^1
t
Given By
U. S. SUPT. OF DOCmTENTS
DEPOSITORY
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
MAT 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, AND 22, 1958
PART 29
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Tmproper 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 EIELD
EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGKESS
SECOND SESSION
PURSUANT TO SENATE RESOLUTIONS 74 AND 221, 85TH CONGRESS
MAY 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, AND 22, 1958
PART 29
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Improper Activities in the
Labor or Management Field
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
21243 WASHINGTON : 1958
t-^"-"''hii,
Boston Public Library
Superintendent of Documents
SELECT COMMITTEE ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR OR
MANAGEMENT FIELD
JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas, Chairman
IRVING M. IVES, New York, Vice Chanman
JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massachusetts KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota
SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., North Carolina BARRY GOLDWATER, Arizona
FRANK CHURCH, Idaho CARL T. CURTIS, Nebraska
Robert F. Kennedy, Chief Counsel
Ruth Youno Watt, Chief Clerk
CONTENTS
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.; Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen's Union op North America
Pag*
Appendix 1 1547
Testimony of —
Bieber, Alfred A 11379"
Casale, William 1 1479
Cohn, Joseph 11535
Cole, Norman A 11501
Coiilon, James P 11264
Cornelius, Fred 11483, 11495, 11500
DeSantis, Andrew 1 1474
Douds, Charles T 11277, 11303
Fergerson , Desmond 11365
Gloster, Thomas 11519
Gorman, Patrick E 11334, 11361
Kennedy, Eugene 1 1225
Kopecky, George 11361, 11494
Maggiacomo, Dominick 11528, 11534
Martin, George H 11492, 11500
Mav, Walter R 11533
O'Brien, Thomas 11374
O'Gradv, Joseph E 11506
Picarielio, Patrick J 11225
Ratcliffe, French T 11391
Reape, Patrick J 11189
Reynolds, Elmer L 11217
Ross, William 11250
Schimmat, Charles A - 11310
Woisin, Donald 11270
Zorn, Burton A 11441, 11470
ni
EXHIBITS
Introduced Appears
on page on page
1. Letter dated March 9, 1953, addressed to Retail Food
Clerks Union, Local 1500, re the Great Atlantic & Pacific
Tea Co., signed by Burton A. Zorn 11235 11547
2. A form card that the membership were asked to sign, issued
by Joint Chain Store Organizing Committee 11275 11548
.3. Petitions that were signed by some 960 employees protest-
ing that they had been coerced into paying initiation
fees and dues. NLRB designation charge No. 2-CA,
3035 11292 (*)
4. Letter dated October 11, 1952, addressed to the Great At-
lantic & Pacific Tea Co., New York, attention Mr. C. A.
Schimmat, from Amalgamated Meat Cutters Union,
Local 352, Greater New York 11325 (*)
5. Letter dated March 14, 1952, addressed: "To All Super-
visors, Specialists, Managers, Assistant Managers and
First Meat Men," signed "Al Bieber," with attachment,
addressed: "To All Employees Eligible To Vote in Next
Wednesday's Election" 11389 (*)
6. Letter dated April 22, 1952, addressed to Mr. W. M. Byrnes,
Sr., chairman of the board, and Mr. E. L. Reynolds,
president, eastern division, Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea
Co., and signed "F. R." 11393 (*)
7. Letter dated August 24, 1950, addressed to Arnold Cohen,
Esq., re Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., signed by
Howard Lichtenstein 11393 (*)
8. Memorandum dated April 17, 1956, signed by F. T. Rat-
cliflfe 11432 11549
9. Telegram dated April 13, addressed to French Ratcliflfe and
signed by Arnold Cohen, attorney 11432 11550
10. Document: The Sound Legal Grounds for Recognition of
the Amalgamated Meat Cutters Union in October 1952. 11446 (*)
11. An intraoffice memorandum dated August 25, 1952, pre-
pared by an associate, Mr. Block, to Mr. Zorin of the
firm Proskauer, Rose, Goetz & Mendelsohn, re A. & P.
possible unionization of Brooklyn and Bronx clerks 11450 (*)
12. Copy of the grocery contract that was distributed among
the membership 11496 (*)
13. Campaign document that was sent out by the union for
their members 11500 (*)
Proceedings of — -
May 14, 1958 11187
May 15, 1958- 11225
May 16, 1958 11277
May 20, 1958 11365
May 21, 1958 11441
May 22, 1958 11519
♦May be found In the flies of the select committee.
IV
INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE
LABOR OR MANAGE3IENT FIELD
WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 1958
United States Senate,
Select Committee on Iiniproper Acti\t:ties
IN the Labor or ]\L\nage]vient Field,
Washington^ D. C.
The select committee met at 2 : 30 p. m., pursuant to Senate Resolu-
tion 221, agi-eed to January 29, 1958, in the Caucus Room, Senate
Office Building, Senator Jolin L. McClellan (chairman of the select
committee) presiding.
Present : Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator
Barry Goldwater, Republican, Arizona; and Senator Karl Mundt,
Republican, South Dakota.
Also present : Robert F. Kemiedy, chief counsel ; Walter R. May,
investigator ; George H. Martin, investigator ; John Cye Cheasty, in-
vestigator ; and Ruth Young Wattj, chief clerk.
(At the convening of the session, the following members of the
Senate select committee were present: Senators McClellan and
Mundt.)
The Chairman. The cormnittee will come to order. We begin a
new series of hearings today, and the chairman will make a brief
statement regarding the subject matter and what we expect to develop.
The staff making the investigation reports that this series of hear-
ings by the committee will be devoted to the Great Atlantic & Pacific
Tea Co., which, I am advised, is the largest retail organization in the
world, and its labor relations and transactions with the Amalgamated
Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America. The com-
pany operates about 4,500 stores in 40 States and Canada. The stores
are serviced by 37 centrally located warehouses, 35 bakeries, 40 pro-
duce houses, 6 general factories, 2 milk plants for evaporating, can-
ning, and shipping milk, 4 Alaska salmon canneries, and 9 coffee-
roasting plants.
The company is divided geographically into seven sales divisions.
For the years ending February 23, 1957, its consolidated income ex-
ceeded $4.4 billion.
These hearings will be confined to labor-management relations af-
fecting the company's eastern division, which has headquarters at
420 Lexington Avenue, New York City.
The division controls the New York metropolitan area and the man-
agement and supervision of more than 700 stores, with sales approxi-
mating $19 million a week. These stores employ 15,000 to 16,000
full-time employees and 5,000 to 8,000 part-time employees. About 30
11187
11188 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
percent of the employees work in the meat departments and about
70 percent in the grocery, dairy, and vegetable departments.
A. & P. by its own admission, successfully opposed efforts of various
unions to organize its store employees in the eastern division for a
number of years. It was not until December 1946, that the first union
contract was signed with Local 400 of the Meat Cutters Union cover-
ing the butcher employees in the Bronx unit, and in 1950 the com-
pany signed contracts with local 342, covering the Garden City and
Brooklyn units.
The grocery clerks remained unorganized.
In 1952, Local 1500 of the Retail Clerks International xVssociation,
AFL, and Local 474 Ketail, Wholesale and Department Store Union,
CIO, participated unsuccessfully in NLRB elections to represent cer-
tain grocery clerks.
Thereafter, while an appeal of local 1500 was pending before the
NLRB in Washington, as a result of the election in the Brooklyn unit
and during a period when no NLRB election could be held for the
Bronx unit, an announcement was made that the A. & P. and the Meat
Cutters Union had signed contracts covering the grocery clerk em-
ployees of the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Garden City units.
The circumstances under which these contracts were negotiated and
executed have been the subject of close scrutiny by the committee
staff. The contracts in question ultimately involved the rights of more
than 10,000 employees of the A. & P. in the New York metropolitan
area.
Allegations have been made that certain company officials and some
high-ranking officers of the Meat Cutters Union, acting in concert,
resolved the issue of representation under highly dubious conditions,
in an atmosphere of great secrecy, and in a manner that deprived the
employees of the rights guaranteed them under the Taft-Hartley
Act.
The committee also expects to inquire fully into other allegations that
secret understandings existed between company and union officials
that were never embodied in these contracts, and the practical effect of
these, insofar as the company was concerned, was measurable in mil-
lions of dollars.
If these allegations are supported by the evidence adduced here, it
is the opinion of the chairman that such conduct is repugnant to the
true concept of proper collective bargaining.
Therefore, there is involved in this hearing principally collusion
between management and unions, or union officials, that results in
a disadvantage and a violation of the rights of employees.
Is there any further statement, Senator Mundt?
Senator Mundt. None other that I think I should say, Mr. Chair-
man, for the record, speaking for myself alone, since I have not had
an opportunity to examine the evidence which we are about to explore
in public, I would not want my silence to indicate that I either approve
or disapprove any of the implied conclusions. I do not know at this
stage where the facts lie or where the evidence will lead.
I enter this particular hearing completely uncommitted, having
no idea where the guilt, if any, lies.
The Chairman. The Chair takes full responsibility for the state-
ment he made. Proceed, Mr. Counsel.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11189
Mr. Kennedy. The lh'<t witness, Mr. Chainnan, is Mr. Patrick J.
Reape.
The Chairman. You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give
before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Reape, I do.
TESTIMONY OF PATRICK J. REAPE, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL,
JOHN J. SHEEHAN
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your
business or occupation.
Mr. Reape. My name is Patrick J. Reape. I am business manager
and president of Local 474 of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen, a food employees' union. New York City.
The address is 100 West 42d Street.
The Chairman. Mr. Reape, you have counsel ; do you ?
Mr. Reape. Yes, sir ; I have.
The Ch.\irman. Counsel, will you identify yourself for the record ?
Mr. Sheehan. John J. Sheehan, 51 Chambers Street, New York
City.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr. Kennedy, you may
proceed.
Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Reape, your position at the present time is presi-
dent of local 474 ; is that right ?
Mr. Reape. Yes ; I am president of local 474.
Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been president of local 474 ?
Mr. Reape. For 12 years.
Mr. KiiNNEDY, That is now affiliated with the Amalgamated Meat
Cutters?
Mr. Reape. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Prior to that you were the retail, wholesale and de-
partment store union ; is that right ?
Mr. Reape. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. CIO?
Mr. Reape, Yes, sir.
Mr. Ejennedy. Had you made efforts during the period prior to 1952
to organize the A. &. P. while you w^ere president of local 474?
Mr. Reape. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You had made efforts to organize the clerks of the
A. &. P. stores?
Mr. Reape. I formerly came from A. & P, I worked for the A. &. P.
