of more unprovoked violence than any man in public life. 

Senator Curtis. You told us that 3 or 4 times. 

Mr. Reuther. I know, but you don't want to talk about that. You 
just want to talk about the things that will try to put my union in a 
bad light, when my union has had to fight about this sort of thing. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I haven't asked him a question. 

Mr. Reuther. I am giving you this voluntarily. 

Senator Curtis. I know. 

The Chairman. Ask the question. 

Senator Curtis. The CIO News published in Washington, D. C, 
February 12, 1951, carries an article whichl want to read the first two 
paragraphs from to show a further delay and escape from sentence. 

Twenty-five members fined and sentenced to jail on charges of violating an 
antipicket injunction during the 1949 strike of the CIO autoworkers at the Bell 
Aircraft Corp., Niagara Falls, N. Y., wouldn't have to serve their prison terms. 
Justice William H. Munson, of the New York State Supreme Court, modified the 
sentences at the joint request of the attorneys for the union and the company 
who said they acted "in the interest of national defense." The fines still stand. 

My only purpose in referring to it is that there, again, these financed 
defenses delay and delay, and the sentence isn't carried out. These 
practices of mistreatment of police, coupled with attacks on our courts 
and judges, well-financed delays, totally demoralize the work of the 
police, prosecutors, and judges. 

Then you have coupled with that the fact of union-supported officials 
granting pardons, commuting sentences, and resisting extradition, 
which leads me up to the matter of the judges. 

Mr. Reuther, I want to ask you : Does the UAW take part in 
campaigning for judges of the courts in the State of Michigan ? 

Mr. Reuther. The UAW membership, through the processes by 
which those decisions are made, not the union, but the groups that 
come together for the purpose of discussing the endorsement of candi- 
dates, they do endorse officials at every level of our government. 

Senator Curtis. When Mr. Gunaca was before the committee, and 
I am referring to the Gunaca who is wanted in Wisconsin and who is 
still in Michigan, he stated that some of his work that he did for the 
union was to campaign for judges. 

Was Mr. Gunaca correct in that, that his employer was the union, 
or is my understanding of that correct ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, I obviously am not familiar with Mr. Gunaca's 
activities. I never met the man. If he says under oath that he was 
involved in some campaigning there, and that there was a slate that 



10196 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

had offices for various local governments, including judges, I assume 
that is correct. 

Senator Curtis. In these hearings on the Kohler strike, we have 
found that the UAW contributed to the campaign fund of Sheriff 
Mosch, and also of the mayor of the town, who, in turn, had charge of 
the police. 

Mr. Reuther, has that practice been carried on in Michigan ? 

Mr. Reuther. Would you repeat that, please ? 

Senator Curtis. Now, in these hearings on the Kohler strike, we 
have found that the UAW contributed to the campaign fund of Sheriff 
Mosch, and also to the mayor of the town who, in turn, had charge of 
the police. 

Mr. Reuther, has that practice been carried on in Michigan ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, I just stated that through the mechanisms of 
the labor movement — I mean, in the city of Detroit, the UAW doesn't 
endorse people and we don't endorse people in Michigan, but there are 
established councils of the AFL-CIO by which workers in a congres- 
sional district get together and they discuss, after having the committee 
interview the candidates, on which candidate they think, based on the 
candidate's thinking on the issues, they ought to endorse. 

That is true at the various levels. If it is a statewide contest, there 
is a comparable meeting at the State level and they make the decision 
there. It is not a UAW decision. It is a decision through the coun- 
cil machinery established for the purpose of making an endorsement, 
based upon a discussion with the candidates, and based upon where 
they stand, and only the decision is made by the people involved at that 
level. 

I don't participate in these things. People in the congressional 
district or the State. 

Mr. Reuther. If you can show us — I have never said there is no 
corruption in the UAW ? 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Goldwater — Senator Curtis, if you 

Senator Curtis. Thank you. 

Mr. Reuther. If you can show us — I have never said there is no 
corruption. I have said that we have not been able to find any, and 
if there is some somewhere that we don't know about, and you can ex- 
pose it, you bring us the evidence and, as I told you the other day, we 
will not wait until tomorrow ; we will go to work today yet. 

Now, we have never claimed perfection. But I believe a union 
which is prepared to have its stewardship reviewed by a panel of pub- 
lic-spirited citizens in the important area of its internal democratic 
procedures, on the Communist question, on the corruption tiling, that 
that union, while not claiming perfection, as we don't, is nevertheless a 
union that is desirious of trying to move toward perfection as far as 
that is possible for a group of individuals to do. 

So I say to you, we don't claim there is no corruption, but we don't 
know where any of it exists or we would clean it up. 

Senator Curtis. The record has been established here, and I could 
think of no more serious form of corruption than the using of union 
money, manpower, and political strength to hamper, harass, interfere 
with, and obstruct the administration of justice and to undermine our 
courts. 

If we were going to view corruption going on in the world today as 
it affects the youth of our land in any community, and you had on the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10197 

one hand a community where a labor leader had betrayed his trust 
and embezzled his workers' money, that is bad; it would have a very 
bad effect, and is a bad form of corruption. 

On the other hand, if our youth must grow up in a community where 
violence takes place, where instead of police being respected and obeyed 
they are roughed up, where a great organization with millions comes 
in and finances the defense of people who unmercifully beat up others, 
like William Vincent did, where that same organization attacks judges, 
where part of the offenders seek refuge in another State, and the extra- 
dition is prevented— were those two types of corruption to be com- 
pared, I think the answer would be tweedle-dee or tweedle-dum. 

Mr. Reuther. Have you concluded ? 

Senator Curtis. I want to ask you about something that you said 
the other day. 

Mr. Reuther. Wait a minute, now. In all fairness, I think you 
have made a conclusion. I think 3-011 had that conclusion about a 
year and a half or 2 years ago. It didn't come out of this hearing. 
You are now trying to prove a predetermined position, which is polit- 
ically motivated, in my opinion. 

Senator Curtis. All right. 

Mr. Reuther. You have not proven that the UAW is attempting to 
tamper with justice ; yesterday you attempted to challenge the integ- 
rity of a public official, Governor Williams, by impugning his integrity 
by saying that he was obligated to us, by trying to say that he is 
blocking justice and so forth. This is not true. You could not prove 
it is true. I have a document here right now, the Congressional 
Record, where a member of the three Republicans who sit there used 
language talking about the Supreme Court decision. 

It would be just as easy for me to pull all that out and then try to 
say that this proves that you are trying to undermine the status of 
the Supreme Court. 

I think that that would be ridiculous. But when you do it, it is 
equally ridiculous, in my opinion. You have not proven this. 

You take isolated newspaper clippings, pick up this, you pick up 
that. 

And then you try to fabricate a conclusion. Just as Senator Gold- 
water the other day referred to 37 deaths and talked about the UAW ; 
and when Senator Paul Douglas dug up the record, not one of these 
people was killed in a UAW strike. 

Why did you associate it with the UAW ? 

This is part of the smear campaign. Our union has had less violence 
than most unions. That is why none of these 37 people who were 
killed were in our union. This is the attempt — the decision is: 
Reuther has got to be destroyed because his union is active in politics, 
and let's find some way. 

We know Reuther didn't steal any money. We know Reuther 
hasn't got gangsters running his union. We know they kicked out 
the Communists. Now let's fabricate this theory of violence. 

Senator Goldwater then talks about the 37 killings and makes it 
look like it is the UAW but none of them were in the UAW. Why ? 

Because the simple facts are, Senator Curtis, that we have been 
involved in violence, mostly on the receiving end, and where there were 
mistakes made in these isolated situations, involving the biggest union 

21243— 58— pt. 25 19 



10198 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

in America, with 2,600 contracts, you can't fabricate out of these little 
isolated situations a conclusion and substantiate it as you are trying to. 
The facts are that this union has worked hard to avoid violence. We 
have done everything in our power to discourage it. 

Senator Curtis. All right. 

Mr. Reuther. But that doesn't change the fact that sometimes peo- 
ple being human are carried away by their emotions and they do things 
that are wrong, and we condemn that. When you say we are trying 
to obstruct justice, we are trying to corrupt justice, I am here to tell 
you you are wrong, and you can go on doing it. But you are wrong. 

And if you think it will get you political votes, you go ahead, 
because you are fooling yourself. The people of this country are 
going to look at you and say : What are you doing about unemploy- 
ment, what are you doing about farmers, what are you doing about 
schools? And these are the things that will determine the election 
issue in 1958 and 1960. 

Senator Curtis. All right, Mr. Reuther. That isn't the first time 
that you have cluttered up our records here with attacks upon mem- 
bers of the committee. I repeat there is no other citizen in the United 
States that shows such disrespect for the Senate of the United States 
as you. 

Mr. Reuther. I might say that I have never been treated so disre- 
spectfully as I have been treated by certain members of the Republican 
minority that sit there. 

Senator Curtis. You answer the question and we will get along all 
right. 

The record is well established. 

The Chairman. This Chair is not going to permit anybody to 
show disrespect and contempt of this committee, knowingly; if any 
is being shown here, it hasn't penetrated me yet. 

I think a witness has a right to answer. I would like for the 
witness — I don't mind telling him — to shorten his speeches and let's get 
along. 

Mr. Reuther. I would like to shorten this whole affair, Senator, if 
we can stick to the Kohler strike. 

(At this point, the following members of the committee were pres- 
ent: Senators McClellan, McNamara, Gold water, Mundt and Curtis.) 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Reuther, on Thursday you said before this 
committee, found on page 4:203 of the transcript, and I quote : 

Unlike some of the other unions that were called here before your committee, 
our union does not appear here in defense of its activities as it delates to cor- 
ruption and racketeering. 

Will you state what other unions you were referring to ? 

Mr. Reuther. I think that there were five unions before your com- 
mittee who fell in the general category that I was defining. 

Senator Curtis. Will you identify them ? 

Mr. Reuther. I think the Teamsters Union, I think the Bakers 
Union, I think the Allied Industrial Workers Union, I think the 
Operating Engineers were involved, and the United Textile Workers. 
I think that is the list. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Reuther, also relating to your testimony on 
Thursday, page 4205, you said this : 

Because a certain small minority in the leadership of the American labor 
movement have betrayed their sacred trust * * * 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES! EN THE LABOR FIELD 10199 

Mr. Reuther, what leaders were you referring to ? 

Mr. Reuther. Your committee published the report, and you dealt 
in detail with the individuals involved. 

I can't name all those individuals because I don't remember every 
individual, but they are all set forth. 

Senator Curtis. Name as many as you can, please. 

Mr. Reother. They are all set forth in your reply. 

Senator Curtis. I understand. But I am quoting from your 
statement. 

Mr. Reuther. I will name you people that come to mind without 
too much thought. Mr. Beck, and Mr. Hoifa, and there were all the 
people in the Teamsters union who were involved in wrongdoings that 
were found to be guilty of these wrongdoings by the AFL-CIO 
Ethical Practices Committee and the executive council. 

Then there was Mr. Cross of the Bakers Union, Mr. Valente and 
Mr. Klenert of the United Textile Workers Union, among others. 

Senator Curtis. The other day — and I do not expect to put any 
cumbersome material in the record, Mr. Chairman, but I want the 
record to show the response to my request for material — on March 25, 
1958, 1 made a request, which is found on page 3851 of the transcript 
for that day, in which I said I wanted certain information that I would 
like to have Mr. Reuther furnish at the beginning of his testimony. 

The information I requested was 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 received. 

I have received a list containing almost 32 pages, with 22 names on 
a page, which is entitled "International Representatives" and a state- 
ment that it is the representatives as of Wednesday, March 26, 1958. 

I have not received all of them that were requested under the request 
because I requested all that had been commissioned. 

I did receive what appears to be an identification or credentials 
card which I assume is in response to my request for a copy of the 
commission form used. 

Mr. Chairman, it is very small but it shows some of the authority 
or the authority of an international representative. I ask unanimous 
consent that that be put in the record. 

The Chairman. Without objection, the card will be printed in the 
record. 

(The matter referred to is as follows :) 

International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural 
Implement Workers of America (UAW) 

To Whom It May Concern: 

This is to certify that is hereby duly authorized and 

legally commissioned as of the International Union, United 

Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). 
This commission is issued by virtue of the authority vested in the international 
president and international secretary-treasurer by the constitution of the Inter- 
national Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement 
Workers of America (UAW), and entitled the bearer to do and perform all 
lawful acts pertaining to his office and to exercise all the authority conferred by 



10200 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

the laws of the organization. This commission expires 10 days after the Seven- 
teenth Convention of the UAW, unless terminated previously under the terms 
of the Constitution. 

this day of 193__. 

Walter P. Reuther, 

International President. 
Emil Mazey, 
International Secretary-Treasurer. 

Senator Curtis. Secondly, my request was that each individual 
listed as an international representative be identified amply and that 
such identification include any aliases which might have been used by 
such representatives. 

The only compliance I have received in regard to this is that on the 
32 pages I referred to there is the mailing- address given. 

No response at all was given to my request that they give ample 
identification and particularly that they give any aliases that may 
have been used. 