Tea Co. for 171^ years.
Mr. Kennedy. When did you work for them ?
Mr. Reape. From October 5, 1925, imtil May 12, 1941.
Mr. I^nnedy. What was your position when you left the A. & P.
Co.?
Mr. Reape. I was a manager of a store.
Mr. Ej:nnedy. Under what situation were you caused to leave A.
&P.?
Mr. Reape. Well, I do believe I was terminated because of my
union activities.
Mr. Kennedy. Yon were interested in the union at that time, hav-
ing the employees belong to a imion ?
11190 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Reape. From 1937 on.
Mr. Kennedy. After you left the employment of A. & P., did you
join a union or did you begin your own union ?
Mr. Reape. Well, I think I might clarify that for the reason that
when I was terminated, Mr. Bieber, who was in charge of the Bronx
warehouse, who terminated me, said that I had made 1 mistake in my
17 years. I said "Mr. Bieber, I made more than one mistake. How-
ever, the mistake that you charge me with I feel was not a mistake,
because I know the need of organization in the A. & P. stores."
I said, "It may take me a year and it may take me 20, but I will
never give up until I see A. & P. employees organized."
Mr. Kennedy. Did he explain what the mistake was ?
Mr. Reape. No ; he did not tell me what the mistake was.
Mr. Kennedy. What did you feel the mistake was ?
Mr. Reape. There was only one conclusion I could reach.
Mr. Kennedy. What?
Mr. Reape. That was the fact I had been active or very active in
trying to organize my fellow employees.
Mr. Kennedy. Had you discussed this with him prior to that time
so that you knew that this was the complaint against you ?
Mr. Reape. No ; I had not discussed it with him.
Mr. Kennedy. How did you Iniow that this was the mistake that
he had in mind ?
Mr. Reape. Well, certainly in trying to organize A. & P. that was
a rought job, because every time we went into the stores the cops
were called or somebody else, and they tried to throw us out. They
used every
Mr. Kennedy. That was after you went with 474 ?
Mr. Reape. No ; before I even left A. & P. I was out organizing
while I was still a manager, on my half day off.
Mr. Kennedy. And the A. & P. had an active campaign against
union organizers ?
Mr. Reape. Definitely.
Mr. Kennedy. How would that take place? What would they
do?
Mr. Reape. Well, a number of the employees on their day off used
to go around to the different stores and speak to their fellow em-
ployees and tell them of the need for a union, advise them of the
reasons that they should belong to a union. Naturally, when you
started out at store No. 1, you had either the supervisor or some-
body else following you down the line, in order to discourage the em-
ployees in the store from speaking to those of us who were active.
Mr. Kennedy. You spoke about the fact that they had policemen
throw you out of the store. Did that happen occasionally?
Mr. Reape. Well, they tried to, but they never threw me out. I
always had enougli reasons. I felt it was a public place, and that
1 had a right to be in there.
Mr. KicNNEDY. Did they bring policemen into the store to throw
you out when you were attempting to organize?
Mr. Reape. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you able to leave under your own power ?
Mr. Reape. Well
Mr. Kennedy. You never got thrown out physically ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11191
Mr. Reape. Never.
Mr. Kennedy. You continued your organizing work through the
1940's, did you, attempting to organize the clerks of the A. & P. ?
Mr. Reape. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have this opposition during the 1940's, also ?
Mr. Reape. We alwaj'^s had opposition.
Mr. Kennedy. The way you have described the opposition ? That
occurred during all of 1940?
Mr. Reape. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. What about in 1950, 1951, and 1952. Were you
still trying to organize the clerks of the A. & P. ?
Mr. Reape. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any success during that period of
time?
Mr. Reape. Yes, I would say that we lost an election in 1951. We
protested the election at that time, protested to the National Labor
Relations Board, and filed an unfair labor practice charge. As a re-
sult of tliat, there was another election held in 1952. We lost that elec-
tion by less than 100 votes, I believe. I am not positive of the correct
amount of votes, but I know there was possibly less than 100 votes.
The Chairman. What were the total votes ?
Mr. Kennedy. I have the figures.
Mr. Reape. I don't have the exact figures.
Mr. Kennedy. The A. F. of L., local 1500, got 226 votes, no union
got 1,133 votes, and local 474 got 772 votes, for a total of 2,131
votes.
But that means an improvement over how you had done in the
past?
Mr. Reape. Yes, it was.
Mr. Kennedy. Were the people at that time frightened about join-
ing a union?
Was there any fear that you noticed amongst the A. & P. employees ?
Mr. Reape. Well, the A. & P. supervisors and managers at all times
threw that amount of fear into the minds of the men, that if they
talked to the union officials, or if they signed a card, that they would
be terminated. I mean, the A. & P. officials insisted upon the em-
ployees not speaking to us. They also picked up leaflets that we dis-
tributed in the stores so that the employees would not have a chance
of reading those leaflets.
Mr. Kennedy. But you knew of cases where the A. & P. super-
visors or managers of stores went to employees and told them that
if they joined the union, their employment would be terminated?
Mr. Reape. Yes, I have been told so by the employees.
Mr. Kennedy. That liappened in a number of cases during this
period of time?
Mr. Reape. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. So by the time 1952 came along, despite this cam-
paign against unionization by the company, the fact that you got
770 votes you felt you were improving your position; is that right?
Mr. Reape. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. This election that you just mentioned was held on
March 9, 1952 ; is that right ?
Mr. Reape. I believe that was the date.
11192 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Did you continue to try to organize and get ready for
an election the following year ?
Mr. Reape. No ; we did not start a campaign immediately, not until,
I would say, September or October, because we felt or knew from past
experience that we could not get an election from the National Board
within 1 year. "VYe also felt that it was always best to wait until 2 or 3
months before it was possible of having an election to start a cam-
paign, for the simple reason that we felt that a short and aggressive
campaign was much more effective than a long, drawn out one.
Mr. Kennedy. Did most of the retail chains in the New York area at
that time have a 45 -hour week ?
Mr. Reape. In 1952?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Reape. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. You had a contract, did you not, with the Safeway
Stores ?
Mr. Reape. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kennedy". Had you been pressing the Safeway Stores for a 40-
hour week?
Mr. Reape. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And had the Safeway Stores agreed about September
of 1952 that they would grant a 40-hour week ?
Mr. Reape. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Was this quite a concession by a retail store ?
Mr. Reape. Yes ; in New York it was.
Mr. Kennedy. It was?
Mr. Reape. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Would this mean loss of a considerable amount of
money to go from a 45-hour week to a 40-hour week ?
Mr. Reape. Well, certainly, I think I can safely say it was putting
the Safeway Stores at a disadvantage insofar as competition is con-
cerned in the field.
Mr. Kennedy. But they had indicated at that time that they would
sign a 40-hour week ; is that right ?
Mr. Reape. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And their contract would embody a 40-hour week
clause or provision. That was in September or October of 1952, It
was about this time that you began to reactivate your campaign in
the A. & P. stores?
Mr. Reape. That is correct. I might explain in reference to that
that we had found from past procedures and past practice that any
increase we got from Safeway in previous years, starting a campaign
in A. & P., A. & P. immediately came up with the same type of an in-
crease as we had gotten. We felt that since Safeway had offered a 40-
hour week, starting a campaign in A. & P. at the time would force
A. & P. men into giving a 40-hour week to their employees at the time,
or, on the other hand, that we would again prove to the employees of
A. & P. that it certainly was to their advantage to belong to a union.
Mr. Kennedy. Coming to October of 1952, did you hear any rumors
at tliat time that the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butchers Union
was interested in organizing the A. & P. clerks?
Mr. Reape. I would say that possibly toward the end of September
or early in October I did hear rumors from clerks that the butchers
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE L.\BOR FIELD 11193
working in tlie stores had been asking the clerks to sign cards, and
they had told those clerks that the cards were just so as to help them
get a better contract.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that pretty well known, then, that the Amalga-
mated Meat Cutters had become interested in trying to organize the
clerks 'i
Mr. Reape. No, I would not say that. It was not known that the
Amalgamated Meat Cutters were trying to organize the clerks. The
story that was given to the clerks by the butchers was this, that if
they signed the cards, it would lielp them in their bargaining efforts
with A. & P.
Mr. Kennedy. At this time, the Butchers and the Meat Cutters had
a contract with the A. & P., did they not, covering the butcher
employees ?
Mr. Reape. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And that is about 30 percent of the employes in the
A. &. P. stores?
Mr. Re.vpe. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. But they did not have a contract covering the clerks?
Mr. Reape. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. You understood that they were going around, at-
tempting to get the clerks to sign cards in order for an election to
be held in the A. & P. stores ?
Mr. Reape. No, there were none of the clerks in the stores told by
the meatcutters in the particular stores that those cards were signed
in order to petition for an election.
They told them that they were holding those cards so as to influence
or help them insofar as negotiating the contract for the butchers.
Mr. Kennedy*. Help them when they had to sit down and negotiate
a contract ?
Mr. Reape. And negotiate a contract, that is correct.
Mr. I'Cennedy. I would like you to identify this letter of October
17, 1952.
The CHAipaiAN. The Chair hands you a photostatic copy of a letter
dated October 17, 1952, written on National Food Chain Store Em-
ployees' stationery, and signed Patrick J. Reape, business manager.
Will you examine this photostatic copy and state if you identify
it as a copy of the original ?
(The document was handed to the witness.)
(The witness conferred with his comisel.)
Mr. Kennedy. You are familiar with that letter?
Mr. Reape. Yes.
The Chairman. You identify
Mr. Reape. This is a copy of the letter which I sent to the A. & P.
Tea Co.
Mr. Kennedy. I will read it into the record.
I will ask Mr. May, my assistant, to read it into the record.
The CiiAiRsiAN. Mr. May, you may read the letter into the record.
Mr. May. This letter is directed to the Great Atlantic & Pacific
Tea Co., eastern division, 370 Southern Boulevard, New York, N. Y. ;
attention A. A. Bieber. [Reading :]
Gentlemen, we have been informed by the members of this union who are
employed in your stores within the Bronx unit that you contemplate signing a
11194 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
collective bargaining agreement with certain butcher unions for employees
employed as grocery, vegetable, and dairy clerks and checkers. Please be
advised that this union has been designated by a majority of such employees
to bargain for them, and it has been restrained from making any formal applica-
tion due to the fact that the election conducted by the National Labor Relations
Board was held in March of this year. Under the rules of the National Labor
Relations Board, another election may not be held sooner than 12 months fol-
lowing the date of the previous election. As you are undoubtedly aware, this
union received the largest number of votes of any of the competing unions on
the ballot in the last election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board.
It would have received a clear majority if it were not for interference by your
supervisors. We have authorized our attorneys to take any and all steps to
insure that our members' legal rights will not be jeopardized by any deal be-
tween you and the unions favored by you.
We are calling upon regional and State CIO officials to assist us in our efforts
to secure democratic representation for your employees. We would like to be
informed by you whether you contemplate signing an agreement with the union
covering grocery, vegetable and dairy clerks and checkers, or whether you have
signed such an agreement.
Very truly yours,
Pateick J. Reape, Business Manager.
The Chairman. You had information at the time of writing this
letter, that there had been an agreement made to take the clerks into
the Butchers' Union, or that a contract had already been made?
Mr. Reape. Yes, sir; I had.
The Chairman. You were inquiring about it. You had informa-
tion that they were about to or had already, and you were inquiring
about it at that date ?
Mr. Reape. That is correct.
The Chairman. And that was because your union was the proper
one to organize the clerks ?
Mr. Reape. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And not the Butchers?
Mr. Reape. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Is that your contention ?
Mr. Reape. That is my contention.
The Chairman. It was your intention to make that known to them
at the time ?
Mr. Reape. That is correct.
The Chairman. That put them on notice ?
Mr. Reape, That is correct.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Kennedy. What had you heard about an agreement that was
signed or was going to be signed with the meatcutters and the
Butchers, taking it uj:) to the first or second week of October ?
Mr. Reape. Well, I believe it was on a Friday morning that the
employees reported to work, and each one of them was given a notice
by the manager of the store, advising them that they were now in the
union and they had to become members within 30 days.
I would say that our office was flooded with calls all that day from
all over the city. The employees could not understand why a con-
tract had been signed without their knowledge or without them know-
ing about it.
The Chairman. As I understand you, as they came to work they
were told by management or a representative of management that
the store was union, and they would have to join within 30 days or
lose their job.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11195
Mr. Reape. That is right. I believe that letters had been signed by
Mr. Bieber in the Bronx unit and I get by the managers of the ditler-
ent units within the eastern division, advising, and copies of this
letter was given to all employees, advising them that a contract had
been signed.
The Chairman. And no election had been held so that the employees
might express their preference or express their choice of that union,
or to reject that union ?
Mr. Reape. It is my firm belief that not one single employee work-
ing for the A. & P. in the eastern division knew anything about nego-
tiations, or knew anything about what had been going on until that
morning.
The Cuair:max. In other words, it was just an arrangement be-
tween management and some labor leader or some labor union to
bring them all into the union whether they desired to or not, is that
correct ?
Mr. Reape. Right.
Mr. Kennedy. What was your reaction to the signing of this con-
tract, or when you lieard a contract had been signed ?
Mr. Reape. Well, I think that after spending from 1936 to 1952,
trying to bring organization to A. & P., and being fought by company
officials all the way dow^n the line, certainly my reaction was this,
that the employees now were getting the union that A. & P. wanted.
I felt a deal was made that was to the disadvantage of the employees.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the reaction of the employees when they
called you on the telephone to tell you that they had to pay these
dues into the Butchers f
Mr. Reape. Well, those employees felt, '"Well, what should we do,
walk out now or what ? We don't want any part of it. If we are going
to have a contract, we want to see something about it. We want to
have a chance to see it, know what is in it, and have a chance to ratify
the contract under the democratic procedure."
Mr. Kennedy. Had you known at that time that there had been
some kind of a card count that had occurred ?
Mr. Reape. Not at that time. I did hear of that afterward.
Mr. I^nnedy. Did you know that some of the employees had
signed cards which indicated that they wanted to join the Butchers
Union ?
Mr. Reape. I did not know of any clerk who signed cards with the
intention of joining the Butchers Union. I feel that some members
or some clerks did sign cards because they were given a wrong impres-
sion as to what the idea of signing the cards was for, what it was for.
Mr. KJENNEDY. What was the impression that they gained when
they signed tlie cards, as they related it to you ?
Mr. Reape. Well, they felt they were help)ing the butchers to get
a better contract by signing.
Mr. Kennedy. Had the company opposed the employees' signing
the cards ? Did they report anything along those lines to you, that the
company had opposed this union as they had opposed your union?
Mr. Reape. I heard no complaints. I mean, I heard nothing from
the employees to the effect that management had opposed them sign-
ing those cards.
11196 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Had you heard to the contrary, that management
was assisting the union in getting the employees to sign any of these
cards ?
Mr. Eeape. Yes ; I did hear that.
Mr. Kennedy. Were there individuals who called you in these first
few days, who told you that the management had assisted the union
in having the employees sign up ?
Mr. Keape. Yes ; I did.
Mr. Kennedy. About that period of time, or subsequently, and this
would be in the middle of October of 1952, did you hear any rumors
or learn that the Meat Cutters had guaranteed a 45-hour week for an
extended period of time to the A. & P. Co. ?
Mr. Reape. Not immediately. I did hear that possibly a year or
so later. But I did not hear anything about it at that time.
Mr. Kennedy. After you learned that this contract had been signed
between the Butchers and the A. & P. Co., what steps did you take as
a representative of local 474 to try to permit the employees to select
their own union ?
Mr. Reape. We first filed an unfair labor practice charge before the
National Labor Relations Board.
Mr. Kennedy. AVas there a hearing on that then ?
Mr. Reape. Yes ; there was.
Mr. Kennedy. AVliat was the result ?
Mr. Reape. Well, there was informal conferences, and the result
was that the officials of the National Labor Relations Board, after a
number of months had passed, informed us that they felt we did not
have sufficient inf oraiation in order to throw out the contract, in order
to bring about an election.
Mr. Kennedy. Did the employees themselves take any steps to try
to get rid of the Butchers' Union ?
Mr. Reape. Yes. The employees themselves, a group of them,
signed a petition for deauthorization of the union shop.
Mr. Kennedy. In what section of the A. & P. stores was this?
Mr. Reape. In the Bronx unit.
Mr. Kennedy. How many stores are there in the Bronx unit, ap-
proximately ?
Mr. Reape, Well, I guess about 180.
Mr. Kennedy. And the employees there got together and signed
a petition to try to get rid of the Butchers' Union ?
Mr. Reape. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. That was a deauthorization petition?
Mr. Reape. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. How many employees signed the deauthorization
petition ?
Mr. Reape. I would say that more than 30 or 40 percent of the em-
ployees signed the deauthorization petition.
Mr. Kennedy. Were there approximately 960 employees who signed
a petition to the National Labor Relations Board requesting a de-
authorization election?
Mr. Reape. I could not say exactly, but that may be correct.
Mr. Kennedy. I believe that is the figure. 960 ; 960, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Reape. By the way, I do believe we had to file the signatures
with the Board in order to get a hearing or get the decertification
election.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11197
Mr. Kennedy. I believe it is called deautliorization, is it not, rather
than decertification ?
Mr. Reape. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy, Then after the National Labor Relations Board re-
ceived this petition from some 960 employees, did they make arrange-
ments to hold a deauthorization election?
Mr. Reape. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And did the company at that time cooperate to try
to help the employees get rid of this union, or did they oppose the
employees who were trying to get rid of it.
Mr. Reape. The company at that time used, I believe, all of their
influence in order to trj^ to support the union that they had signed a
contract with.
Mr. Kennedy. They did everythmg to support the butchers' union
and to oppose the employees who were trying to get rid of the union,
is that right ?
Mr. Reape. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. This was a complete reversal of their former posi-
tion of being against every union ?
Mr. Reape. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they put out literature telling the employees
that they should not even vote in the election ? Are you familiar with
any of the literature that the company put out at that time ?
Mr. REiVPE. Well, I am not sure. I have been advised that the
company put out literature. I possibly could identify it.
Mr. Kennedy. Did the Butchers Union put out literature, do you
know that?
Mr. Reape. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Urging people not to vote in the election ?
^Ir. Reape. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. In order to have a successful deauthorization, it
took 50 percent of all of the eligible voters, is that correct ?
Mr, Reape. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. It is not 50 percent of those who vote, but 50 per-
cent of all of the eligible voters in the union ?
Mr. Reape. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. So that would mean that if a person did not vote, it
would actually be a vote in favor of the union and against deauthor-
ization ?
Mr. Reape. Correct.
Mr. Kennedy. That is what it would amount to. So the company
was urging the employees not to vote, is that right?
Mr. Reape, That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And the Butchers Union, was urging the employees
not to vote ?
Mr. Reape. Correct.
Mr. Kennedy. What about the polling places? Did the company
make it easy for the employees to go to the polls to cast their ballots
in the election ?
Mr. Reape. Well, I think first of all we tried in tlie conferences
down at the Board to get balloting places in several places throughout
the city. We found that our idea was opposed botli by the Butchers
Union and management, to the extent that we had just, I think, two
11198 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
places in Manhattan, and I can't say whether there were 1 or 2 in
the Bronx,
Then we had a traveling ballot throughout Westchester County.
Mr, Kennedy, But there were central polling places, is that right?
Mr, Keape. Yes,
Mr, Kennedy. And the company, if they had been so inclined,
could have had more polling places and in more ponvenient s^wts?
Mr, Reape, Well, that was the responsibility of the NLRB, to
secure the polling places for the election,
Mr. Kennedy. But they have to get permission, do they not, from
the company, as to where the polling was ?
Mr. Eeape. They have to get the consent of all parties.
Mr. Kennedy. Previously, in the other elections that you had been
involved in, the company had placed a great number of polling places,
isn't that right ?
Mr. Reape. They were always in favor of a great number of polling
places.
Mr. Kennedy. But at this time, where it would have been harm-
ful to the butchers union to have a great number of people vote,
there were just a few polling places, is that right ?
Mr. Reape. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. There was an election held and a good number of
the employees did vote, did they not, in the election ?
Mr. Reape. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know what the results were ?
Mr. Reape. I don't remember the exact number for the against, I
think around 1,000, 1 think, voted.
Mr. Kennedy. I will read the figures and you tell me if they are
correct.
Mr. Reape. All right.
Mr. Kennedy. Out of 2,344 eligible voters, 979 votes favored with-
drawal of union authority and 172 votes were against withdrawal of
union authority.
Are those figures correct ?
Mr. Reape. That is correct.
Mr, Kennedy. So the antibutchers' faction won the election about
8 to 1, but they were unable to get the 50 percent of the eligible voters,
isn't that right?