The third thing that I asked for was a list showing the instances in 
which each international representative has been designated to serve 
in a labor dispute, either directly participating in the dispute or serv- 
ing in an advisory or consultative capacity for any period of time 
whatsoever. 

This has not been complied with. 

Fourth, I asked for all information which the UAW-CIO has 
concerning the arrest of any international representative in connec- 
tion with the commission of a misdemeanor or a felony, either while 
serving as such representative or at any other time. 

This has not been complied with. 

Mr. Chairman, it is, I submit, that it could have been complied with 
very quickly and easily. The legal department of the UAW provides 
lawyers and maintains the defense for their men, at least many times 
when they are arrested. 

Therefore, they do have records right there that their legal depart- 
ments could have assembled right off. 

My request was for information concerning the arrest upon which 
the UAW had information. They haven't complied with the list of 
the people that they have participated in the defense of. 

Fifth, my request was as follows: A copy of the constitution of 
the UAW. That has not been complied with. 

I did receive a page and a haf of excerpts from the UAW con- 
stitution. But certainly my request was not unreasonable and it 
could have been complied with. 

Now, on with the question, Mr. Reuther 

Mr. Reuther. May I respond on that because I would like to tell 
the Senator what we are trying to do. 

The Chairman. Just one moment. The request was made, I be- 
lieve, on the 25th. I do not know and I am not prepared to say, but I 
would like to inquire whether you are undertaking to comply with 
the request and if you are getting up the material that Senator Curtis 
has requested. 

Mr. Reuther. Mr. Chairman, I will tell you precisely what hap- 
pened. We were given notice — actually we had 24 notices before I 
came down here — it was the very day we started GM negotiations. 
But I asked my staff before I left the office very hurriedly to meet 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10201 

with the GM committee, preparatory to meeting with the General 
Motors Corp. — I got this message over the phone. 

Based upon that we have submitted, as Senator Curtis has indi- 
cated, a list of all of the international representatives with their mail- 
ing address. We supplied the copy of what he asked for which was 
the commission of authority, the credential. We supplied the em- 
ployment record. The constitution has already been put in the record. 

We assumed he had that. But certainly we will give that to you. 

The other things, I asked my lawyers, I asked my staff to go to work 
and try to find out how this could be pooled together and how quickly. 
Much of this is information we don't have. 

For example, we can only employ a person who goes to work first in 
a factory. In other words, a General Motors worker on our staff who 
is a GM worker has to be first employed by General Motors and go to 
work in the factory. 

There is some of this material that we don't have possession of. I 
have my staff looking for it. 

I left at the end of that day to come down here. I have been down 
here since. It seems to me that you can't ask an organization in a 
short period of time to provide material. 

You take this question of aliases. The only aliases I know is Bob 
Burkhart and I didn't know that until this hearing was held. 

When we hire an international representative, first of all the consti- 
tution requires he must have worked in a factory, and secondly, he 
has to be a member of our union for a year, and in 99 cases out of 100 
he is a local union officer and so forth. When we put him on our pay 
roll, we don't say, "Tell us your aliases." We don't treat them this way. 

I don't know how to go find out about aliases. It seems to me this 
is a kind of request I have never had before, so we are checking. Out- 
side of Bob Burkhart's aliases, which I learned as a result of this 
.committee, our application doesn't have a line here, your name and 
then you aliases. We are looking into this thing. 

I am perfectly willing, Mr. Chairman, when I get back to the office 
next week, if I get there, to be in touch with you to tell you what we 
might do about it. We try to be cooperative. 

I ask any reasonable person, if you ask Mr. Curtice, president of 
General Motors Corp. how many employees in General Motors have 
aliases and what they are, he would have a devil of a time providing 
that information and yet they go into greater detail because they hire 
people off the street. 

We hired people who are in our organization and coming up in its 
leadership. We are willing to go back. 

The Chairman. I am trying to determine what is lacking. The 
aliases is one. What else is lacking on the request ? 

Mr. Reuther. The labor disputes. That will take some checking 
because international representatives assignments are changed. We 
have to go back and can't do that overnight. Then there is the arrests. 
The question as I understand, concerns any misdemeanor or felony 
in a fellow's life. 

If you think you can get that by pressing a button, I think you are 
wrong. This is a difficult assignment. 

We are willing to go back and check to see what we can do about it 
because we are not trying to hide anything. 



10202 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

To the best of my knowledge, there has been only one felony com- 
mitted by an international rep since I have been president. It is not 
that we are trying to hide anything. We don't hire people coming out 
of penitentiaries like some unions. 

When you say to me, "How many fellows have aliases?" some guy 
may hit me if I ask him that question. This is not an easy assignment. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that in 
reference 

The Chairman. Let the Chair request the witness to provide the 
requested information as early as he can and as complete as he can 
conveniently. I can appreciate you will have some difficulty tracing 
down all the aliases, but as far as you have no record or information, 
supply it at your earliest convenience. 

Mr. Reuther. I shall be glad, Mr. Chairman, to cooperate with your 
request as best I can. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, it might be helpful if I call atten- 
tion to the fact that in reference to the request I said all the information 
which the TJAW-CIO has. 

I didn't ask him to go outside and search for that, because they do 
conduct the defenses for these people. 

I also want to point out that the people that I am asking this 
information for are those who carry around the credentials as inter- 
national representatives. They are representative of the international 
union. They are appointed by the president and the executive council. 

Reuther is the president, he is the chairman of the executive council. 
T have made no such request about all of their members, but the people 
who represent them. 

I am willing, and this may help you, Mr. Reuther, to modify my 
request concerning the aliases, to that list of individuals involved in 
the arrests, because my request for the number that have been arrested 
is those that the UAW has knowledge of which would boil down 
primarily to those that you furnished the defense for. 

The Chairman. Senator, over what period of time do you want to 
go back ? 

As I understand you, you want the names of those who have been 
arrested. 

Senator Curtis. All I want is the information concerning arrests 
that the UAW has now. 

The Chairman. For what period of time ? Five years back, ten 

Senator Curtis. Since Air. Reuther has headed it. 

The Chairman. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator Curtis. Since Mr. Reuther has been president. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Reuther. As I said we will do our very best to cooperate. I 
would like to ask this: Has this information been requested of other 
unions that have been before this committee ? 

It wouldn't change our attitude. I ask that as a matter of informa- 
tion. 

The Chairman. As far as I know, it has not. I do not recall. There 
have been instances, of course, when heads of other unions have been 
closely interrogated about different individuals. 

Mr. Reuther. In other words, some of the unions in which there 
was ample evidence that they hired people as they came out of the 
penitentiaries, they have not been asked for this? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10203 

We shall cooperate to do our best to provide it. 

The Chairman. I wouldn't say that they haven't been asked for 
any of it, at least, because they have been asked questions. 

Mr. Reutiier. I mean this specific information. 

The Chairman. I do not recall a broad overall request such as this 
having been made. 

Mr. Reutiier. I only ask it for information. Thank you. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Senator Curtis. I have two requests that I would like to make at 
this time. They, of course, cannot be complied with while this hearing 
is going on. If you will give them appropriate attention after your 
pressing bargaining sessions are over, it will be all right. 

Mr. Reuther, will you furnish this committee the following infor- 
mation : 

One, identification of all strikes involving the UAW-CIO since 
you have been its president, including dates when strikes actually 
began and dates of termination ; second, in each strike indicate whether 
the company did or did not attempt to continue operation during the 
strike. 

I use the term operation to mean a continued output of products by 
the plan as distinguished from maintenance or standby work of a 
custodial nature. 

Mr. Reuther. I shall be happy to provide you with that at the 
earliest date. 

Senator Curtis. I will provide you a copy of that so you won't have 
to cany around the whole thing. 

Mr. Reuther, in a statement prepared by you and sent to my office 
a few weeks ago, you stated : 

No UAW officer lias conflicting investments in any firm with which our union 
bargains collectively or purchases materials, supplies or services. 

No officer of our union has ever received a kickback or a bribe from anyone. 

No officer of the UAW has grown rich at the expense of the union or the mem- 
bership. 

No officer of the UAW has charged his personal or private purchases or gifts 
or entertainment to the union treasury. 

No officer of the UAW has ever received or accepted expensive or lavish gifts 
from the international union, its locals, or any management source. 

In a word, Mr. Reuther, you are saying, am I correct, that no present 
officer of your union has ever been in the position as a union officer of 
purchasing goods or services from an organization in which he had a 
financial interest ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Reutiier. I am not saying that. I am saying that to the best 
of our knowledge there is not an officer of this union who is corrupt 
and who stands in violation of the ethical practices code of the 
AFL-CIO. 

That is what I am saying. 

Senator Curtis. Then you do not say that no present officer of your 
union has ever been in a position as a union officer of purchasing goods 
or services from an organization in which he has a financial interest? 

Mr. Reuther. No, I didn't say, because I know what you are refer- 
ring to. 

Senator Curtis. You would say, then, that some of your present 
officers have been in that position ? 



10204 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Ret ther. Why don't we get it out on top of the table and quit 
shadow boxing? 

Senator Cruris. No. 

Air. Reuther. I know you are (silking about a vice president of our 
union. Senator Goldwater talked a'nout him in this telecast, and I 
think it was very unfair because the facts will show very clearly that 
the vice president you are referring to, and as was pointed out here — 
you just get the facts and you will find when you talk about a land 
deal and the person involved along with some other people were sup- 
posed to purchase some property on a lake front. 

They did. They were supposed to have made a big killing by selling 
it to the local union. The facts on that are these, that what happened 
was that a group of private individuals, including a person who was 
a vice president of our union, bought some lake property on a lake in 
Michigan not too far from Toledo at a time when the level of the water 
at that lake was receding rapidly and the land values were declining 
rapidly. 

They bought the land at a very low price. Later on the Army 
Engineers changed the flow of water in that area and the lake regained 
its normal level. 

I think this was in 1948 or somewhere about that time. At that 
time the land which was depreciating in value because of the level of 
the water dropping rapidly, getting to be a big mud hole and not a 
lake, at the point the water came back to its normal level, the property 
obviously increased in value and became then an attractive site for 
a summer camp for children. 

Local 12 was interested in purchasing this piece of property for a 
summer camp for underprivileged children which they operate. 

At the point this transaction was to be made in which a person in 
our union, in official capacity, owning in part with other private citi- 
zens a piece of land which the local union wished to buy, the inter- 
national union had made in that situation two independent appraisals 
of the value of that land by two independent realtors, and they set 
the value of the land, the property, one, I think, at $34,000 and one 
at $33,000, and the property was sold to the local union at $20,000, at 
$13,000 less than the appraisal by the lowest estimate. That is one 
part of the story. 

The other part of the story, which proves conclusively that the 
person involved did not make a profit at the expense of the local by 
using his official position but rather sacrificed by selling the land 
along with the other people with whom he held it jointly, at a very 
low figure, $13,000 to be exact below the estimated value, the other 
case is the hardware store. 

Senator Curtis. Before we leave that case, I do not want to throw 
suspicion on the wrong person, so we might as well say we are talking 
about Mr. Richard Gosser your senior vice president. 

Is he the senior vice president ? 

Mr. Reuther. At the time this took place he was not a vice presi- 
dent. That does not change it. Whether the thing is right or wrong 
does not matter whether he was an officer. 

Senator Curtis. I am not seeking to show, Mr. Reuther, to what 
extent, if at all, there was an unjust enrichment. Our only reason 
for investigations for legislative purposes, in common parlance, in 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10205 

dealing with other people's money, is that you can't wear two hats 
at once. 

A fiduciary cannot do business with himself. A guardian of some- 
one else's funds cannot transact business with himself. It is not 
regarded as ethical. So I am inquiring at this time not into the 
question of whether a profit was shown, but whether or not the prac- 
tice was followed. 

Mr. Reuther. But the point you asked me is whether there was 
corruption and if Mr. Gosser as a private citizen 

Senator Curtis. No, I didn't ask you that. 

Mr. Reuther. Owning a piece of land 

Senator Curtis. I don't think I used the word "corruption." 

Mr. Reuther. This is how the subject matter was raised, I under- 
stand. 

Senator Curtis. No. I was talking about corruption in the law 
enforcement matter. 

Mr. Reuther. Oh, maybe I am wrong, but the reason I say that 
is because Senator Goldwater raised the question of corruption on 
the television program. 

Mr. Gosser was accused of being corrupt. In exact words, or 
precisely that is the same thing he said. But what Mr. Gosser did, 
as I am informed from the evidence that we have, is precisely the 
same thing that Mr. Hoffa and Mr. Beck did. 

This was not a judicial examination of facts. This was a charge 
made on a national television network. 

Senator Curtis. All right. There is a great injustice to a man who 
has not done anything wrong. 

(Members of the select committee present at this point were Sena- 
tors McClellan, McNamara, Munclt, Curtis, and Goldwater.) 

Sentaor Curtis. Mr. Reuther, I am asking you all about what you 
said here. I want to get this straight. What was the name of the 
concern that sold this lake property? What that the Willowland 
Sportsmens Club ? 

Mr. Reuther. It could be. I am not sure about the exact titles. 

Senator Curtis. And Mr. Gosser was head of that? 