Mr. Reape. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy'. So you lost the deauthorization election ?
Mr. Reape. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy-. There needed to be 1,168 votes in favor of deauthori-
zation, and the deauthorization received only 979.
Mr. Reape. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy-. So that was 189 short.
Mr. Reape. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. That was just in the Bronx unit, is that right?
Mr. Reape. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy'. Were the people very opposed, actively opposed, to
paying their dues into the butchers union?
Mr. Reape. Yes.
Mr. Ivennedy. Were they told by management that they would
have to pay tlieir dues or otherwise they were going to get fired?
Mr. Reape. That is correct.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE L.\BOR FIELD 11199
Mr. Kennedy. And that they would have to join up with the union?
Did you have a number of instances that came to your attention
where individuals were told that tliey either had to pay their dues
or they would be fired 'i
Mr. Keape. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. This, again, is a complete reversal from the position
that A. & P. had taken before, is that right ?
Mr. Reape. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. What about the people that had led the fight for
your union, the individuals, the employees of A. & P. who had been
interested in bringing 474 into the A. & P. Co. ?
After this deautliorization election did they receive any harsh
treatment from the A. & P. Co. or from the butchers union ?
Mr. Reape. Yes. A number of them were fired.
Mr. Kennedy. How many of them were fired ?
Mr. Reape. I would say 8 or 10. There were a number of them
fired.
Mr. Kennedy. About 10 of them were fired ?
Mr. Reape. I would say 8 or 10, and possibly more.
The Chairman. You mean those that voted for deauthorization
were fired because of their activity in trying to get the union
deauthorized ?
Mr. Reape. That is right. They also refused to pay their dues,
and I would say that most of those who were leaders in the fight were
terminated.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, there was a union contract, was there not, in
which it was stimpulated that everybody had to pay their dues?
Mr. Reape. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. That was the agreement w^ith the butchers?
Mr. Reape. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Under that contract if you did not pay your dues,
you could be fired, isn't that right ?
Mr. Reape. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. So the complaint here was that there were approxi-
mately 1,100 people or more who refused to pay their dues in this
unit, and they selected these 10 who were the ones who were the
leaders in the faction for your union and against the butchers, to fire,
isn't that right ?
Mr. Reape. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. They picked out these 10, and you brought a com-
plaint, or they brought a complaint to the National Labor Relations
Board, on the basis that they were selected because they were against
the butchers' union, rather than on the fact that they had not paid
their dues?
Mr. Reape. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, what was the result in the case of those 10
individuals ?
Mv. Reape. Well, we got, I would say, practically all of them jobs
in other stores. Some of them did lose a few weeks work, but we
had them placed in Safeway, so that it was possible.
Mr. Kennedy. Were their charges sustained that they brought
against the company for firing them ?
Mr. Reape, No.
21243— 58— pt. 29 2
11200 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Did they receive any money ?
Mr. Reape. From the company you mean ?
Mr. Kennedy. Did they receive any money from anybody in con-
nection with being fired ?
Mr. Reape. Yes. During the year 1954, we changed our affiliation
from the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union to the
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen.
Mr. Kennedy. What brought that about? You joined the opposi-
tion at that time, did you?
Mr. Reape. Well, there were reasons for it. We felt that in the
CIO at the time we had the only butchers in the entire CIO, and we
found from practical experience that it was advantageous to our
membei*s to be in the AFL. In case any of our members, our butchers,
lost their job, they could get a job in some of the other stores.
We found that they would possibly be discriminated against because
of the fact that w^e still maintained our position in the retail and
wholesale workers.
Also, I might say that at the time in negotiating with the Amal-
gamated Meat Cutters, we were given to understand by the top
leaders
Mr. Kennedy. Who was that ?
Mr. Reape. Mr. Gorman, secretary-treasurer, and Mr. Jimerson,
who has since died.
Mr. Kennedy. He was president at the time ?
Mr. Reape. He w^as president at the time ; yes. That, if we changed
our affiliation from the CIO to the Amalgamated Meat Cutters, it
would be compulsory for the Amalgamated to get a 40-hour week in
A. & P. in the next contract.
Mr. Kennedy. Wlien did you change over ?
Mr. Reape. I believe it was May 1954.
Mr. Kennedy. And they had assured you prior to the time that you
changed over, that the butchers w'ould obtain a 40-hour week from
the A. & P. Co. ; is that right ?
Mr. Reape. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And you had already obtained this 40-hour week
from the Safeway Co. ; isn't that right ?
Mr. Reape. We had been working on a 40-hour week from, I believe,
some time in September of 1953. We had obtained the 40-hour week
as of 1952, but we had to submit the terms of the contract to the
Wage Stabilization Board in order to be approved. I believe it was
approved in the following year, in 1953.
Mr. Kennedy. The problem for you at that time was the reopening
of the contract with Safeway, where you already had these better
terms. You had already obtained a 40-hour week. The problem was
reopening a contract and sitting down and trying to negotiate with
Safeway for new terms, for better terms, when the A. & P. still was
on a 45-hour week ; is that right ?
Mr. Reape. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. This was a major problem for you ?
Mr. Reape. Exactly.
Mr. Kennp:dy. With the assurance from Mr. Gorman, and Mr.
Jimerson, at that time, that they would obtain a 40-liour week from
the A. & P. Co., your union joined up with the ]\Ieat Cutters; is that
right?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11201
Mr. Reape. Yes, sir.
Mr. I^NNEDY. For that and the reason you just mentioned?
Mr, Reape. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And he oaA^e you assurances at that time that they
would obtain a 40-hour week from the A. & P. Co. f
Mr. Re.\pe. Yes, sir. ^
Mr. IvENNEDY. This was in 1954 tliat you had these discussions, that
you made the arran*renients with Mr. Gorman and Mr. Jimerson to
join up with the Meat Cutters.
Mr. Reape. Well, Mr. Gorman, ]Mr. Jimerson, and Vice President
Joe Belsky, from Xew York.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have some conversations with Mr. Block?
Mr. Reape. Yes ; we did have.
Mr. Kennedy. Which Mr. Block was that ?
Mr. Reape. Max Block.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, going back to our original question as to
what occurred about the 10 individuals. After your union became
affiliated Avith the ^leat Cutters, did j^ou get the case of the 10 indi-
viduals settled, who had been fired ?
Mr. Reape. After we changed our affiliation, the international
lawyers called me into their office in Chicago while we were attending
the convention in May of 1954 and asked me if I would not intercede
with those employees who had been terminated to withdraw the charges
before the NLRB. I did tell the attorneys at that time that certainly
I had no control over those men.
While they had tiled those charges independently of our local, cer-
tainly I could not insist upon them withdrawing their charges. That
would be a matter for those individuals themselves.
I did say, however, that possibly if those men were reimbursed for
some of the sufferings they had during Christmas of 1953, possibly
something could be done about it.
Mr. Kennedy. Was it arranged to reimburse them ?
Mr. Reape. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. With whom were those discussions conducted ?
Mr. Reape. Those discussions mostly were conducted with Mr.
Belsky and Mr. Gorman.
Mr. Kenn?:dy. Now, how much were they reimbursed, each one of
these individuals ?
Mr. Reape. Eight of these employees received $500 each.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they receive that $500 from the company ?
Mr. Reape. Not from the com])any.
Mr. Kennedy. They received it from the union ?
Mr. Reape. That is correct.
^Ir. Kennedy. Although they had been fired by the company; is
that right ?
Mr. Reape. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the reason they received money from the
union rather than from the companv ?
Mr. Reape. That I cannot explain. I felt from the question that
was put to me by the attorneys in asking me to have the charges
withdrawn, it would look bad for local 474 being within the Amalga-
mated and still having charges made.
Mr. Kennedy. You don't have any explanation as to why the union
paid these charges rather than the company paying the charges?
11202 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Reape. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. But the charges against both the union and the com-
pany were withdrawn ; is that right 'i
Mr. Reape. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Now tell me this: The second part of it was that
you had received the assurances that the Meat Cutters would attempt
to obtain a 40-hour week from the A. & P. Co., when you went into
this union?
Mr. Reape. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they in fact obtain the 40-hour week at that
time or at the next negotiations?
Mr. Reape. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you learn during this period of time that there
had been an agreement, a secret agi'eement permitting the A. & P. Co.
to keep a 45 -hour week for an extended period of time ?
Mr. Reape. I did hear that.
Mr. Kennedy. You heard that ?
Mr. Reape. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. That would be a 45-hour week for an extended
period of time, is that right ?
Mr. Reape. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us what you learned about that, and
from whom you learned it ?
Mr. Reape. I had heard rumors about it and our contract with
Safeway had expired as of September 30, 1954. Due to the fact that
there was still a difference of 5 hours per week and the A. & P. em-
ployees received for 45 hours approximately the same rate of pay
that our members received for 40 hours, I called Mr. Block and asked
if I could see him.
Mr. Kennedy. Wliich Mr. Block is that ?
Mr. Reape. Max Block.
Mr. Kennedy. What was his position at that time ?
Mr. Reape. He was president of 342.
Mr. Kennedy. And 640 ?
Mr. Reape. Yes ; and 640.
Mr. Kennedy. And he is also a vice president of the international,;
is he not ?
Mr. Reape. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead. You had some conversations with him ?
Mr. Reape. Myself and one of our business agents, Mr. Gloster met
Max Block in his office and went for lunch at Luchow's. Wliile having
lunch, I asked Max Block what was happening in the A. & P. nego-
tiations, and he said, "Well, we are getting $7.50 a week of an increase."
I said, "Max, how about the hours?" And he said, "Well, we are
going along with 45 hours for another 2 years."
I said, "No good, because getting $7.50 a week of an increase will
not bring you up to the salaries that we have for employees of Safeway,
and with a contract such as that, if that is signed, I am positive that
we will have to strike Safeway."
Senator Mundt. Strike Safeway or A. & P. ?
Mr. Reape. Safeway. I represent local 474, which represents the
Safeway Stores in New York City.
Senator Mundt. I just don't follow why you would strike Safeway
if they were giving you a better contract than A. & P.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11203
Mr. Reape. Safeway refused to make an offer so long as A. & P.
still continued on a 45 -hour week.
Mr. Kennedy. They claimed it was very unfair; is that right?
Mr. Reape. They claimed they were at a disadvantage.
Mr. Kennedy. And discriminated against ?
Mr. Reape. Yes, sir. I did ask Max Block at the time, and I said,
"Why didn't you consider getting at least a 421^-hour week this year,
and possibly going to a 40-hour week next year, so that we might
equalize or standardize the rates of pay and the hours of work for
the entire industry in New York City ?"
And he said, "It can't be done. We are getting a good increase, and
we are getting $7.50 and that is it."
I felt very discouraged after hearing that, based on the fact that
I had been advised by the international officers that in the next contract
in A. & P., the 40-hour week would be guaranteed. I called Mr. Gorman
in Chicago and made an appointment to see him. I think the following
Friday.
Mr. Gloster and I went out to Chicago and met Mr. Gorman, and
I explained to him my conversation with Max Block in New York,
and also explained the problem that we were going to have in negotiat-
ing a contract with Safeway.
I also advised the international officers of promises that were made
to us when we were changing our affiliation from the Retail, Wliole-
sale and Department Store Union to the Amalgamated Meat Cutters,
and I asked Mr. Gorman if there wasn't something he could do about
it, again repeating the fact that unless the hours in A. & P. were
shortened in 1955, we certainly would be forced to have a strike
against Safeway.
I said, "You made a promise and I am here to demand my pound
of flesh."
Those are the exact words I used. I said, "There have been rumors
that a 5-year contract was signed, and I don't know whether or not
that is so."
I said, "Mr. Gorman, do you know anything about a 5-year con-
tract being signed with A. & P. ?"
Mr. Gorman's answer to me was, "Well, if Max Block made a
promise to A. & P., I guess he would live up to it."
That was more or less the end of the conversation regarding the
40-hour week in A. & P., with the international officers.
Mr. Kennedy. If the 5-year contract for the 45-hour week had
been signed or made, any agreement of that kind, it would have been
a secret agreement ; would it not ?
Mr. Reape. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. That had not been made public ?
Mr. Reape. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And none of the employees knew about it?
Mr. Reape. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you gather from the way Mr. Gorman talked
that he was aware of this agreement that had been made by Mr.
Block?
Mr. Reape. I would say that Mr. Gorman let me think he didn't
know anything about it but I felt by about the way he spoke he didn't
know anything about it.
11204 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy, What reason was he g-iving- you then for not living
up to the agreement that he had made with you that you would be
able to obtain a 40-hour week from the A, & P. stores ?
Mr. Keape. Mr. Gorman did say, "I will tell you what I will do.
I will get in touch with Max and see if anything can be done about
it."
Mr. Kennedy. "Was anything done about it ?
Mr. Reape. He said if anything could be done about getting the
40-hour week in A. & P.
Mr. Kennedy. Was anything ever done about it?
Mr. Reape. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. For another period of time, they retained the 45-
hour week ?
Mr. Reape. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you learn anything further about whether there
had been a secret agreement to give A. & P. Co, a 45-hour week for
this 5-year period, starting in October 11, 1952?
Mr. Reape. I have still heard rumors that there was a secret agree-
ment, but I can't prove it.
Mr. Kennedy. This is as close to the truth as you got; is that right?
Mr. Reape. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And nobody knew for a fact, there wasn't anything
written that was made public to the employees, telling them about it ?
Mr. Reape. As far as I know ; that is right.
Mr. Kennedy. What was your attitude toward the Butchers and
Meat Cutters after that ?
Mr. Reape. Well, in leaving Chicago, I told Mr. Gorman, "You
had better be prepared for a long strike in New York, because of
this,"
The result was that we were forced to strike Safeway, and we were
out for 9 weeks, or 8 weeks, I believe, from June 9 until August 9,
in 1955,
Mr, Kennedy, Was it successful ?
Mr, Reape. Yes ; we finally got a settlement.
Mr. Kennedy. It was completely unfair really to the Safeway
Stores ; was it not ?
Mr. Reape, I guess I would say it was,
Mr. Kennedy. But you were forced into that position because of
the fact that Mr. Gonnan and Mr. Block failed to live up to their
agreement ?
Mr. Reape. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And the Safeway Stores were the ones who suffered
from it?
Mr. Reape. And our members.
Mr. Kennedy. And your own members ?
Mr. Reape. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kj2nnedy. And the employees of the A. & P. stores for the
most i^art?
Mr. Reape, Yes ; that is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Have you taken an active roll, or continued an
active roll in the Butchers since that time?
Mr. Reape, Yes ; I have,
Mr, Kennedy, It hasn't affected your relationship ?
Mr. Reape, No, sir.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE KABOR FIELD 11205
Mr. Kennedy. Would you say in tliis wliole matter that you, the
employees of A, & P., had been misled ?
Mr, Reape. Yes, insofar as the terms and conditions of the con-
tract were concerned, I would say so.
Mr, Kennedy. Xow, there is just one other matter that I want to
go back to, and that is the payment of the money to these eight indi-
viduals who were fired. Do you know where that money came from,
what particular local that came from ?
Mr. Reape. I am not positive, but I believe that the check came
from local 342.
Mr. Kennedy, Now, that is 342 of the Meat Cutters in Brooklyn ;
is it not ?
Mr, RriVpe. Yes, sir. Their offices are in Manhattan, but they cover
Brooklyn,
Mr, IvENNEDY. And these employees that had been fired were from
the stores in the Bronx ; isn't that right ?
Mr. Reape, That is correct.
Mr, Kennedy, Could you explain w'h}^ they took the money from
local 342 in Brooklyn to pay to these employees of the A. & P. Co.
in the Bronx ?
Mr. Reape, I couldn't explain, and I don't know,
Mr, Kennedy, You could not explain that ?
Mr. Reape, No, sir.
(At this point, the following members were present: Senators
McClellan, Mundt, and Goldwater.)
Mr, Kennedy, It doesn't make any sense really ; does it ?
Mr, Reape. Well, I don't think
Mr, IvENNEDY, Why would they use the dues of the local 342 people
to pay for these employees in the Bronx ?
Mr. Reape. Well, that I could not understand.
Mr. Kennedy, You are here under subpena ; are you not ?
Mr. Reape. Yes, sir.
The Chairman, Is there anything further ?
Senator Mundt. Mr, Chairman ?
The Chairman. Senator ]\Iundt,
Senator Mundt, Is Mr, Gorman the international president of the
union and Mr, Block the local business representative?
I am not sure of the relationship of those two,
Mr. Reape. Mr, Gorman is the international secretary-treasurer.
Mr, Block is a vice president of the international. He is also presi-
dent of local 342 in New York and local 640.
Senator Mundt, TV^iat I was trying to establish in my own mind
is which of the two has authority over the other. Is Mr. Gorman
superior to Mr. Block ?
Mr. Reape. Yes, sir. Mr. Gorman is superior.
Senator Mundt, He is superior ?
Mr, Reape., Yes,
Senator Mundt, So he could have called Mr. Block and said "I want
you to go ahead and work with Mr. Reape and get that 40-hour
week."
He would have had authority to do that if he wanted to; is that
right?
Mr, Reape, That is why I called down on him and went to see him
in Chicago.
11206 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Mundt. So when he said "I will discuss the matter with
Mr. Block," he could have told you "I will tell Mr. Block that it is
the position of the union that we want to have a 40-hour week."
Mr. Reape. That is correct.
Senator Mundt. Apparently he did not do that, or if he did do it,
Mr. Block was insubordinate, because nothing happened ?
Mr. Reape. Nothing happened ; yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. Are these two men still the vice president and sec-
retary-treasurer, respectively, of this union ?
Mr. Reape. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. And you are an affiliate of the union ?
Mr. Reape. That is correct, sir.
Senator Mundt. And this occurred in what year, 1952 ?
Mr. Reape. No, it occurred in 1955. This occurred in 1955.
Senator Mundt. Wliat action, if any, have you taken within the
circles of your own union to voice your displeasure against Mr. Gor-
man and Mr. Block ?
Mr. Reape. Well, I don't see — there isn't much that we can do. We
have tried, through the retail committee and the conferences to get
regional bargaining so as to establish equal rates, hours, and working
conditions for the people within the area.
We feel that it has been done in other areas, and it has been very
successful. We have used all the influence at our command in order
to try and get bargaining on an area basis so that A. & P., Safeway,
First National, and all the other stores would be on an equal basis.
Senator Mundt. Do Mr. Gorman and Mr. Block resist those efforts
of yours ?
Mr. Reape. No, sir.
Senator Mundt. Well, do they approve of them ?
Mr. Reape. Well, there has been no cooperation insofar as the
New York area is concerned up to the present.
The Chairman. There has been a signal for a roUcall vote in the
Senate. The committee will have to suspend for a few moments until
the Members can go over and cast their vote ; we will resume in about
15 minutes.
(Brief recess. At the taking of the recess, the following members
were present: Senators McClelland, Mundt, and Goldwater.)
(At the reconvening, the following members were present : Senators
McClellan and Mundt.)
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
Senator Mundt.
Senator Mundt. As I recall, Mr. Reape, I was asking you a ques-
tion at the time of the rollcall, as to what you had done in tlie union
to protest against you tell us what seemed to be a sell-out of the
interests of your union members by your top union officials, ISIr. Gor-
man and Mr. Block, and you had said that you had proposed to them
that there be areawide contracts. I asked did they resist that pro-
posal, and you said "No." Maybe you misunderstood me, but that did
not seem to make very good sense to me.
Mr. Reape. Senator Mundt, when I say I did not resist it, tliere has
been no contracts negotiated in the meantime. Presently, the A. & P.
contract in New York expires on May 25, and our contract witli Safe-
way expires on June 30. of this year. So the time is right at hand
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11207
now wlien I feel there is need to get the action which would put into
operation the recommendations that have been made.
Senator Mundt, Are you again insisting to Mr. Gorman and Mr.
Block that they bring the contracts of Safeway and A. & P. into har-
mony in this matter of hours, in the matter of wages ?
Mr. Keape. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. And what are they telling you ? Are they telling
you they are going to try, or are they telling you that they can't
do it 'i What is their reaction ?
Mr. Eeape. Well, they are telling me now that they are going to
do it, it is going to be done.
Senator Mundt. They are telling you now they are going to do
it?
Mr. Eeape. Yes. I would like to say that the 40-hour week went
into effect at A. & P. as of May 25, 1957.
Senator Mundt. I noticed that. But you still have the 45 -hour
week at Safeway ?
Mr. Reape. No. We have a 40-hour week in Safeway since 1952.
The A. & P. employees got a 40-hour week as of May 25, 1957.
Senator Mundt. So that you both have a 40-hour week now?
Mr. Eeape. That is correct, sir.