Mr. Reuther. Mr. Gosser, along with a group of people that had 
this sportsmens club and they purchased the land as a part of that 
effort. 

Senator Curtis. And he was the head of that and he did sell 
it to the union of which he was an officer, is that right ? 

Mr. Reuther. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. Did Mr. Gosser have an interest in the Colonial 
Hardware Store ? 

Mr. Reuther. He did. That is what I was trying to talk about. 

Senator Curtis. Was he also the head at one time of the Auto- 
motive Workers Building Corporation in Toledo ? 

Mr. Reuther. He was, because at one time he was president of the 
local, and at that time he was the president of the local he auto- 
matically became the president of the Local 12 Building Corporation. 

Senator Curtis. Was a principal source of income for this cor- 
poration union dues of the UAW members in the Toledo area ? By 
corporation, I mean the Building Corporation. 

Mr. Reuther. Well, we have an arrangement which is, I think, quite 
common in organizations like trade unions. When they hold prop- 



10206 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

erty, they create a building corporation for the purpose of holding 
the property and the membership of the local are also the members 
of the building corporation. So the moneys that the building cor- 
poration used to buy property was money from the membership 
of local union 12. 

It is the same thing. It is just a legal way of holding the property. 

Senator Curtis. So Mr. Gosser was an officer in the organization 
that sold, and he was also an officer in the organization that pur- 
chased, so far as the lake property is concerned, is that correct? 

Mr. Reuther. Mr. Gosser in the one group, if you use the Willow- 
land — what was it ? 

Senator Curtis. Sportsmen Club. 

Mr. Reuther. Willowland Sportsmen Club, that was a private 
organization of which he was a member as a private citizen. It is 
true that he was an officer of the local and the head of the Building 
Corporation that bought the property, that is correct. 

Senator Curtis. Then he was a part owner in the Colonial Hard- 
ware Store ? 

Mr. Reuther. It is my understanding that he held an interest in 
the Colonial Hardware Store. 

Senator Curtis. Did the Colonial Hardware Store sell supplies 
to the Building Corporation ? 

Mr. Reuther. It is my understanding that the local union did pur- 
chase certain supplies from the Colonial Hardware Store. It is 
my understanding, also, that it was always done on a competitive 
basis. 

I do positively know that the sacrifice of this land, because I 
checked it very carefully before I came down here, was in the figure 
of $13,000, which, measured against the total value, was percentage- 
wise very high. 

It was sold for $20,000 and the low estimate was for $33,000. 

Senator Curtis. Sold below the estimate but more than what he 



purchased it for ? 

Mr. Reuther. I think he got essentially out of it what was repre- 
sented by the changes in the dollar value because of the inflationary 
movement. The land, of course, improved in value because the lake 
became an attractive place again, rather than a mudhole because of 
the work of the Army Engineers. 

Senator Curtis. Did the Colonial Hardware Store sell supplies 
to some farms that the union owns ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, local 12, as a parts of this, and I think if 
you went up there and saw what they are doing you would feel pretty 
good about it. 

They provide opportunities for underprivileged children from 
Toledo to go up there for free and they felt that as one of the ways of 
trying to make it possible for more underprivileged children to have 
this opportunity they thought they could reduce the cost of operating 
the camp by raising some of their own food. 

vSo they have a couple of adjoining farms to the camp property 
where they raise food, meats, and other things and dairy products for 
use in the camp. 

Senator Curtis. It is true that there were a considerable number of 
slot machines in various union headquarters in the Toledo area in the 
late 1940's? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10207 

Mr. Reuther. Not to my knowledge. This is one thing — while 
1 am not supposed to be the custodian of the morals of the people who 
make up the membership of our union, I disapprove most heartily of 
slot machines in any union hall. 

Whether people have them in Nevada is their business in the gam- 
bling places, but I don't think the union hall is a proper place for a slot 
machine or anything of that type. 

I do not know personally whether there were, but I was told by an 
officer of this union that they did not have slot machines there. If 
they had, it was wrong and I certainly would have been opposed to it. 

Senator Curtis. You would not know, then, whether it is true that 
50 percent of the proceeds of these solt machines went into the union 
treasury i 

Mr. Reuther. I beg your pardon? 

Senator Curtis. You do not know, then whether 50 percent of the 
proceeds of slot machines, if they existed, went into the treasury, the 
union treasury ? 

Mr. Reuther. I know nothing about slot machines and I just do not 
think they were there because the attitude of our union on this matter 
has been clear for a number of years. We do not approve of it and, 
after all, in a voluntary organization, a democratic union, fellows do 
a lot of things on their own, but if a local union put slot machines in, 
I think we would do everything we could within the framework of a 
democratic union and constitution to get them out of those buildings. 

I think it is the wrong place for slot machines. If a fellow wants to 
go to a dive down the street, that is his business and throw his money 
away, that is his business, but the union hall is not the place to do it. 

Senator Curtis. Mr Mazey's report on the investigation said that 
there were slot machines. 

Mr. Reuther. Well, as I say, I had no knowledge of it and I am 
opposed to it. Does he indicate what happened to the slot machines ? 

Senator Curtis. What is that ? 

Mr. Reuther. Does he indicate that they were removed at that 
point ? 

Senator Curtis. No. 

Mr. Reuther. Well, I will bet you if they were there, that is what 
happened. Mr. Mazey got them out of there. 

Senator Curtis. I say no. I did not so read it. Maybe I am wrong. 

Then you do not know whether Mr. Gosser got 50 percent or 80 
percent of the slot machines, do you, the prceeds ? 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Goldwater, I would stake my life 

Senator Curtis. Thank you again. 

Mr. Reuther. On the fact that Mr. Gosser has never taken a penny 
that did not belong to him and I do not think he would have taken 
a penny from a slot machine if there were any there. 

Senator Curtis, you have read a lot of editorials. I would like to 
read a short one here about Mr. Gosser, because I think it is unfair 
to an American citizen whose name is raised, whose name is pushed 
all over the headlines here, in a public television show when the man 
is completely innocent. 

This man has not taken money that belongs to the local union. This 
man has not. The Colonial Hardware he did not do anything wrong 
there, but we said, "Look, we think it is wrong for you to even own a 
hardware store," and he got rid of his share of it. 



10208 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

But when Senator Goldwater says, "But what Mr. Gosser did, as 
I am informed from the evidence that we have, is precisely the same 
thaing that Mr. Hoffa and Mr. Beck did," that is not a little private 
conversation at a cocktail party. This is on a national network. 

I think it is no more than simple decency to let me read an editorial 
from Mr. (Josser's own hometown newspaper, as you put it yesterday. 

Senator Curtis. Before you do it, and I will let you do it, I want to 
remind you and correct the record that most — I think all but one, 
maybe all but one or two ; whatever the situation is, it will have to be — 
of the newspaper accounts I referred to were the news items. I made 
no allegation of Mr. Gosser making a profit. 

But "when I saw this statement in your statement that you handed 
out that : 

No officer lias conflicting investments in any firm with which our union bargains 
collectively or purchases materials or supplies from — 

I felt compelled to ask you if that meant that no present officers of 
your union had ever been in such a position. 

Mr. Reuther. I said, "has" which is the present tense and what you 
are talking about occurred back in 1948 when Mr. Gosser had a part 
interest in a hardware store. He sold that hardware store. 

I maintain there is a difference of night and day between what Mr. 
Gosser did on this land arrangement where he sold it for $13,000 less 
than what it could have brought on the market place to his local union, 
and what he did in the hardware store. 

Even there when we felt he should not do it, he sold his interest in 
the hardware store. I maintained there is a tremendous difference be- 
tween what Mr. Beck did and what Mr. Hoffa did, in the Test Fleet 
deal and these other things. 

When Mr. Goldwater says, "It is precisely the same thing as Mr. 
Hoffa and Mr. Beck," I do not think that is fair. I do not care which 
side of the table you are on politically or in terms of management or 
labor, the one thing we ought to try to do is respect the privacy of indi- 
viduals and not try to smear them in the public prints or in the radio 
and television when they are innocent. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Keuther, I think what can be pointed out, and 
I believe that is what the Senator from Arizona was attempting to do, 
that a similar pattern of conduct was being followed or had been 
followed, that someone who was the custodian of other people's funds 
causes those funds to be spent in a concern in which he has an interest. 

The individual who does not make a profit is not as great an offender, 
but certainly the practice is not ethical, and certainly it is something 
for this committee to consider for legislative purposes as to whether 
or not we prohibit individuals handling union affairs to transact 
business with themselves. 

I do not want to deprive you of this paper you have. May I ask how 
long it is? 

Mr. Keuther. It is very short. 

Senator Curtis. What is the date of the paper ? 

Mr. Keuther. This is the Toledo Blade. 

Senator Curtis. What date ? 

Mr. Keuther. March 26, 1958. It is quite recent. 

Senator Curtis. 1958 ? 

Mr. Keuther. That is correct. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10209 

Senator Curtis. All right, 

Mr. Reutiier. Thank you. The editorial to which I refer in the 
Toledo Blade of Wednesday, March 26, 1958, reads as follows, and 
has a heading, "Raking Over the Coals." 

On several occasions during the Senate Rackets Committee's investigation 
of UAW activities, reference has been made to labor battles in Toledo back 8 
years or so ago, and Senator Barry Goldwater, a member of the committee, has 
said that it should dig into those charges and countercharges which then re- 
volved around Richard Gosser, now a UAW vice president. 

Well, a lot of investigating was done during those hectic days, a great many 
depositions were taken, several suits were filed and every effort was made to 
throw light on local UAW operations. 

On the whole, we thought it was salutary because, as a result, changes were 
made in the union's procedures which gave its members a fuller information 
about its finances and potentially, at least, greater control over them. 

But what good would it do to rake over those old coals at this time is more 
than we can see. Even if questionable union practices were corrected, nothing 
criminal was uncovered and it seems that to us that the McClellan Committee 
would be wasting time if it should attempt to go over all that business again. 

This is the reason I read this : Here is a situation where a union that 
is trying to do the decent, clean, and honorable thing has called to its 
attention a situation. There were a lot of local politics involved. You 
must always remember that in unions there are just as much politics 
as there are in any other organization. 

They got into a local tight down there with differences between local 
officers and Mr. Gosser was on one side and other people on the other. 
Every effort was made to smear Mr. Gosser in that situation because 
there was a political fight going on. 

When this was raised about Mr. Gosser owning this land, along with 
some other people, this lake property, and we heard the local was 
interested in buying it, we took steps to see to it that it was handled 
properly, and the local got a good arrangement. 

I say, Senator Curtis, that saying that it does not matter whether 
Mr. Beck made a big profit of a half a million dollars, or whether Mr. 
Gosser sold it for $13,000, it is the procedure and the principles that 
are the same, well, I don't agree with that because in Mr. Gosser's case, 
he did not make a profit. The local union made a profit. 

On the Colonial Hardware, it is not really a great criminal offense 
for an officer of a union to hold an interest in a hardware store selling 
to some organization with which he is associated if they sell it to them 
at a price that is competitive, although I do not think he ought to do it. 

Based upon this, we sat down with Mr. Gosser and we said, "Look, 
Dick, we don't think you are doing anything wrong, but we don't 
think this is the sort of thing that an officer of the UAW ought to be 
involved in. Why don't you sell your interest in the hardware store 
and get out of it?" 

That is what he did. To equate that publicity with Mr. Hoffa and 
Mr. Beck is just not cricket, in my opinion. 

Senator Curtis. As I say, this was provoked by your testimony 

Mr. Reuther. I apologize to Mr. Gosser for provoking this. 

Senator Curtis. Which related to the present officers of the union. 
1 might say that these charges were published in the Toledo Union 
Journal of June 6, 1950, and were signed by several local union mem- 
bers that caused rise to these things. 



10210 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I did not get to ask you whether you had any knowledge — Mr. Mazey 
said there were no machines there — whether any of the proceeds of 
the slot machines went to Mr. Gosser. 

Mr. Reuther. I said earlier that, first, I did not know there were 
any slot machines, and I am sure there are none now, if there ever 
were any, and I am also positive that Mr. Gosser never got a penny 
out of any slot machine if there were any. 

I happen to know Dick Gosser and I know he has made a great 
contribution to this union. He has made a great contribution to the 
city of Toledo. He is a decent, honorable citizen and I know he would 
not take a dishonorable penny from anyone or any source. 

Senator Curtis. But you would agree that the practice of someone 
buying and selling to themselves with other people's money is not a 
good practice, not ethical, would you not ? 

Mr. Keuther. That is precisely why we asked Mr. Gosser to sell 
his interest in the hardware store. 

Senator Curtis. This reference to the slot machines in the Toledo 
Union Journal, of June 16, 1950, carried an allegation by members of 
your union that in a typical month the gross take from the slot ma- 
chines owned and operated by Local 12 exceeded $2,200. 

These union members in the union paper dated June 16, 1950, alleged 
the amount turned into the local was approximately $1,100. The 
difference was turned over to Brother Gossers office. 

We have gone back quite a ways in investigating unions. We went 
back to 1929 in reference to the operating engineers and we went back 
almost that far in some others. 

Certainly, to go back to the date of the last major labor legislation 
to gather information for legislative purposes is not objectionable. I 
would not think so. Since that time, Mr. Gosser has been promoted 
to vice president, is that correct ? 

Mr. Reuther. Yes ; Mr. Gosser was elected vice president since the 
date of the incidents that you are talking about. 

Senator Curtis, I would like to just say that you were reading from 
a paper there, but that is only an allegation. 

Senator Curtis. I understand. 

Mr. Reuther. There was a trial held and that was disproven. That 
was never substantiated. I would like to know whether your com- 
mittee has evidence. Senator Goldwater says that the evidence before 
your committee puts Mr. Gosser in the category of Mr. Beck and Mr. 
Hoffa. That is what he said— "evidence." 

Now, if you have such evidence, I would like to have it, because I 
am an officer of this union and if you can prove the things that are 
said here, if you can prove that you have evidence that puts Mr. 
Gosser in Mr. Hoffa's and Mr. Beck's class, then I can assure you that 
we have machinery to deal with it. 

But I dispute your evidence. I do not think you have that. This 
is what bothers me, that people go on the television networks and say 
these things when they do not have the facts to back them up. I do 
not think that is fair. 

I think it violates the whole concept of due process and fair play and 
all the other things we associate with standards of human decency and 
democratic procedure. 

(Members of the committee present: Senators McClellan, Mc- 
Namara, Mundt, Curtis, and Goldwater.) 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10211 

The Chairman. The chairman would make this observation. If 
we have such evidence it is not within the knowledge of the Chair. 
I am not saying that someone else does not have the evidence. I do 
not. 

We sent representatives up there to make an investigation of this, 
two representatives of the committee. According to their report to 
me these charges were not substantiated. 

Mr. Reuther. That is what I understand. 

The Chairman. Senator Goldwater may have proof, but I know 
nothing about it. 

Mr. Eeuther. It seems to me if a member of the committee, Sen- 
ator McClellan, had evidence to prove a charge this serious he ought 
to give it to you before he gives it to the American people on the 
network. 

Mr. Bellino was in our office for many weeks. We cooperated with 
him both with respect to the union's finances and records and both 
with respect to my personal financial records. I think our union is 
entitled to have him report to the American people. 

I think it is unfair to close these hearings today, if they are going 
to be closed today, without the man who was sent up there. He tes- 
tified about collecting the company's records. I would like, Mr. 
Chairman, to ask very sincerely that he be given that opportunity. 

The Chairman. The Chair announced that we will call Mr. Bellino 
to the stand before we close. We have been interrogating you here 
and I have hardly found an opening or opportunity. 

Mr. Eeuther. You have been more than patient, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Curtis. In reference to the chairman's statement about 
the two representatives going to Toledo, it is my understanding that 
they found that the records of the Colonial Hardware Store no longer 
existed. 

Is that correct ? 

The Chairman. Where are the investigators ? 

Mr. Kennedy. They are not here. I believe they went out there 
to look into the allegations and to look at the information that had 
been turned over to the staff by members of the committee. They 
went out there to make an investigation based on those allegations 
and found no evidence to sustain the allegations other than the two 
points that have been made here today. 

One, that Mr. Grosser had an interest in a hardware store which 
sold goods to the union, and second, that he had an interest in a piece 
of land which was bought by the union. Other than that, as far as 
him asking any profit or doing anything criminally wrong or im- 
proper, we found nothing other than the two matters I have men- 
tioned. 

Senator Curtis. What I want to know is the report that I received 
correct that the Colonial Hardware records were not available ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Senator, there were allegations made regarding Mr. 
Grosser. We found no evidence to sustain those allegations. We 
found that some of the allegations or a good number of the allega- 
tions against Mr. Grosser were made by an individual who was out 
of his mind, and at the time that the allegations were made even those 
who made them now say they were improperly stated at that time. 

So we found that there was nothing to it. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Reporter will you read the question? 



10212 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

(The pending question was read by the reporter.) 

Mr. Kennedy. At least as far as the report, whether the records of 
the Colonial Hardware being available, Senator, I am not certain. 
As far as whatever they were able to examine, which I found was the 
important thing, they found nothing to sustain the allegations against 
Mr. Grosser. 

Senator Curtis. The Colonial Hardware records 

Mr. Kennedy. If they talked to you afterward and if they made 
that statement to you that the records of the Colonial Hardware were 
not available, I am sure that is an accurate report. I think these 
dealings all took place some 10 years ago anyway. 

Senator Curtis. The late forties — 1949, I think. I think a fair 
report of what the investigators reported was that they found no evi- 
dence. I don't think it could be said that they found evidence that 
the charges were not true or that they were true. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just that they found no evidence to sustain the 
allegations, which is what I said. 

Senator Curtis. It is my understanding that they did not get the 
records of the Colonial Hardware Store and also that they did not 
get any records or information concerning the slot machines. 

Senator Mundt. If the Senator will yield, you originally asked 
this question of Mr. Reuther. I wonder whether he knows whether 
the records in dispute at the Colonial Hardware Store are available 
or can you use your good offices to make them available and we will 
get down to the facts. 

Air. Reuther. Senator Mundt, one of my jobs as president of this 
union is not to keep records of hardware stores. 

Senator Mundt. I understand. But this involves your senior vice 
president. 

Mr. Reuther. I have confidence in the competency of the staff of 
your committee. I don't know anything about records. I do hap- 
pen to know that Air. Grosser is not guilty of the things that have 
been alleged against him. 

I know that to be a fact. That is why I feel really kind of sad 
that a person would go on the television show and say that Mr. 
Grosser — "That I am informed from evidence that we have" — this is 
not what he hears or some rumor. Senator Goldwater says, ''But 
what Mr. Grosser did I am informed from evidence that we have is 
precisely the same thing that Mr. Hoffa and Mr. Beck did." 

You say that they didn't find any evidence to disprove it, but Mr. 
Goldwater says, "from evidence that we have." Is Mr. Goldwater 
keeping that private? Hasn't he given it to the staff? This is a rea- 
sonable question. 

Senator Curtis. No ; I am basing my inquiry on the record here and 
what you said. 

Air. Reuther. He said what you have 

Senator Curtis. I am basing my inquiry on what you said. There 
was a statement there that left doubt in my mind whether you were 
claiming that you had no one in office who had done these things. 
I have mentioned here a time or two it is not my purpose to allege 
on this record that I have information of gain. Neither do I have 
information that there wasn't any gain. 

I have directed my question at the dual capacity of someone han- 
dling other people's money. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10213 

If I may go on to another matter, it has been testified here by Mr. 
Donald Rand, an international representative, that he made pay- 
ments into a union fund with more or less frequency, about $10 a 
week. I asked him when he was testifying if that would amount to 
about $500 a year because he said it was not absolutely regular on a 
weekly basis and he said that it would. 

Mr. Chairman, I have spoken to Mr. Bellino about this and I wonder 
if Mr. Bellino could be sworn and answer just a question or two? 

The Chairman. Mr. Bellino come around, please, sir. 

You have been previously sworn, have you ? 

Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You will remain under the same oath. Proceed. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Bellino, Mr. Reuther stated on Thursday of 
this week, page 4189, and I quote : 

I met on a number of occasions with Mr. P>ellino. I think large numbers of the 
staff of our union, other officers have, and we turned over to him all of the 
records of the international union. 

My question is, Did you have any records turned over to you relating 
to these payments made by Mr. Rand ? 

Mr. Bellino. I don't quite follow you, Senator. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Rand testified that he paid about $10 a week 
into a fund of some kind — flower fund — he stated that it was regular 
as to time and I asked him if it amounted to about $500 a year and 
said, "Yes."' 

In the records turned over to you, did you have any records that 
would reveal to you Mr. Donald Rand's transaction or contribution 
or any similar ones ? 

Mr. Bellino. Senator, the records which were turned over to me 
were only those that I specifically requested. I did not, when in 
Detroit, specifically request any flower funds in which Mr. Rand may 
have contributed. 

Therefore, I did not get any such records. 

The Chairman. Let me ask a question to clear this up. Is the 
flower fund a voluntary contribution program ? 

Mr. Bellino. As I understand, it is, sir. 

The Chairman. That does not come out of the dues ? 

Mr. Bellino. It does not come out of the dues. 

The Chairman. Let me ask the witness 

Mr. Reuther. I would like to explain that, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Just 2 or 3 questions to get this in the prospective. 
What is the flower fund? Is that an assessment or a voluntary 
payment ? 

Mr. Reuther. The flower fund is a purely internal political fund 
contributed voluntarily by members of our union at different levels of 
our union for the purpose of financing the political fights in the union. 
This is how we finance the fight against the Communists. This is 
how we finance the fight to keep the racketeers from taking over our 
local union. We do not think it proper to finance internal political 
problems out of union dues and we have a separate fund. 

The Chairman. That is like making campaign contributions? 

Mr. Reuther. It is like a campaign fund. 

The Chairman. But it is for political purposes in the unions? 

21243—58 — pt. 25 20 



10214 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Reuther. Exactly. We did ourselves. The Communists had 
their caucuses. We financed ourselves by contributions. I don't 
know where they get their money but I know where we got ours, vol- 
untary contributions. 

The Chairman. Do you keep records of this fund ? 

Mr. Reuther. What happens is that there are many of these funds 
at different levels of our local union. At the international level there 
will be several and there will be a committee, the fellows who collect 
the money and who keep the records and the books and so forth. We 
told Mr. Bellino, he will tell you, I talked about this, and I said this 
has nothing to do with the union funds but if you want to look at it we 
will show you the .record. We don't have anything to hide. 

The question is suppose we have a meeting, we have a steering com- 
mittee of 300 people that we call our national steering committee. 
We met every 3 months. This is a political group in our union. 

Our opposition is very small but they still have the right and they 
get the floor at our convention with equal time, but we get together 
and we talk about our politics. As the Republicans do with theirs 
and the Democrats with theirs. We could spend union money for 
this and nobody would be the wiser. 

The Chairman. Some unions do but your union does not? 

Mr. Reuther. That is right. We don't. We don't think it is 
proper to spend union money for political matters relating to electing 
me or somebody else. We raise our own money. We have at the 
convention placards we have literature that we put out. 

We have a victory party when we get elected. We pay for all this 
out of voluntary funds that we collect. We call them flower funds. 
I don't know who dreamed that title up. It came way back. But 
when we had this terrific fight in our union, Senator McClellan, be- 
tween our group and the Communist and we finally kicked them out — 
I was elected in 1946 but the Communists controlled the board. 

I went through 18 months of hell fighting these fellows. In 1947 we 
finally cleaned it out. At the 1947 convention in Milwaukee we didn't 
have a national caucus. We said we have the Commies kicked out we 
don't need it. The rank and file revolted. We reestablished in our 
union this political caucus structure and this is the way we finance it. 

It is that simple. 

The Chairman. May I ask, does any Senator on the committee want 
those funds investigated ? 

Senator Curtis. May I ask a question or two about them first ? 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Is the purpose of those funds to bring about the re- 
election of the officers that are in the union at the time they are 
collecting ? 

Mr. Reuther. We have a very elaborate structure because this is 
how we keep our union free, clean, and democratic. This is one of 
the big problems in our kind of groups, how do you maintain so the 
rank and file can make these decisions and you don't get a machine in 
power. 

We have in local unions a caucus. From those local unions we have 
a regional caucus. From the regional caucus we have the national 
caucus. Then we have a steering committee at each level. What we 
do is to get together periodically and we talk about our relationship to 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10215 

one another as a political group in the union. We decide who we are 
going to run. 

We have them go through the procedure of nominating people. The 
caucus commits itself just like a political party in convention commits 
itself behind its candidates and the opposition has a caucus and they 
have candidates. 

Our caucus is behind our candidates and the opposition caucus is 
behind theirs. The moneys we are talking about help finance that 
whole effort at different levels. We bring in the national steering ■ 

Senator Curtis. Including the opposition caucus candidates? 

Mr. Retjther. No. They have their own funds. Just like the 
Democrats have a campaign fund and the Republicans have a cam- 
paign fund. 

Senator Curtis. This money raised by the flower fund which this 
international representative contributed no small amount, $500 a year? 

Mr. Reuther. He contributed $5 a week. He said $10 a pay period 
what he meant. I asked Mr. Rand. 

Senator Curtis. I asked him. It is in the record here somewhere. 

Mr. Reuther. He is right here. 

Senator Curtis. I asked him if it was $500 a year and he said it was. 
That is his testimony. 

Mr. Reuther. There is a misunderstanding. He says he has been 
giving roughly $10 a pay period which is $5 a week. The thing you 
must understand, Senator Curtis, is that when we fight the Com- 
munists, Communists have spent hundred and hundreds of thousands 
of dollars trying to keep control of this union. Stakes are high. Be- 
cause it was our union that tipped the balance in the CIO. We could 
not clean the Communists out of the CIO until we first cleaned them out 
of the Auto Workers. That tipped the balance. The Communists 
spent hundreds of thousands of dollars. They had in the campaign 
when we were going down the homestretch in the final battles, a weekly 
newspaper, put out nationwide, hundreds and hundreds of thousands 
of copies. 