I would like to
Senator Mundt. Did you get that in spite of or because of the co-
operation by Gorman and Block?
Mr. Eeape. Well, Senator, we had a 40-liour week effective in Safe-
way prior to changing our affiliation from the Eetail and Wholesale
to the Amalgamated Meatcutters.
Senator Mundt. You told us that one reason you joined the opposi-
tion was that the opposition had told you they would get you a 40-
hour week at A. & P.
Mr. Eeape. That is correct, sir.
Senator Mundt. And from the incident you described, they did not
do it, and tliat led to a strike at A. & P.
Now I ask you since you have obtained belatedly the 40-hour week
contract that you desired with A. & P., did you get that 40-hour week
contract at A. & P. because of the cooperation or in spite of the oppo-
sition of Gorman and Block ?
Mr. Eeape. I would think it was through their cooperation.
Sena-tor Mundt. Through their cooperation ?
Mr. Eeape. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. What has changed their attitude? They would
not cooperate with you the first time but they did the second time.
Wliat made them change.
Mr. Eeape. Well, it still comes back to the question that I am
firmly convinced now that there was a secret agreement between Max
Block and the A. & P., guaranteeing a 45-hour week for a period
of 5 years, and the 5 years would have expired as of October 1957.
Senator Mundt, And you got it in May of 1957 ?
Mr. Eeape. That is correct.
Senator Mundt. Can you give us any special evidence, any direct
evidence, anything besides just an uneasy hunch that you have, that
they had this secret agreement? Can you give us something specific
that we can bite into about there being a collusive agreement between
A. & P. and Max Block?
11208 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr, Reape. In regard to a 5-year contract ?
Senator Mundt. Precisely.
Mr. Eeape. I am sorry. I don't have any evidence to prove that
there was such an agreement.
Senator IMundt. You arrive at that conclusion simply because Block
did not cooperate with you in fulfilling what you thought was his
pledge to you to get you the 40-hour week ; is that right ?
(At this point, Senator Gold water entered the hearing room.)
Mr. E-EAPE. That is correct.
Senator Mundt. Did you get the pledge when you switched from a
union ajffiliation which you had formerly to the union run by Mr.
Block? Was it Mr. Block himself who told you "If you come and
join us, we will get you the 40-hour week."
Mr. Reape. I do not believe Mr. Block was present at the meeting
when this particular phase of our negotiations was discussed. But I
was firmly assured by the international officers that if we changed our
affiliation that it would be mandatory for the Amalgamated to get a
40-hour week in A. & P. in 1954.
Senator Mtindt. Perhaps you should tell us who it was that gave
you that assurance, in case it comes to be a matter of dispute later.
Mr. Reape. Well, one of the individuals had died in the meantime,
and that was Earl W. Jimerson, the president of the International of
the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen.
Senator Mundt. He would be over Mr. Gorman and Mr. Gorman is
over Mr. Block ?
Mr. Reape. Well, the international officers are elected every 4 years,
and while he is president of the international and also while Mr. Gor-
man is secretary-treasurer, each individual local has local autonomy,
wherein they have certain rights and privileges, since Max Block
happens to be a vice president of the international, certainly I feel
that he possibly would have more privileges than I would as just a
rank-and-file president of a local.
Senator Mundt. Yes, but I am just wondering about the inter-
national president. The international president, if I understood you
correctly, was the man who gave you the assurance that if you would
come and join him, he would get you the 40-hour week.
Mr. Reape. Not alone did the international president, but also Mr.
Gorman, the secretary-treasurer, and the vice president, Joseph
Belsky, who is in charge of the area in which our local operates.
Senator Mundt. All three of them made you that promise ?
Mr. Reape. That is correct, sir.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Block was not present at the time ?
Mr. Reape. No, sir. Not to my knowledge. I don't remember if he
was there.
Senator Mundt. Of the three
Mr. Reape. I am positive the three were there.
Senator Mundt. Of the three, the only one that you have told us
that you subsequently appealed to for fulfillment of the promise was
Mr. Gorman. Mr. Gorman made the promise. You went to Mr.
Gorman and said, "Now, let's keep this promise" and he said, "I will
talk to Mr. Block," but he did not get the job done.
Now how about the president ?
The Chairman. He died.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11209
Mr. Reape. He died in the meantime.
Senator Mundt. How about the third man that you mentioned ?
Mr. Reape. Mr. Belsky.
Senator Mundt. Did you go to him ?
Mr. Reape. Yes, I did.
Senator Mundt. What did he say ?
Mr. Reape. Well, he said that he would see what influence he could
use in order to get the 40-hour week in A. & P. Nothing happened.
Senator Mundt. Nothing happened. I am a little bit confused.
Try and straighten me out as I try to get the picture at A. & P. at the
time you were an employee of A. & P. I remember it goes back to the
late 1940''s. At that time, A. & P. was unorganized entirely, was it?
Mr. Reape. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. And you tried to organize and subsequently, you
believe, got fired because of your organizational activities?
Mr. Reape. That is correct.
Senator Mundt. At that time, did A. & P. have a contract with its
butchers and meatcutters ?
Mr. Reape. No, sir.
Senator Mundt. It was unorganized as far as they were concerned,
too?
Mr. Reape. That is correct.
Senator Mundt. Now will you indicate at what juncture A. &. P.
made its contract with the butchers and meatcutters ?
Mr. Reape. I am not positive, but I think the first contract between
the A. & P. and local 400 was signed in the Bronx division — I mean
in the Bronx and ^Manhattan. That was about 1946 or 1947.
Senator Mundt. 1946?
Mr. Reape. I am not positive.
Senator Mundt. It does not have to be exact. That was after the
time 3'ou were fired or before ?
Mr. Reape. That was after I was fired.
Senator Mundt. After you were fired. Then when was it that
you established an organization of clerks in A. & P. ?
Or did you ever establish one ?
Mr. Reape. Well, yes.
Senator Mundt. I thought I gathered from your testimony that you
had an organization of clerks and you had an organization of butchers
and the butchers took over the clerks. I may have gotten that wrong.
Mr. Reape. First of all, back in 1937, 1938, and 1939, we tried to
organize both the clerks and the butchers. Naturally, through 1941
to 1945, because of the war, certain things happened which put us in
a position where it was almost impossible to organize at that time be-
cause of the changeover in help.
It was after the war that the butchers were successful in organizing.
Senator Mundt. That would be put into the record as 1946, give or
take a few years ?
Mr. Reape. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. Then I am asking you at what time did you get
the clerks organized, or did you ever get them organized ?
Mr. Reape. No ; we never had a contract with A. & P.
We always had a nucleus of organization in there, rank and file men
who kept alive the spark of organization in A. & P.
11210 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Mundt. Even in 1946, then, you had some clerks who be-
longed to the union, your union, the Clerks' Union ?
Mr. Reape. Yes.
Senator Mundt. You had an election, and you told us, these figures
are not exact, but I wrote them down, and you told us you lost an
election. You had 1,000 people who voted for no union at all, and
700, 1 think, who voted for your union, the clerks' union.
Mr. Reape. That is correct.
Senator Mundt. How did the rest of them vote ?
Mr. Reape. Well, there were 1,133 that voted for no union. There
were 772 that voted for our local, local 474, and 226 voted for 1500.
Senator Mundt. What is that. Butchers Union ?
Mr. Reape. No; 1500 of the Retail Clerks, A. F. of L.
Senator Mundt. What year was this now ?
Mr. Reape. That was in 1952.
Senator Mundt. Now, what I wanted to ask you about is this:
You didn't get anybody voting at all for the Butchers Union at that
time ?
Mr. Reape. No, we didn't have a petition for the Butchers Union.
Senator Mundt. They were not on the ballot ?
Mr. Reape. No, just the clerks.
Senator Mundt. So you then, to pick up the story, went to the
NLRB and filed unfair labor practice charges against the company
because of the conduct of the election ; was that right ?
Mr. Reape. Yes. We had an election in 1951 which we lost and
due to the fact that the company had interfered during the election
we filed an unfair labor practice charge, and had another election in
1952, the one I am speaking about.
Senator Mundt. Let me ask you this question, because I am not
an expert in this field, but it would look like you also lost this one.
Mr. Reape. Yes, we did.
Senator Mundt. And then you filed another unfair labor practice
charge ?
Mr. Reape. No, sir ; w^e did not.
Senator Mundt. You did not ?
Mr. Reape. No, sir.
Senator Mundt. The unfair labor practice charge was filed be-
tween these two earlier elections ?
Mr. Reape. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. Now, we come into 1953 then, with the company
unorganized except insofar as the butchers are concerned.
Mr, Reape. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. And you having lost the last election, and under
the rules you couldn't have another election for a year or 2 years,
which is it?
Mr. Reape. For 1 year. Under the Taft-Hartley law it is not pos-
sible to have a second election in any group of people unless a great
change has been made within the unit, which might require that an
election be held.
Senator Mundt. I was trying to determine from this letter, which
is an exhibit of October 17, that you wrote to the A. & P. Co.,
whether you are charging them in that letter with some unfair prac-
tice because they signed up with the Butchers Union.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11211
You have this sentence in your letter :
As you are undoubtedly aware, this union received the largest number of
votes of any of the competing unions on the ballot.
That is true, you got 772 against 226 for your next competitor. It
further says :
It would have received a clear majority if it were not for interference by
your supervisors.
That is my politician's guess, and that could be true or could not
be true but you have a right to say it.
Is there something under the Taft-Hartley law, or something
under the law which denies a company the right to sign up with a
union after you have held an election and no union has been selected
as the bargaining agent ? That is my question.
(Witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Reape. I believe the answer is "No."
Senator Mundt. It w^ould seem that way to me, and I am trying
to get information. But since you held an election and lost, then
it is kind of an open field for a company if it wants to, to sign up
with some union, and they then signed up with the Butchers Union.
Now, I quite agree that if they went around and told their em-
ployees that they would be fired if they did not join the Butchers'
Union, that is a horse of a different paint job again. If they went
and told them that they would be fired if they joined your union,
that also would be improper.
But I wasn't quite sure from your letter whether you were charging
them with some improper practice because they signed up with the
Butchers' Union after an election which no miion had one, because
the "No" votes had prevailed.
Mr. Reape. Senator, I think we had a perfect right to charge them
with an improper practice because. No. 1, the Butchers' Union was
not on the ballot in the election of 1952. They came into the picture
for the first time when the contract was signed, without being desig-
nated, as far as I know, by the employees of the A. & P. So therefore
we felt that there really was an improper practice.
Senator Mundt. They did have a contract with the company prior
to that, as far as butchers were concerned ; is that right ?
Mr. Reape. For the butchers, yes.
Senator Mundt. Now, it seems to me that your quarrel would be
primarily with the Butchers Union, that it went ahead and spread
out its wings and included the clerks, which you thought shouldn't
be included in the Butchers Union ; isn't that right ?
Mr. Reape. Well, not exactly that. That was not our quarrel.
Our quarrel was the fact that A. & P., who had always fought unions
down through the years, should at that particular time decide that
they will pick the union of their own choosing, and not the union
that has been chosen by the employees.
Senator Mundt. Well, of course, really no union had been chosen
by the employees, because the majority of them had voted no union
at all.
Mr. Reape. Well, Senator, according to the results of the election
in 1952, 1,133 voted no union, while 998 voted for a union.
Senator Mundt. That is right.
11212 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Reape. And some for the Retail Clerks and 772 for local 474. I
think that in itself proved to A. & P. that the majority of their em-
ployees favored a certain union, but A. & P. did not want that union
because they knew full well that if 474 represented the clerks in A. & P.,
it would be mandatory for us to get a 40-hour week from A. & P. in 1952.
Senator Mundt. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that a majority
of those who favored a union favored your union ?
Mr. Reape. That is correct.
Senator Mundt. But a majority of the employees voting favored
no union at all because there were 1,133 against all unions and 998 in
favor of 1 or other of the 2 unions.
Mr. Reape. Wliile the records show that, it doesn't show the influ-
ence that the company had over those employees who voted for no
union.
Senator Mundt. I understand that, and that is why I raised the
question whether you then filed with the NLRB an unfair labor prac-
tice charge on the basis of the campaign and the election in 1952 and
you said you did not file a complaint at that time.
Mr. Reape. Senator, one reason why we did not file was due to the
fact that we felt since 998 employees of A. & P. had designated or voted
for a union, we felt that within the period of 1 year, when we could
again petition the board for an election, we definitely would win the
election, because nothing succeeds like success. When the majority of
the employees see that a great many of their members favored a union,
or are in favor of having a union to represent them, they would change
their mind even though they are influenced or the company tries to
influence them otherwise.
Senator Mundt. So the burden of your testimony then is, as I under-
stand it, on this point, that you are not charging A. & P. with having
violated the law in signing a contract with the Butchers' Union, but you
are raising the question as to why, when they had previously opposed
all unions, they suddenly encouraged their clerks to join the Butchers^
Union ; is that right ?
Mr. Reape. Well, I felt the company was certainly unfair, and un-
der all of the rules of common decency they authorized their employees
into the union that the A. & P. wanted. That was my contention, and
my feeling, and it still is.
Senator Mundt. But von do not charge that is a violation of the
law?
Mr. Reape. I am sorry, I am not an attorney, and I am not qualified
to quote the law.
Senator Mundt. You have by your side what appears to me to be a
very astute and able attorney, and you could ask him. I don't know
either, and I am trying to find out.
Mr. SiiEEHAN. We did file a charge, Senator, the testimony of Mr.
Reape indicates, with tlie National Labor Relations Board, but under
tlie rules of the l^)()ar(l, unless Ave could produce positive proof to sup-
port that charge, there is very little as a matter of ordinary investiga-
tive procedure from my experience that I find the Board engages in.
Xow, we couldn't establish, as a matter of record, that any card
bearing the signatures of em])loyees of A. & P. who signed the cards
authorizing the Amalgamated Meat Cutters to bargain for them, with
fraudulent or true cards. We couldn't establish that.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11213
We did allege in our complaint that the Amalgamated did not, at
the time they signed the contract with A. & P., in fact reipresent a
majority of the employees.
The NLRB sat on that cliarge for some time, and asked us for proof
that they didn't, and I said under those circumstances it was impossi-
ble for us to produce that proof.
Senator Mundt. So in order to establish an illegal practice by the
A. & P. on the occasion of their signing up with the Butchers to cover
in the clerks, you would have had to have shown 1 or 2 things. One,
that the cards were fraudulent or else that there had been collusion
of some kind between the officers of the Amalgamated and the people
from A. & P.?
Mr. SnEEHAX. That is correct.
Senator Muxdt. I will ask Mr. Sheehan this question, and he is not
under oath, and I am just looking for information, but you said sub-
sequently that 80 or 40 percent of the clerks signed petitions to de-
authorize the Butchers from representing them; is that right?
Mr. Sheeiiax. On that particular one, again as a matter of law,
the Taft-Hartley law provides that any such petition must be accom-
panied by the signatures of 30 percent of the people within the unit.
For the NLRB to have held the election, they must have found admin-
istratively that the petition was supported by 30 percent.
Senator Muxdt. When 30 percent signed, then they have to have an
election ?
Mr. Sheehan. That is right.
Senator Mundt. Counsel pointed out, I believe, in that election
you have to get 50 percent not only of those who vote but of those
Avho work or those who belong to the union.
Mr. Sheehan. All eligible employees within the unit, yes.
Senator Mundt. I want to get back to Mr. Reape now. You held
that election then, and a majority of about 8 to 1 or 9 to 1 of those
M'ho voted, voted to deauthorize, but you lost the election because the
majority of the people didn't vote at all.
Xow I want you to clarify for me why in your ojjinion a majority
of them didn't vote? You said something about the fact that the
company did not make available convenient voting places. Now, isn't
an election of that kind run by the XLRB or is it run by the com-
pany ?
Mr. Reape. It was run by the NLRB.
Senator Mundt. Would your complaint more logically be against
the XLRB or against the company if they didn't set up places where
people could vote ?
Mr. Reape. Well, the NLRB has the practice, to my knowledge,
they usually set up polling places based on the requirements of the
majority of those partici])ating in the election. However, I might
say, as regards those who did not show up at the polling places, local
400, and local 489 posted their business agents and told the employees
of the A. & P. who came to the places to vote, they shouldn't vote and
they would turn them in, and they would be blackballed and so on.
Senator Mundt. Those locals you mentioned would be the Butcliers
Union ?
Mr. Reape. Yes.
11214 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Mundt. You had a conflict, and the butchers were telling
the people not to vote, or to vote against it, and your boys were out
telling them to get in and vote and vote for deauthorization.
Mr. Reape, We were telling them to vote for deauthorization.
Senator Mundt. There would be nothing improper if you did what
the butchers did, each trying to promote themselves in that?
Mr. Reape. I would say that certainly the butchers had the ad-
vantage, due to the fact that they had a contract with the A, & P.
and due to the fact that the A. & P. management had also advised the
employees there was no need for them to vote. Certainly, those em-
ployees felt that they were caught in a squeeze between management
and the union and if they didn't go along and do what the union
wanted, the,y would be in the doghouse so to speak, and vice versa.
Senator Mundt. I think that that is right. If your union was at
a disadvantage, that may be true, but I am trying to determine
whether an additional advantage was improperly created by failure
to provide a reasonable opportunity to vote, and if so, who was
responsible for that.
Was it A. & P., the Butchers, or the NLRB ?
Mr. Reape. I would say the NLRB. They should have followed
past practices.
Senator Mundt. Why didn't the NLRB do that ? What was wrong
with them ?
Mr. Reape. Because the majority of those involved in the election,
the butchers and the company, did not want them. The NRLB went
along with the majority of those.
Senator Mundt. You mean they had such influence with the NLRB
that they could induce the Government not to establish a fair voting
procedure? Is that your implication?
Mr. Reape. There were 2 against 1, and 2 j^arties had decided that
this is the proper procedure to follow, and I believe the NLRB went
along with that. I am not blaming the officers of the NLRB, because
it is possible that they had gone along with the majority involved in
the election.
I might also further state that another disadvantage we were at,
and I think it was proved afterward, was that in submitting the list
of those eligible, there were several names submitted by the company
of employees who were not working for the company at the time, or
within the period specified according to tlie agreement that was
reached.
Senator Mundt. Don't you have changes at an election like you
have at a political election?
Mr. Reape. Well, we were not able to have sufficient supporting
evidence in order to prove that such was the case. We> did not have
any access to the records.
Senator Mundt. You are entitled to patrol the election to be sure
you are not being robbed, aren't you, like you do in a political election ?
Mr. Reape. Well, Senator, tliis is quite an area to cover all of Man-
liattan, and Bronx, and Westchester. It was from the Battery all of
tlie way up to Beacon, N. Y.
Senator Mundt. But you only had four places to vote. Is that
riglit?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11215
Mr. Reape. Well, the 4 places were 2 in Manhattan and 2 in the
Bronx, I believe, and we had roving ballots in the Westchester area.
Senator Mundt. I was going to ask you about that. You said a
traveling polling place. Tliat is something new to me. Will you de-
scribe what a traveling polling place is ?
Mr. IIeape. a voting agent goes to each store and at a specified
time, at which time the employees are previously notified to be pres-
ent and to vote between the hours of 10 to 10 : 30 and so on. That is
for the number of employees that are to vote in that particular store.
Senator Mundt. If they had those, that is something I have never
known about in a political election. We have trouble getting people
to vote there, but we can't take the ballot to the liome. Now, if you
did that, I don't see how there is too nmch complaint about making
opportunity to vote available.
I can see these other things you talk about, and the employer may
have stood at the door and said, "Don't any of you fellows walk out
there and vote," but it seems to me the NLRB would go about as far
as one can go when you cany the polling place right to the fellow's
door.
Mr. Reape, Well, Senator, we had another experience there also,
and we found when we went into certain stores in Westchester, many
of the employees refused to vote because they w^ere afraid to vote,
since the manager was present in the store. They felt they would be
discriminated against. We had to call the NLRB and file a com-
plaint on that point, on that morning, explaining the fact that we felt
management was interfering with the employees in those particular
stores to the extent that they were not voting and thereby every one
of those happened to be a vote against our objective.
(At this point, the following members were present: Senators Mc-
Clellan, Mundt, and Goldwater.)
Senator Mundt. That I can understand, the possibility of that. But
I can't understand the complaint if the men were given an opportunity
to vote. If they had, in addition to four polling places, a traveling
ballot that came to the door, it seems to me that they had an oppor-
tunity.
I can understand that you were operating at a disadvantage, that
the company was against you, encouraging people not to vote. I can
well understand that people who are fearful about their job, who
might want to do some apple polishing, to get in good with the boss,
might elect not to vote. But I don't think it is a criticism against
the electoral process or against the NLRB to imply that they did not
have a good opportunity as far as the physical arrangements were
concerned.