They had a magazine called the Bosses' Boy, dedicated to me. You 
talk about going through the mill, you should have seen what they did 
to me. They ran full page ads in dozens and dozens. Here are some 
of the cartoons. You think I am over on the Wall Street side. Here 
is Reuther siting on the lap of General Motors, Allis Chalmers, the 
NAM. Here is Reuther coming out of the NAM headquarters saying, 
"bring home the bacon," in the satchel, "speed up." 

In the Daily Worker the Communist Party ran full page ads in the 
public press all over America. They spent hundreds of thousands of 
dollars. The only way we could meet that challenge was for people in 
the union to dig in their own pockets and raise these funds we are talk- 
ing about. That is how we did it. 

Senator Curtis. The question is, then, is this money raised called the 
flower fund used to reelect the slate maybe not all the individuals, of 
the incumbent officers ? 

Mr. Reuther. It is used to elect the officers that the caucus decides 
to support. 

Senator Curtis. If there is an opposition slate they do not get any 
part of this flower fund ? 

Mr. Reuther. The opposition has their own caucus and own flower 
fund. 



10216 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. This list of international representatives runs some- 
thing over 700. I have no way of knowing whether Mr. Rand's con- 
tributions were average, below average, or above average. If they 
were average it would be something over $350,000 a year from this 
group. You say there are a number of separate funds. I want to ask 
you this. Are there books and records of this fund ? I am trying to 
answer the chairman's question. 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Curtis, first of all there is not one fund. At 
the regional level they have funds. There are many funds. The 
figure is nothing like you think it is. We are perfectly willing to have 
Mr. Bellino look at it." We have nothing to hide, 

We think this is the right way to do it. And not spend union money. 

Senator Curtis. What I want to know is, do you have books and 
records of all the receipts and all the expenditures together with what 
the expenditures are for and where the receipts came from for those 
flower funds operated by the international union ? 

Mr. Reuther. There are no flower funds operated by the interna- 
tional union. The only funds in this category are private funds con- 
tributed to voluntarily by private citizens who politically work 
together in our union. The international union has nothing to do Avith 
them any more than the United States Government has to do with your 
private campaign funds. 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators 
McClellan, McXamara, Mundt, Curtis, Goldwater.) 

Senator Curtis. Well, now, what I am trying to find out — the 
chairman has asked whether or not we make an investigation of these 
funds, and before I answer that, I want to know if there are records 
that show all of the receipts and all of the expenditures and what they 
are used for. 

Mr. Reuther. I have stated- — — 

Senator Curtis. I have no desire to suggest to this committee that 
they investigate something that doesn't exist if there are no records, 
if there are no complete records, and of course, a record that is not 
complete is not a record. 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Curtis, we told Mr. Bellino, I personally told 
Mr. Bellino, and he can verify it, when he was there, these were not 
union funds. He came in to investigate union funds and my personal 
finances. In those two areas we gave him every record that he asked 
for that we could humanly provide. 

We talked about this — I think it was one Saturday morning in the 
office, and I told him that I had never seen the records myself because 
I had never handled a penny of this money, but the flower funds did 
exist, why we have them. 

We have situations where a group of the numbers rackets tries 
to capture a local and we have to help the local guys out. They can't 
get enough money out of their own pockets to fight the finances of the 
underworld where there are millions of dollars involved. So we help 
them out. 

The records — one fellow will have the books of the fund that he 
handles, and they will show that we spent so much money in the 
convention for a social gathering after our slate was elected. It will 
show the receipts for that. We have the records, I am sure, And we 
don't mind Mr. Bellino going over them. But what we think is 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10217 

being done here, all the talk about these things is just to try to create 
in the public mind that there are these big funds around here and 
maybe somebody is getting fat on them. 

Senator Curtis. Where are the records ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, they are in the hands of private individuals 
who make up the committees that handle the various group funds. 

Senator Curtis. Are there any such records in your headquarters, 
Solidarity House ? 

Mr. Reuther. No, there aren't. It has nothi ng to do with the union. 

Senator Curtis. I didn't ask that. I asked if the records were there. 

Mr. Reuther. The records are not there. This is a private political 
fund for internal purposes in the union to keep our union clean from 
communism and corruption and to work together as a group to do that. 

Senator Curtis. I still don't know whether you have records of these 
funds showing all the receipts and all the expenditures. 

Mr. Reuther. I told you twice already that there are such records 
in the hands of private individuals but not in the union headquarters 
because they are not union records. I told Mr. Bellino we would get 
them for him if he wanted them. 

Senator Curtis. Do they show all of the receipts and all of the dis- 
bursements, and, if so, how far back? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, first of all, I have never seen any of these rec- 
ords, but the records are in the hands of the private groups who have 
them, and I am sure that the records will show that the money was 
used for the purposes that we have indicated. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Rand testified that he made his contributions in 
cash. 

Mr. Reuther. That is how I make mine. 

Senator Curtis. Where do you make yours ? 

Mr. Reuther. I make my contributions to a member of my staif who 
is a member of the committee that handles the fund that I contribute to. 

Senator Curtis. And where is he when he receives your con- 
tribution? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, that depends upon where I am, and when he 
thinks it is the appropriate time to remind me that maybe I ought to 
make a contribution. There is no procedure worked out. There is no 
weekly contribution or anything like that. If you think there is, 
you are just wrong, because I haven't made a contribution in many 
weeks, and nobody suggested I be expelled from the caucus. 

Senator Curtis. Well, you are pretty busy. Where is it usually that 
3'ou make that contribution ? 

Mr. Reuther. Pardon me ? 

Senator Curtis. Where are you usually when you make that 
contribution ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, I don't have any particular place. I mean, 
look, it is just as simple as this: I am out on a trip with a fellow to 
whom I give my contribution, and we are making a meeting together, 
and we get talking about some phase of the union's internal problems, 
and he may say to me "You know, you haven't made a contribution 
to the caucus fund for some time. Why don't you give me a 
contribution?" 

Well, if at that time my wife hasn't talked to me about finances and 
I have the money in my pocket, I might give it to him then, or I might 



10218 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

give it to him the next morning in the office. There is no particular 
time or place or any regularity. 

Senator Curtis.* Mr. Reuther, the individual that you say you make 
your contribution to, you said, was a member of your staff. 

Mr. Reuther. That is right. I can even tell you his name, if you 
are interested. 

Senator Curtis. I want it. 

Mr. Reuther. I will be happy to give it to you. His name is Mr. 
Larry Gettlinger. 

Senator Curtis. Where is he employed? Right in your same 
building ? 

Mr. Reuther. He is on my personal staff. He is responsible for 
seeing that I make my contributions periodically. 

Senator Curtis. Then it is probably true that you more often make 
the contributions right there on the job than out on a trip that you 
were talking about ? 

Mr. Reuther. No, that is not so. That depends upon circum- 
stances. He might ask me on Sunday, and I might give him the 
money at luncheon Monday outside of the building. There is no par- 
ticular place. 

(At this point, Senator McClellan withdrew from the hearing 
room.) 

Mr. Reuther. Do you mind when people make a contribution to 
your political campaign whether they give it to you in your office, or 
out in the field or in a car ? Does that matter to you ? 

Senator Curtis. Well, it might. 

Mr. Reuther. You would probably be concerned more with the 
size of the contribution than the location of it. 

Senator Curtis. Yes. These things are pretty expensive. 

What was this man's name that you pay yours to ? 

Mr. Reuther. His name is Larry Gettlinger. 

Senator Curtis. Does Mr. Gettlinger have a record of all the re- 
ceipts and all the disbursements of the flower fund that he looks after, 
and, if so, for how far back does he have them ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, Mr. Gettlinger would have to answer that. 

I am sure if Mr. Bellino sat down with him, or whoever you assign, 
they can find it out. 

I am sure that Mr. Gettlinger, as will be the case with other people 
involved in handling these funds, will be able to prove by appropriate 
records, that the funds have been handled properly. 

Senator Curtis. You don't know if he has records ? 

Mr. Reuther. I know. He told me he has records, but I have never 
seen them because I don't get involved in that. I make my contribu- 
tion. 

Senator Curtis. How much is your contribution ? 
^ Mr. Reuther. Well, it varies. It depends upon my financial posi- 
tion. 

Senator Curtis. Well, about how much ? 
^ Mr. Reuther. Well, if we are in a tough fight and we have a situa- 
tion where the national steering committee, and this is one of the 
expensive items — after all, we have to bring 300 people together from 
all over the country, and we can't spend union money, we don't spend 
money for that when it is a political caucus meeting, we have to help 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10219 

pay the cost of transportation and some of the expenses, we don't pay 
wages but help pay some of the expenses, and this is costly. 

If we were in a situation where there was need for more caucus 
activity to meet the problem, or there was greater pressure in some local 
unions where they needed help, if there was a problem of the Com- 
munists moving in or the racketeers, we would need more money. Un- 
der those circumstances, I would contribute more. There is no regu- 
lar contribution. 

Senator Curtis. Well, how much do you, have you contributed ? 

Mr. Reuther. I have contributed at one time as much as $75, de- 
pending on the situation. 

Senator Curtis. In cash ? 

Mr. Reuther. I have always made it in cash, yes. 

Senator Curtis. Are the disbursements made in cash, too ? 

Mr. Reuther. I suppose there are cash disbursements and there are 
disbursements by other means. 

Senator Curtis. Where is this fund banked ? 

Mr. Reuther. Where is it banked ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Reuther. Well, this is what Mr. Bellino will find out when he 
sits down to talk to the people who handle it. 

Senator Curtis. I understand. But I am asking you where is this 
banked ? 

Mr. Reuther. Since I don't handle the funds, I don't know. I 
know it is banked. 

Senator Curtis. You don't know where ? 

Mr. Reuther. I don't know where it is banked, I don't handle it. 

Senator Curtis. Don't you ? 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Curtis, look. I am. not a little boy. I told 
you I make my contributions. A member of my staff of the committee 
that handles it. I have complete confidence in their integrity and I 
know they are banking it and handling it properly. Do I have to 
go around and look over their shoulder ? 

Senator Curtis. No, but I think it is proper to expect that you 
know where they are banked. 

Mr. Reuther. Well, Mr. Bellino can find out for you, and he can 
tell me at the same time and we would both know. 

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

Senator Curtis. Of course, here is the thing, I can't answer the 
question of the chairman whether I want it invested until I know 
whether there are records of all the receipts and all the disbursements. 

The Chairman. I understand this witness doesn't know, he doesn't 
have the record. But what we can do is we can send an investigator 
out there to find out whether there are records and what they show. 

Mr. Reuther. We are perfectly willing to cooperate, Mr. Mc- 
Clellan, because we have nothing to hide. I think if we were spending 
the union's money for internal political purposes you might investigate 
that. We are spending our own money because we think that is the 
right way to do it. 

We have nothing to hide. Come out and look at the records. We 
will cooperate and pull them together. 

Senator Curtis. I have one more question with regard to this and 
then I will announce whether I want them investigated. Are any 
assessments made against individuals with regard to this fund? 



10220 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Reuther. They are not. Every dollar that is in these funds 
is a purely voluntary matter. There is no regularity. There is no 
fixed amount. It is purely a voluntary matter, just as though a 
fellow were contributing to a political campaign to elect a United 
States Senator. It is a voluntary matter, and, therefore, there are 
no assessments. 

Senator Curtis. I want to clear up one thing. When I inquired of 
Mr. Rand about this, at page 3896, I came into the room just a little 
late, and I asked several questions that had already been covered. He 
said — 

I have already testified that I probably made a contribution on the average 
of 5 to 10 dollars a week depending upon the circumstances. 

Still quoting Mr. Rand : 

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. 

I made no allegations on how much anybody else contributes. Of 
course, I do not know. I did say that if Mr. Rand were average for 
these TOO international representatives it would be $350,000. 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Curtis, I have never contributed that much, 
and I think that I contribute perhaps as much if not more than 
anyone else, because I think that I am in the position where I get more 
money than anybody else in the way of a salary. Obviously, I like to 
set a good example to encourage other people to make their 
contribution. 

Mr. Rand misspoke himself. He doesn't give that much, and it 
isn't regular. What happens is this : The fellow handling the caucus 
fund, he knows the kind of situation we are in, and we talk about it, 
and if we have some money left over from the last convention that 
helps build the thing up and it doesn't look like there are going to be 
any real serious problems at the convention, and we are getting close 
to the convention, we may ask the fellow for a smaller contribution. 

If, however, it looks like the caucus fund is almost depleted because 
of heavy expenditures, and we need more money because there are a 
number of complicated issues, then we kick in more, just like if you are 
going to have a tough campaign to get re-elected for the Senate you 
need more money than if your opposition is walking on one leg. 

This is the kind of situation we have. This is a political thing, 
only in our union it is right out in the open. 

We have a caucus at our convention, our mass people, with some- 
times 4,000 people at it. The newspapermen are all there. This is all 
out in the open like a democratic union ought to be. 

Senator Curtis. My reason for asking this question is because I do 
not want to spend the taxpayer's money and send investigators on 
something they can't find. That is why I have been trying to find out, 
since this is handled there, what the extent of the records are. 

If we make a request in response to the chairman's questions for 
an investigation of a lot of this, will you instruct all of your people to 
make a full disclosure of all cash transactions for which there are no 
records, as well as the purpose of all expenditures made that may be 
lacking any records ? 



[MPROPEE ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 10221 

Mr. Reuther. Senator Curtis, I stated before that we shall be most 
happy to cooperate in the fullest, and too to make available any 
information and all information that we can possibly find as it relates 
to these funds. We have nothing to hide. 

We are quite willing to do it. But we were not asked for it. 

Senator Curtis. There are no assessments at all ? 

Mr. Keuthek. This is a voluntary thing. Not all of our staff mem- 
bers contribute. This is not a compulsory thing. 

There are staff members who do not contribute to these caucus funds. 
They do not all contribute the same amount. It is a purely voluntary 
political thing. I think it is highly proper. 

You see, this is all out in the open. In our union there are caucuses, 
the opposition has a caucus, we have a caucus, and we finance our own 
caucus. 

Senator Curtis. I have before me a photostatic copy of the Toledo 
Blade for May 20, 1950. 

Mr. Reuther. You are going back to that same political fight and 
these things were not proven in that hearing. 

Senator Curtis. I am not trying to prove corruption on the part of 
Mr. Gosser. 

Mr. Reuther. No ; but this same flower fund came up in that local 
political fight and all of these allegations were thrown around in the 
Toledo Blade and none of them were proven. Did you ever see a 
political fight in the Republican Party or the Democratic Party where 
the fellow who is trying to win out hurls all kinds of charges and then 
the contest is over and he wished he hadn't said them ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Reuther. That is what happened there. 

Senator Curtis. Referring to Gosser, the paper said : 

From a folder he pulled a sheet of paper which carried the information that 
Edward Duke, an opposition leader, owed the flower fund $95, and on the other 
sheet he said was the information that William Duke owed $194. 

Do you have any comment about that ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, Senator Curtis, the Flower Fund in Toledo 
which was the local flower fund there that we were handling, that, I 
am told, and I don't know this from personal information, because, I 
mean, I was not personally involved, I have been told that the Internal 
Revenue Department went over that one with a fine-tooth comb and 
the thing came out o. k. because the records were all there. 

Senator Curtis. That is Mr. Gosser's financial account, you are 
talking about, to the Internal Revenue ? 

Mr. Reuther. No, no, no, no. I am talking about the flower fund 
that that paper you are reading from refers to. This flower fund was 
gone over with a fine-toothed comb by the Internal Revenue Depart- 
ment and it came out o. k. 

Senator Curtis. My question is: Were all of these transactions 
voluntary? 

Mr. Reuther. Voluntary what ? 

Senator Curtis. Voluntary. 

Mr. Reuther. I said that they were. I said that this was purely 
voluntary, and the fact that there are staff members who don't con- 
tribute and that the contribution varies, I think proves that that is so. 

Senator Curtis. Well, it recites here that two men owed to the fund. 



10222 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Ml*. Reuther. Yes, but it is just like, you know, saying that if you 
have an opponent up in your State who is trying to discredit you in 
order to knock you out of your position, he makes a bunch of wild 
charges and I go around saying "This fellow said it. It must be 
true. 

They were allegations never proven. The Internal Revenue De- 
partment went in there and combed the thing through and found 
everything in order. What does a fellow have to do ? 

Senator Curtis. The Internal Revenue would be hunting for taxable 
income, which isn't what I am talking about at all. 

Mr. Reuther. No. It would be hunting to find out whether any of 
the moneys raised for the purpose of a political fund were gotten by 
individuals so that they would be obligated to pay taxes on it. They 
found none of that. The other thing is the fact that there are staff 
members who don't contribute, and that the amount contributed 
varies clearly ought to indicate to any reasonable person that this is 
not compulsory and there are no assessments. Does every Republican 
who supports you give the same amount ? 

Of course not. This is the same kind of a thing. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Reuther, we are talking about people that work 
for you. 

Mr. Reuther. No, they don't work for me. They work for the 
union. 

Senator Curtis. Yes, Mr. Donald Rand does work for you. 

Mr. Reuther. No, he works for the union. 

Senator Curtis. The only possible comparison would be contribu- 
tions from employees in a political fight. I am not getting into that 
and I am not making such an allegation. But here is a fund where 
contributions are made, and you say they are voluntary. 

Mr. Reuther. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. They are made into a fund to perpetuate the leader- 
ship of the union 

Mr. Reuther. That is not true. That is not true. For the purpose 
of electing the people to office chosen democratically by the caucus, 
and for supporting efforts within the union to keep it clean of com- 
munism and corruption. Now, we change candidates. We don't al- 
ways reelect the same people. We do make changes. This is a de- 
cision made in the caucus. 

Senator Curtis. How many anti-Reuther candidates for any office 
ever got any help out of the flower fund ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, the anti-Reuther caucuses, candidates that are 
nominated by the anti-Reuther caucus, not by the pro-Reuther caucus. 
How many Democrats have ever gotten elected by the Republican 
Party ? That makes about as much sense as your asking this question. 
The people nominated in our caucus are supported by our caucus. 
The people nominated by the opposition caucus are supported by the 
opposition caucus. 

Do you want us to support both our own caucus and the Communist 
caucus or the opposition caucus ? 

Senator Curtis. No, but here are people hired and paid — their 
wages are paid not by you personally ; their wages are paid by all the 
workers. 

Mr. Reuther. Sure. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10223 

Senator Curtis. And they contribute to a fund out of their wages, 
I assume — I assume they are not people of independent wealth 

Mr. Reuther. Out of their wages. 

Senator Curtis. To a fund to elect the slate of the present leader- 
ship. 

Mr. Reuther. Where do you propose we get that money ? 

Senator Curtis. I j ust think that it is inappropriate. 

Mr. Reuther. Use union money ? 

Senator Curtis. No. 

Mr. Reuther. Where do you suppose we get it? Do you think a 
church group will give us the money or a philanthropic foundation? 
Where do you suggest we get this money ? 

Senator Curtis. I think you should get it in the same manner that 
the opposition groups get it. 

Mr. Reuther. Where do you think they get it ? 

Senator Curtis. They have no organization of employees to get it 
from. 

Mr. Reuther. I beg your pardon. 

Senator Curtis. It is the same issue as with Government employees. 

Mr. Reuther. Do you mean to tell me that a labor union can't 
internally, in its own structure, try to raise money voluntarily from 
the people who make up the membership and the leadership of that 
union to finance their own political activities internally to keep their 
union clean of communism and corruption and to elect people to offices 
who will do that ? 

You mean they can't voluntarily contribute to that ? If you say that 
and mean it, I will tell you you will turn over the American labor 
movement to the Communists and gangsters in a couple of years 
because they will have the money. 

Senator Curtis. We are not talking about that. 

Mr. Reuther. How do you finance fighting these people ? 

Senator Curtis. I am talking about these paid employees that are 
paid out of the union members' dues money. 

Mr. Reuther. It is their money after they get it 

Senator Curtis. Their contribution to a fund. 

Mr. Reuther. If a fellow gets from this union his pay check, at the 
point he gets it and he decides to contribute $10 to the Red Cross, $10 
to some other group, it is his money. Isn't he entitled to contribute 
where he chooses, and if he chooses to contribute to a political caucus 
fund to keep his union free and clean of these unsavory Communist 
and racketeering elements, is entitled to ? 

If we can't do that, I tell you that the American labor movement 
will be taken over by the gangsters because they have millions to spend. 
How much do you think it costs to keep a local union in Chicago that 
might be a war plant that comes up with 20,000 workers who are 
thrown together in a short period of time, who have no cohesion, who 
have no understanding or relationship ? And watch the underworld 
move in. They even pay a few guys on the side to get them in their 
little group. How much of a job do you think that is? 

Do you think you can do that with a couple of pennies ? Where are 
we going to get this money ? Well, we don't want to spend the union's 
money because then we could be accused of having a machine and using 
the workers' money to perpetuate the machine. So we raise our own 
money which I think is the decent way to do it. 



10224 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

We do it quite openly. In our convention we announce on the floor 
of the convention when the caucuses are going to be held. The oppo- 
sition announces theirs; we announce ours; newspapermen all come. 
It is all out in the open like a free political convention. 

But we pay for it with our own money. I want to know, Senator 
Curtis, where you suggest we get this money? 

Senator Curtis. You didn't subpena me before this committee to 
question me. 

Mr. Reuther. You didn't subpena me. I came here voluntarily. 
Don't forget that, please. 

Senator Curtis. That is to your credit. I have here what is certified 
by Mr. Bond Collier, of 1913 Dominion Boulevard, Windsor, Ontario, 
a verbatim report of statements taken by several individuals on June 1, 
1950, in the Commodore Perry Hotel in Toledo. 

On page 25 there is testimony about the flower fund. Brother 
Spidel — I want to say to you this is not sworn. It is the union record 
and I looked to see if it is sworn and it does not appear to be. 

Mr. Reuther. No, it is not sworn testimony. 

Senator Curtis. It is not. 

That is the difference in their pay. The difference of the pay between the 
international man and local man was kicked back to the flower fund. It had to 
be kicked back. It was compulsory, it was not voluntary at all. That is your 
fellows' money that is going into the flower fund. 

As I say, I want the record to show that there are other references 
in here, but I do not want to clutter the record. 

Mr. Reuther. These are the unproven charges and after an investi- 
gation and everything, these are the allegations that were not proven. 
This is the whole thing. 

Senator Curtis. I understand. 

Mr. Reuther. I know, but you keep 

Senator Curtis. No. 

Mr. Reuther. These are the same people who charge all these other 
things that Mr. Kennedy said some of these people act like they were 
insane. You could go on here forever. We went into this whole thing. 
We had the committee go down there and these things were disproven. 

Senator Curtis. I am talking about the flower fund, Mr. Reuther. 

Mr. Reuther. I am talking about the flower fund. The same people 
who raised the flower fund raised these other things. It was a politi- 
cal fight down there. 

Senator Curtis. I am ready to answer the chairman's question. He 
asked if anybody on this committee wanted an investigation of those 
flower funds. My feeling would be, Mr. Chairman, that if upon a 
preliminary investigation our investigators could find that there were 
books and records and so on that they could get a complete investiga- 
tion, and that it contained information that this committee ought to 
have, that it should go on. 

I would not want to be in a position to demand an investigation or 
an audit and have a lot of time and money spent if it was just an 
impossible task. So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that answers your question. 
I am not insisting on a reply now because you may want to check with 
these investigators. 

Is my answer satisfactory ? I know it is indefinite. 

The Chairman. It is indefinite. I cannot determine about it. 

Senator Curtis. I understand that. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 10225 

The Chairman. The Chair feels that if the committee wants some 
investigators to go out there and look up these funds and the records 
and come back and make their report to the committee as to what they 
find, if that is the judgment of the committee, the Chair will so order. 

The Chair will also send such investigators as the party requesting 
it may name. I don't know how to be any fairer than that, if you 
want it. If this witness is telling the truth, there is not any reason to 
go out there and investigate those funds. 

If he is not telling the truth, then there might be good reason to do 
it. It is just as simple as that. Because as I understand it, they have 
politics in unions just like they have them in almost any organization, 
maybe in a Rotary club or something else sometimes. 

They get 2 different slates, 2 different groups, and 1 will support 1 
candidate and 1 another. Each side raises its own money from some 
source, from the people who support them and want them elected, who 
go along with this caucus or who go along with the judgment of that 
caucus. 

I don't know. There is nothing wrong about it. There is nothing 
illegal about it. If you think it would be an improper labor practice 
for a union to operate its internal political affairs and support it in 
the manner as testified here, then we have the information upon which 
to predicate legislation. That is improper. Legislate against it. You 
have the cold facts here. If there is a belief that these funds come out 
of union money and that this is a coverup and that this witness has 
not told the truth about it, then we might proceed with an investi- 
gation. 

Mr. Retjther. So help me God, Mr. Chairman, I have told the abso- 
lute truth. We will cooperate because we have nothing to hide. This 
is exactly as I have said. 

The Chairman. The Chair has not questioned the veracity of a 
witness. I am simply stating a cold fact or proposition. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairan, I want to state this, lest I be mis- 
understood. I feel, without any not only untruthfulness, but any 
error on the part of Mr. Reuther's testimony, that these funds may 
be pertinent to our inquiry. I say may be. I am making no allegation. 

In our investigation for legislative purposes on matters relating to 
the democratic processes within a union, it might be a material help 
to know whether or not the employees in a union, that are paid by all 
the members, maintain a fund out of their pay that perpetuates the 
existing officers and does not contribute to the opposition. 

In bringing this up, I did not and do not mean to challenge Mr. 
Reuther's truthfulness. 

The Chairman. Let the Chair point out that it seems to me this 
is rather trivial. I get my salary from the Federal Government. Once 
I get it, I consider that mine and I can contribute to a Republican if 
I want to, though I am a Democrat, and I can contribute to a Demo- 
cratic campaign if I want to, and although the money came to me 
from the Government, it became my money when I got it and I can 
contribute it if I so desire. 

Here people work for the union. They are representatives of the 
union, and hired and paid by the union. They may feel it is to their 
interest and their advantage to continue to work for the union and 
they would like to have officers elected that would keep them employed. 

I don't know, but that is human nature and they have a right to 



10226 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

do it. It is just that simple. If you want to go into it, the Chair will 
appoint investigators to go out and look at it. As Mr. Reuther says, 
they will cooperate. 

Mr. Reuther. Sure, we have nothing to hide. 

Senator Curtis. I have one more question, and then I would like 
to go to something else. 

Would you submit your report of the Toledo investigation in 1950 
which indicated that the contributions to the flower fund in Toledo 
were voluntary? 

Mr. Reuther. I understand, Senator Curtis, that we have already 
supplied Mr. Kennedy, director of the staff, with documents on that. 
Am I correct, Mr. Kennedy ? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is right. At least the findings on your report. 

Mr. Reuther. The findings of our investigation of the Toledo sit- 
uation has been turned over to the committee staff. 

Senator Curtis. Is there a finding in there whether or not the 
flower fund was voluntary ? 

Mr. Reuther. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator Curtis. Is there a finding in that report that the flower 
fund was voluntary? 

Mr. Reuther. I don't know whether that specifically, but I know 
when we went in there we went into the flower fund thing as a part of 
the overall investigation. 

Senator Curtis. One of the allegations was in reference to the 
flower fund, was it not ? 

Mr. Reuther. It was. We went into that. 

Senator Curtis. The allegation was made about the flower fund, 
but do you know whether there was a finding in reference to it or not r 
one way or another ? 

Mr. Reuther. I know that we went into it. I don't know whether 
in the formal findings that was covered or not. I know that the com- 
mittee that went in there, that spent considerable time in Toledo, did 
get into every phase that was raised by these allegations, including 
the flower fund. 

Senator Curtis, you are going to find nothing here because this is ex- 
actly as we say it is. You are really going to waste the taxpayers' 
money, but that is your privilege. We will cooperate. 

Senator McNamara. Will the Senator yield if he is not through ? 

Senator Curtis. If you have not submitted it, the finding made in 
1 950 as to the voluntary, would you do so ? 

Mr. Reuther. We have said* we will cooperate in making any rec- 
ords available. 

Senator Curtis. That is the specific thing that I am requesting. 

Senator Goldwater. Will the Senator yield ? 

Senator Curtis. I yield to Senator Goldwater. 

The Chairman. Senater McNamara. 

Senator Goldwater. Senator yielded to me. 

Senator McNamara. I will yield. I don't want to interrupt. 

Senator Goldwater. xVll the Senator from Arizona wants to do be- 
fore we quit is to get the name Kohler in here. In view of the fact 
on several occasions in your testimony you referred to the trial ex- 
aminer's report, I have some excerpts here from the trial examiner's 
report, and while I recognize, as you do, that the trial examiner's re- 
port is not final or binding, it is merely a recommendation to the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES! IN THE LABOR FIELD 10227 

NLRB, I think these might be pertinent to whatever record there is 
concerning the UAW-Kohler strike and I would like to read these. 

I would like to tell you that if you want to interrupt at any time to 
comment on them, feel free to do so. These are statements that have 
been, I think, most in the record and I think most of them have been 
read by you or your counsel. If you want to comment on them, you 
go right ahead. 

I think if we cooperate, we can get through with this in a hurry and 
then we will be back with the Kohler incident. 

Mr. Reuther. I shall be happy to cooperate. 

Senator Goldwater. Thank you. These are findings and observa- 
tions of the trial examiner in the Kohler case. I will refer to the page 
number, Mr. Rauh, as we go along, and you can follow, too. 

On page 11. 

It is therefore concluded and found that the present aspect of the case, 
October 1957, lends no support to the contention that respondent, Kohler, did 
not baragin in good faith before the strike. 

Then on page 15, 1 quote again : 

It is therefore concluded and found that the evidence fails to support the 
contention that respondent, Kohler, engaged only in surface bargaining prior 
to the strike. 

Those two I read together, Mr. Reuther. Would you care to com- 
ment on those ? 

Mr. Reuther. Yes. I think what you have there is a situation 
where I think an extremely competent and conscientious public serv- 
ant, working for the National Labor Relations Board, who I think 
demonstrated not only great competence, but the patience of Job, to 
sit with 1 case for over 2y 2 years and compile this tremendous record 
of 20,000 pages, I think when he got around to finally putting to- 
gether his findings realized that here was the longest strike in history, 
and I think there was no question about it that the refusal to bargain 
in good faith at the end of 154 days was so crystal clear that he did 
not bother with getting into the refinement of working out what 
happened before that time. 

Because the weight of the evidence was so overwhelmingly as of 
that date and the period over which that extended was so long, it 
seemed to me that was sufficient evidence to base his basic conclusions 
upon. This is what I think happened. I am only surmising this. 

Senator Goldwater. Those are your comments on these two state- 
ments. Mind you, these are not my statements; these are the state- 
ments of the trial examiner. 

Mr. Reuther. I understand that. 

Senator Goldwater. On page 34, referring to the trust period from 
May 7 to May 9, 1954, in which the company refused to negotiate 
with the union, the trial examiner commented : 

There remain, however, ample evidence in the record as to mass picketing 
and the blocking of entrances as to justify respondent's refusal to negotiate 
during the period. Furthermore, the union, though accorded an opportunity, 
offered no contrary evidence. 

Mr. Reuther. I make the same comments I made on the earlier 
section. 



10228 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. Then on the next page, page 35 : 

As WERB later found the facts after the union announced its withdrawal 
from the trust agreement, it again commenced to block driveways and forcibly 
j ire vent persons desiring to enter the plant from entering. 

Do you care to comment on that ? 

Mr. Reuther. Would you be kind enough to give us the page again ? 

Senator Goldwater. Page 35. Did I say page 36 ? 

Mr. Reuther. What paragraph, so we can follow. 

Senator Goldwater. You find that at the bottom of the page, 
marked oO. No; I beg your pardon. It is footnote 30 on page 35. 

Mr. Retjther. Go ahead. I don't think there is any need to com- 
ment there. You are reading from the trial examiner's findings. 

Senator Goldwater. On the next page, page 36: 

In the meantime, WERB proceeded with its hearing and on May 21 it issued 
its order directing the union to cease and desist from certain specific conduct, 
including obstruction or interference with ingress or egress from the plant, 
hindering or preventing by mass picketing, threats, intimidation or coercion 
of any kind the pursuit of work or employment by persons desirous thereof, the 
intimidation of the families of such persons, and the picketing of their domiciles. 
The union informed its membership that the order was not enforcible and would 
not change the picketing in any way. 

Mr. Reuther. I see no need to comment. I would like to say at 
this point, Senator Goldwater, in case you do not recall, I personally, 
in behalf of the workers involved in the Kohler strike, sent a telegram 
to Mr. Herbert Kohler advising him that we would be willing to settle 
the strike upon the basis of the trial examiner's recommendations, even 
though every phase of it was not favorable to the union, and this was 
rejected by the Kohler Co. 

(At this point, the following members were present: Senators 
McClellan, McNamara, Mundt, Curtis, and Goldwater.) 

Senator Goldwater. I believe that has been made a matter of 
record. On page 44: 

Near the close of the June meetings, Conger made several references to a cam- 
paign of violence and vandalism connected with the strike. Thoiigh disclaiming 
responsibility, the union's representative made statements which seemed to 
imply endorsement and to warn of worse things to come. 

Other union representatives also made public statements implying that harass- 
ment of nonstrikers, peaceful and otherwise, would be continued. The union's 
international representative, Vinson, has personally committed a brutal assault 
on a nonstriker. It is concluded and found that respondent was justified in break- 
ing off negotiations under all the circumstances shown by the record. 

Mr. Reuther. I understand that the reference to Mr. Vinson as an 
international representative was corrected : 

Senator Goldwater. I didn't hear you. 

Mr. Reuther. The reference here to Mr. Vinson being an interna- 
tional representative was corrected, because this is an error, as we 
know. There, again, I think I have expressed the point of view of 
the UAW on this whole question of vandalism. None of it was proven 
to be the responsibility of the union, although I regret very much that 
it took place. 

With respect to the home demonstrations, I expressed myself, that 
while the union did not assume responsibility for their being organ- 
ized, I think that we learned this, that we have to provide more 
affirmative leadership in a small community like that, where feeling- 
runs high, and people congregate in front of people's homes and try 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES) EN THE LABOR FIELD 10229 

to transfer a labor dispute from a factory to the residential neighbor- 
hood. I think that is wrong, and I think we have learned that lesson 
here, and the union, I think, is obligated to provide more affirmative 
leadership on these things to prevent their recurrence in the future. 
Senator Gold water. Go back to page 37 : 

On June 24, Conger repeated his warning concerning violence and illegal 
activities. Ferrazza, another international representative, stated, "The trouble 
hasn't even started yet. We have not gone into high gear yet, but we are just 
about to do so." Mr. Kitzmen said, "I hope you will never go the route soliciting 
employees because then the trouble starts." 

Mazey added, "No one has a right to scab, despite the law." 

Have you any comment on that? 

Mr. Reuther. That is what Mr. Conger alleged they said. 

Senator Goldwater. This is the trial examiner's report. It is not 
Mr. Conger or Mr. Kohler. 

Mr. Reuther. I understand. I understand that he is setting forth 
what is alleged to have been said there. He didn't hear this said. I 
think the record is clear, Senator Goldwater, that we have clearly 
stated that we recognize the right of the worker to decide not to go 
to work and also the equal right of a worker to decide to go to work. 

Therefore, it is an improper activity to try to prevent a worker 
who chooses to go to work from exercising that decision. It is all 
in the record. 

Senator Goldwater. You felt that way the first day of the strike? 

Mr. Ret titer. Well, I testified to that in great detail on at least a 
dozen occasions during these hearings, that first of all I was not 
directly involved. The Kohler strike was a relatively small strike. 
I get involved in the big strikes, because I negotiate in the big cor- 
porations. This strike took on serious proportions much later than 
the first day. I told you the other day that there was this doubt 
because of all the factors involved, the background, there was this 
gray legal area that the attorneys were working on, and at the point 
that was clarified, and the decision was made that this was not a 
proper activity, Ave ceased it. But, unfortunately, the Kohler Co. 
has continued to carry on its improper activities, despite the fact 
that a finding has been made against it. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Reuther, do you publish, to your knowl- 
edge, a strike manual or instructions for strikers? 

Mr. Reuther. I don't think we have a strike manual in the sense 
that it deals with all phases. I think there is a publication that we 
have that deals with the relief program and how you organize com- 
munity groups to try to meet the needs of workers during strike 
periods, and that sort of thing. 

Senator Goldwater. The reason that I inquired is if you did have 
one I would like to suggest that you incorporate in the instructions, 
early in the instructions, the feelings of the president of the union 
relative to the right of a man to work or to strike. I think that would 
be a great contribution to the prevention of any future occurences, 
such as we have listened to for 5 weeks. 

Let's turn to page 45. I will read : 

The union disclaimed responsibility for the home gatherings, claiming that 
they were spontaneous gatherings and demonstrations by neighbors, non- 
employees, and curiosity seekers. The evidence, as a whole, does indicate that 
in their inception the home gatherings were both small and spontaneous. The 

21243—58 — r>t. 25 21 



10230 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

evidence is just as clear that the union immediately began a publicity campaign 
which was mainly designed to encourage the continuation, spread, and enlarge- 
ment of the demonstrations, with such success that they soon became a matter 
of almost daily occurrence with hundreds of persons present, although many 
were onlookers." 

Mr. Reuther. I expressed my attitude on that earlier. As a matter 
of fact, I discussed it, I think, in my opening statements. I think the 
record is clear that the union was not responsible for organizing these 
things. They were spontaneous in the sense that they kind of came out 
of the emotional situation. I think the union did not provide the 
kind of affirmative leadership that was necessary to discourage these 
things. 

I think we are obligated, organizationally and morally, to do every- 
thing we can affirmatively to see that this sort of thing doesn't take 
place. I disapprove of this thing because I think it is wrong. 

Senator Goldw^ater. You are going to do all in your power to see 
that it doesn't happen again ? 

Mr. Reuther. I certainly am. I think this is not the sort of thing 
that ought to take place in a dispute between a company and a union. 

Senator Goldwater. On the same page, I will read again : 

The evidence plainly justified respondent's assertion that the union was en- 
couraging the home demonstrations. The conduct involved was sufficiently seri- 
ous to warrant respondent suspending negotiations while the conduct continued. 
Certainly, the demonstrations which had become widespread and which had 
reached scandalous proportions, constituted coercion and intimidation of non- 
striking employees of the most flagrant type. 

It is, therefore, concluded and found that respondent was justified in breaking 
off negotiations on August 18. 

Mr. Reuther. Well, the trial examiner was, I think, trying to reflect 
the kind of feeling that existed in this strike. I think the central point 
you always must keep in mind, Senator Goldwater, is that after you 
read all these paragraphs the company w^as found guilty of bargaining 
not to reach an agreement but bargaining to avoid an agreement ; bar- 
gaining not to try to make the union compromise its demands, but 
to totally capitulate to the point of reducing it to impotency in terms 
of an effective collective-bargaining agency. 

Those are the final things and that is the meat of this finding. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Reuther, one of the reasons that I am tak- 
ing this time to read these into the record is that you have referred to 
them so often that I think that we should set the record straight. 

Actually, the first act of illegality was performed by the union, but 
I don 3 t think it is something we have to argue. 

Mr. Reuther. No ; I think you are wrong. 

Senator Goldwater. When you mass picketed ? 

Mr. Reuther. No; it is not right, Senator. It is true that, ulti- 
mately, this was found to be improper and we ceased doing it. But' 
when the company first — and this was in advance of the strike and, 
therefore, in advance of any mass picketing — the company refused 
to provide the union with the wage data which it had requested at the 
bargaining table, this was the first illegal act because the Labor Board 
requires that a company provide a union, upon request, certain 
basic wage data, and the company refused. That was the first illegal 
act, and it was done by the company. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES: IN THE LABOR FIELD 10231 

Senator Goldwater. Now, Mr. Reuther, on several occasions in your 
testimony, I believe you have stated, and as have several other wit- 
nesses, UAW witnesses before you, that you offered to meet personally 
with Mr. Kohler and sit down with him in an attempt to settle the 
dispute or negotiate a contract. I just want to read what the trial 
examiner has to say about that. That is on page 46. 

On April 22 and 23 the suggestion was made that Kohler meet with Reuther at 
the bargaining table. The union agreed. Respondent rejected the suggestion, 
branding it as a publicity device, and stated that it would not relinquish its 
right to choose its own representatives and that its committee was fully au- 
thorized to make a contract and would meet with Reuther or any other 
representative of the union. 

The record does not indicate that the union ever attempted to bring Reuther 
into the negotiations with respondent's committee. 

And let me continue on page 51 with the same thought: 

Nor can Kohler's refusal to enter the negotiations with Reuther be found 
indicative of bad faith. The act, section S (b) (1) ( a ) gave respondent the right 
freely to select its representatives for collective bargaining, and its management 
committee was at all times fully authorized to act for it. 

Furthermore, the evidence as a whole supported respondent's assertions that 
the suggestions for a Reuther-Kohler meeting were mainly for publicity purposes. 
It must be assumed that Reuther was as much interested as Kohler in settling 
the dispute, yet he made no attempt to enter the negotiations with respondents' 
duly authorized representatives. 

Mr. Keuther. The trial examiner obviously is dealing here with 
purely legal aspects of this case, because that is the only area in which 
he is legally authorized to deal. 1 can assure you that I have sat down 
in a lot of small strike situations when they were critical and when I 
could be helpful, at all hours of the day and at all kinds of places all 
over this country, and that my efforts to get Mr. Kohler at the bargain- 
ing table were not publicity stunts, because we would have liked to 
have been able to settle this strike. We thought that maybe getting 
some new faces across the table from each other would be helpful. It 
is helpful many times. Sometimes people will get emotionally fixed, 
staring at each other for weeks and months, and a couple of new 7 faces 
sometimes brings in a new point of view and you can break a deadlock. 

We have never for one moment, Senator Goldwater, claimed that 
the company did not have a right to choose their representatives. 
Obviously, they do. They could send Mr. Conger in, they can choose 
anyone. We have never said that Mr. Kohler has a legal obligation. 

We know that that is something — we felt that he had a moral obliga- 
tion. Here was a situation where he was the head of a company, the 
strike had gone on for all these months, and he never sat for 1 minute 
in 4 years of a strike at the bargaining table. That is not true in any 
other big corporation. General Motors Corp. had 500,000 employees, 
and yet Mr. C. E. Wilson, Mr. Knudsen, and these people, sat at the 
bargaining table when they were needed. 

Just the other week I worked out a problem with Mr. Colbert, the 
president of the Chrysler Corp. 

They have over 100,000 workers. So getting the top people at the 
bargaining table, sometimes, not because they possess any superior 
wisdom but just getting them there because they are the symbols of 
the highest leadership in the two organizations, can crack a nut that 
maybe other people have not succeeded in doing. This was my whole 
effort. I think it was most unfortunate that Mr. Kohler, not that 



10232 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

there was any guaranty that we could settle it, but I think that both 
of us, morally, were obligated to put our feet under a table and sit 
down in good will and try to find an answer to resolve this problem 
that was causing so much hardship, so much bitterness, and so much 
distress in that community. 

Senator Goldwater. Now let's turn to page 67, and let me read : 

It is unnecessary to describe the picketing in detail; it can accurately be 
described as mass picketing on a grand scale. Thus, union spokesmen in pub- 
lications estimated the pickets as numbering from time to time 1,200, around 
1,800, around 2,000, and over 2,500, and described them as moving in a double 
line along the sidewalk, going in both directions for two city blocks. A shifting 
group, acting as sort of advance guard, usually forms on Industrial Road on 
occasions when groups of nonstrikers approached the lines in an effort to enter 
the plant. On a number of such occasions the nonstrikers were physically 
blocked, pushed, shoved, and prevented from entering. In some instances the 
pickets refused to permit entrance despite requests of Police Chief Cappelle to 
let the workers in to the plant. 

On those and other occasions, the pickets yelled and shouted such things as, 
"Hold that line," "No one gets through," and "Go home, scab, go home." 

The union also put into effect and maintained during this period a pass system 
under which persons desirous of entering the plant, the main office, the employ- 
ment office, or medical department, housed in the same building with the em- 
ployment office, were required to procure passes from the union strike head- 
quarters at Peterson's Tavern some miles away. 

Mr. Keuther. I think we have been over this territory so many 
times. 

Nobody questions the fact that there were a lot of Kohler workers 
there for the reasons that we explained. First of all, they were fear- 
ful of their own personal security because there had been 2 workers 
killed and -17 people shot in the 1934 strike, as reported by Father 
Maguire, who testified that all but 2 were shot in the back, despite the 
fact that a company official said only 20 were shot in the back. And 
they were there also because Mr. Conger had said that the union 
didn't represent a majority of the Kohler workers, and the most 
effective way they believed to demonstrate they did was to come out 
in large numbers. 

So there is now no question about it. There were a lot of Kohler 
workers in the picket line at the same time, and they were marching 
around in circles. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Keuther, again, as you know, these are 
the trial examiner's reports, and you place a lot of confidence in 
them. I merely wanted to get them into the record before we finish 
today. We are moving along very nicely. 

Mr. Reuther. How about putting the whole document in there? 
We will take the whole package. If the Kohler Co. will take it as the 
trial examiner found, we will settle on the trial examiner's findings. 

Senator Goldwater. On page 68 : 

Obviously, picketing on the scale and in a manner as here conducted was 
reasonably calculated to bar, and had the necessary effect of barring ingress and 
egress to and from the plant. 

The union recognized that this was so ; its boastful banner headline in its 
newspaper on April 8 correctly described the situation; "shut clown like a drum," 
that the union hoped and intended to keep it so was plain from all the evidence 
down to the time that the enforcement proceedings, brought by the WERR, 
forced the union to open its picket lines on April 28. 

Would you care to comment on that ? 



IMPROPE.R ACTIVITIES; IN THE LABOR FIELD 10233 

Mr. Reuther. It is more of the same. I would like to say that the 
conclusion was that the company was guilty of being in violation of 
the law, because it was not bargaining in good faith. 

It was bargaining not to reach a conclusion to avoid an agreement. 
It is the conclusion that counts. 

Senator Goldwater. On page 68 : 

The general counsel concedes that mass picketing of the type which occurred 
in April and May of 1954 was unprotected, concerted activity, and that generally 
an employer would be upheld in discharging all who engaged in it. 

It, Kohler, was obviously entitled to discharge their leaders, those who author- 
ized, directed, and controlled the illegal conduct. 

Do you care to comment on that ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, you are skipping around here so much it is 
difficult to follow you. We know what is in here, Senator Goldwater, 
and we don't pretend that he ruled with the union on every detail. 
But despite the fact that he didn't rule with us on every detail, we are 
willing to accept this as a basis for settlement, and so wired the 
company. 

But they rejected it. They appealed it. We didn't. Then after 
they rejected it, we appealed and obviously, since they are challenging 
the things that are favorable to us, we are challenging the things that 
are unfavorable. That is why you have appeal procedures. 

Senator Goldwater. On page 71 : 

There was no formal picket line and no picketing as such. Various people 
in the crowd, including some of the strikers, shouted and yelled at the non- 
strikers, called names, insults, derisive epithets, and sometimes threats. Some 
of such activity was directed at the company's representatives when they were 
in the neighborhood for the purpose of gathering evidence, though none of the 
nonstrikers were physically assaulted or prevented from entering their homes, 
their treatment was plainly coercive and intimidatory as regarded their em- 
ployment by Kohler. 

Though disclaiming that the demonstrations were planned by the union, the 
union's publicity was plainly designed to encourage their continuation and spread. 

Mr. Reuther. I have already expressed myself that I do not think 
that the evidence, and certainly he did not so find, that the union 
organized these, that they came out of the emotionally charged atmos- 
phere of a small town ; I think, however, that the union did not, and 
it ought to exert more positive direction to discourage these things. 

Senator Goldwater. I am happy to hear you say that, and I am 
happy to hear you say you will carry this message down to all the 
levels. 

Mr. Reuther. You can be sure that I shall. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Reuther, I have just one part of the report 
to refer to. You have repeatedly emphasized that once the Wisconsin 
board issued its cease and desist order the union terminated its illegal 
picketing as promptly as possible. 

I call your attention to the fact that 6 months or more after that 
order, despite the injunction issued by the Wisconsin Court enforcing 
that order, illegal picketing was again carried on by the union in 
December of 1954 and January of 1955. This time it occurred at the 
company's employment office. 

I will quote the trial examiner on page 74. 

(At this point, Senator McClellan withdrew from the hearing 
room.) 



10234 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. 

The evidence as a whole established that there were frequent instances when 
groups of pickets interposed themselves between approaching applicants and 
the entrance to the employment office, that the applicants either had to push 
their way through or walk around the pickets, and in the latter cases, the 
pickets sometimes again shifted to interpose themselves as the applicants at- 
tempted to sidestep. 

Sometimes the applicants either walked out into Industrial Road to get 
around the pickets on the sidewalk or onto the grass plot next to the employment 
office. The evidence showed also that on some occasions one or more of the 
village police, who were usually stationed across High Street, came across, if an 
applicant seemed to be having difficulty, and ordered the pickets to open up and 
let the person through. 

Such directions were obeyed, though sometimes only after further palaver. 
The evidence also showed that on some occasions when the applicants walked 
through or around the pickets, someone or more of the pickets bumped, 
shouldered, pushed, shoved or tripped the applicants. 

Would you care to comment ? 

Mr. Reuther. I will ask Mr. Rauh to comment, because he knows 
the particular technical aspects of this point. 

Mr. Rauh. There was no more mass picketing, but when you do 
have a picket line over months, there are bound to be some incidents. 

This was apparently a minor incident at that time. I don't think 
it changes the basic fact that we stopped mass picketing almost im- 
mediately after the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board activity. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Reuther, two questions and we will be 
finished. 

Mr. Mazey defended the action of the Wisconsin State CIO Council 
in withholding contributions to any community chest that contributed 
to institutions using Kohler products. Of coure, as you know, UAW 
locals in the State of Wisconsin are members of that State council. 
The Wisconsin A. F. of L. refused to go along with that CIO action. 

Do you, like Mr. Mazey approve of it ? 

Mr. Reuther. Well, I was under the impression that Mr. Mazey had 
not approved it. 

Senator Goldwater. He defended the actions. I will put it that 
way. Would you defend the actions ? 

]\Ir. Reuther. Let me state what I think are my opinions, my 
views on this thing. We have encouraged our membership to par- 
ticipate in and contribute to community chest drives. As a matter 
of fact, in the city of Detroit, I was actively involved as were other 
people in our union, along with management representatives, to work 
out what we call "Give once and give for all, the United Community 
Chest approach." 

That was worked out in Detroit. For years and years and years 
the Detroit community agencies could not raise their funds, and their 
budgets were never met. Obviously, the community suffered because 
the services were not adequate. 

Then we worked out the system by which you could sign an authori- 
zation card and have the money taken out of your pay check and con- 
tribute to all the communities at the same time, so that one day one 
agency would get a contribution and 2 days later there would be an- 
other one out in front of the gate with a tin cup. We worked that out. 
We have tried to encourage, and I think the record of what we have 
done here, and the efforts of the CIO community agency, now a part 
of the AFL in this area, has made a contribution. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 10235 

I think that a local group would have a right to go to the community 
agencies and say "Here is a labor dispute in which there are these 
issues involved : The company is not meeting its responsibilities, bar- 
gaining in good faith, and we would like to urge you that any com- 
munity agency that uses our money, not to buy their products." 

I think in many cases you would have community agencies that 
would try to work out a relationship on that basis. I think, however, 
that after trying to do that by that kind of personal discussion, if some 
group that gets money from a community agency was involved in a 
project and had taken on Kohler fixtures and so forth, I would not 
attempt to interfere there or to boycott their acti