They had four places to go and they had somebody coming right
up to the store with the voting machine so that they could vote.
Mr. Reape. If I might explain. Senator, that happened only in
Westchester, what we call a suburb of New York City. However,
within the confines of New York City, which is comprised of Man-
hattan and the Bronx and where 70 to 80 percent of the em]:»loyees
work, there were only 4 polling places. There was no travel ir.g bal-
lot in Manhattan or the Bronx.
There were 4 polling places. 2 in the Bronx and 2 in Manhattan ;
that was 4, I would say, between 70 and 80 percent of the employees
21243— 58— pt. 29 3
11216 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
who were scheduled to vote in that election. The traveling ballot was
in the outlying areas, where the stores were possibly 20 miles away
from a central location, place, which might be White Plains. For
that reason, we felt and did argue that there should be at least 4
voting places in Manhattan and that there should be at least 4 voting
places in the Bronx, so as to make it easy for all of those employees to
go to those particular polls and vote.
That was our thought.
Senator Mundt. I am glad you explained that. I thought there
were traveling polling places for all voters.
Mr. Reape. No, sir.
Senator Mundt. Did you protest this fact to the NLRB prior to
the election ?
Mr. Keape. Yes, we did.
Senator Mundt, What did they say?
Mr. Reape. Well, again, I must say that they went along with the
contention and the arguments offered by the A. & P. Co. and the
Butchers Union at the time. Both of them agreed that that was
sufficient.
Senator Mundt. How did these four polling places and the travel-
ing ballots in Westchester County compare with the number of polling
places which were opened in 1952 when you had your election to
determine who would be the bargaining agency ? Were they more or
less, and how many ?
Mr. Reape. We did have, to the best of my knowledge, more voting
places in 1952 in Manhattan and the Bronx, when we had the election
to determine the bargaining unit than we did have when we had the
election to determine whether we should have a decertification of the
union clause in the contract.
Senator Mundt. How many more ?
Mr. Reape. I am not positive. I cannot honestly say. I would
believe we had possibly 4 in the Bronx and 4 in Manhattan. However,
I am not positive. I could not swear to it.
Senator Mundt. You also had these traveling machines in 1952 ?
Mr. Reape. Yes, we did, in the outlying area. I believe we did.
Senator Mundt. Let me say, Mr. Reape, I want to congratulate you
on this fact, at least. We have listened to a lot of complaining wit-
nesses in the last 18 months with grievances, gripes, complaints, pro-
tests, charges, and countercharges. But you have been one of the
mildest and most reserved — and you have shown attempts to give
careful, studied answers — which I have seen.
I congratulate you on your demeanor.
Mr. Reape. Thank you. Senator.
The Chairman. Are there any further questions ?
As I understand it, and further testimony will develop it, what
actually happened is that the Butchers Union and management went
into collusion to force those men into the Butchers Union. That is
the real fact about it, isn't it ?
Mr. Reape. That was our contention, yes, sir.
The Chairman. In other words, they were not given a free choice.
Mr. Reape. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. That is the improper practice which you complain
of.
Mr. Reape. That is true.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11217
The Chairman. I understand that the company, the managers and
so forth, went around with these men and told these men to either
sign the card or some of them might lose their job.
Mr. Reape. Well, I had heard that.
The Chairman. I think we will be able to prove it. I think it will
be in the record.
Mr. Reape. Well, I could not swear to that.
The Chairman. I think there is another circumstance that you may
not know about. They paid one man $3,000 for 2 days' work to count
the cards, didn't they ?
Do you remember that ?
Mr. Reape. I know the gentleman that counted the cards, but I
don't know how much he got paid for the job.
The Chairman. I think there will be plenty to at least suggest
improper practices before we get through with it.
Thank you very much.
Call the next witness.
Mr. KJENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, as it is 4 : 30 we \^ill not be able to
hear another witness, probabl3\ But the A. & P. Co. has cooperated
with the committee staff as far as turning over and making records
available, making witnesses available, when we needed them. They
would like to have the opportunity of placing a statement in the
record, and to be able to make the statement public at this time as
we begin these hearings.
The Chairman. The Chair has no objection to their making it
public. We will receive the statement. But later, when tliey testify,
I want it SAvorn to before it actually goes into the record.
Mr. Doyle. ]\Iy name is Jerome Doyle, counsel for the A. & P:
I certainly would welcome you putting Mr. Reynolds who is sitting
at my left shoulder under oath right now, identifying the statement,
and he will swear to it right here.
The Chairman. All right. Be sworn.
You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give before this
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the Avhole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr, Reynolds. I do.
TESTIMONY OF ELMER L. EEYNOLDS, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL,
JEROME DOYLE
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your
business or occupation.
Mr. Reynolds. Elmer L, Reynolds. My residence is 9 Prospect
Avenue, Summit, N. J. My place of business is 420 Lexington Ave-
nue, New York City. I am president of the eastern division of the
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
The Chairman. You have counsel present.
Counsel, identify yourself, please.
Mr. Doyle. Jerome Doyle. I am a member of the bar of the State
of New York and also the District of Columbia. My office is at 65
Wall Street, New York City.
The Chairman. Mr. Reynolds, you have a prepared statement?
Mr. Reynolds. I do.
11218 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, was it submitted within the rules?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes ; it was, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I understand the statement was submitted within
the rules. Therefore, it will be received. Do you want to take tune
to read it this afternoon ?
Mr. Kennedy. I do not think it has to be read now.
The Chairman. The statement that you now submit to the com-
mittee, you testify under oath that the facts and the information
stated therein are true and correct ?
Mr. Reynolds. I do.
The Chairman. You will be called back for further testimony and
such examination as the committee may desire. "We are accommo-
dating you this way because when some information goes out here,
you want to release your statement, as I understand.
Mr. Reynolds. Correct.
The Chairman. We are accommodating you for the purpose of
trying to be absolutely fair and to give you the opportunity to be
heard. But you *will be interrogated later regarding the statement,
and about other matters.
(The statement referred to follows :)
Mr. Reynolds. I have been employed by the Great Atlantic & Pa-
cific Tea Co. for more than 40 years. Since 1950 I have been president
of the eastern division, which includes 5 units, each of which operates
a number of stores under the direction of a vice president of the east-
ern division. Three of these units are in New York with headquarters
in Bronx, Brooklyn, and Garden City; two are in New Jersey with
headquarters in Newark and Paterson. For a number of years prior
to 1950 I was vice president in charge of the Newark unit.
We have endeavored to cooperate with this committee in every way
possible. We have furnished more than 15,000 pages of documents
from our files; have made available for interview every single em-
ployee whose information could be helpful, ranging from top execu-
tives to store personnel ; and have several times voluntarily brought
facts to the attention of the committee's staff.
The extent of our cooperation is perhaps best demonstrated by the
fact that we have voluntarily waived the attorney-client privilege
and made available to the committee every document and piece of
information pertaining to the matter under investigation.
It is my belief that the record submitted clearly demonstrates that
the division's labor relations have been fairly and ethically conducted
in strict accord with all State and Federal regulations.
I hope that all the facts will be brought out before this committee.
They will show that tliere was absolutely no collusion between the
division and the Amalgamated Meat Cutters Union. On the contrary,
we dealt with them at arm's length. We were finally forced by the
genuine threat of a costly strike to submit to card counts to resolve
the question of union representation of our grocery clerks.
As president of the eastern division I am responsil)lo for the major
decisions of the division in all its activities, including labor relations.
Thus, although I did not concern myself with day-to-day details, I
bore primary responsibility for the decision of the division in 1952 to
agree to a card count involving the grocery clerks in the Bronx, Brook-
lyn, and Garden City units.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11219
This card count was won by locals of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters
Union in those 3 units, and we thereafter entered into contracts on
October 11, 1952, covering the clerks in those 3 units.
Subsequently after card counts for the grocery and meat clerks
in our 2 New Jersey units were won by 2 locals of this union, we
entered on December 1, 1952, into contracts with these locals covering
the butchers and the clerks in the Paterson and Newark units of the
eastern division.
The circumstances surrounding the division's decision in early Oc-
tober 1952 to agree to these card counts did not arise overnight. To
properly evaluate the action authorized by me and the division's vice
presidents in October 1952 it is necessary to go back a few years.
Butchers in the New York area had for many years been organized
as a skilled craft; as a result, many of the butchers were already
union members when hired by the division, or later became union
members.
Consequently by 1950 the Amalgamated Meat Cutters had won rep-
resentation rights for meat personnel in the three New York units
as a result of elections conducted by the National Labor Relations
Board, and contracts were entered into with the appropriate locals
of that union.
These meat contracts were to expire in early October 1952. Under
these contracts approximately 25 percent of the personnel in the
A. & P. stores in the three units were members of the union.
Thereby, the union's agents and representatives had rightful and
free access to the stores. Also, for many months prior to the fall of
1952 the union's members working in the stores had easy and informal
access to the grocery clerks in all the stores in the three units.
Prior to October 1952 none of the grocery clerks in these units were
represented bj' a union. Several elections had been held in prior
years, and in each the grocery clerks had voted against union repre-
sentation.
These election results were pleasing to the division ; they vindicated
our feeling, expressed during the preelection campaigns, that our em-
ployees did not need a union to protect their interest.
The most recent elections had been in Brooklyn in January 1952 and
in the Bronx in March 1952. In none of these grocery clerk elections
was the Amalgamated Meat Cutters on the ballot.
Consequently, a new situation faced us in the summer of 1952. At
that time preliminary negotiations had been undertaken looking to
new contracts for meat personnel to replace those expiring in early
October 1952. Sometimes in July I was informed that the Amalagam-
ated Meat Cutters were requesting an opportunity to represent our
grocery clerks, based on the union's claim that the union had already
persuaded many of our grocery clerks to join the union.
In view of the situation, I called in the vice presidents of not only
the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Garden City units, but also the vice presi-
dents of the Newark and Paterson units. A major question that we
discussed was whether the union had or could get the support of a
majority of the grocery clerks.
The vice presidents had different opinions. Some were optimistic
and believed the union would not be able to obtain a majority of the
clerks, while others took the position that as a result of the efforts
11220 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE L-\BOR FIELD
of the butchers in our stores the union had already been able to, and
would continue to be able to, obtain a large number of signed cards.
After this meeting we received estimates of card-signing activity,
and while some of our supervisors did not believe it was extensive,
others felt a great deal of it was going on.
I was later informed in August that the union no longer merely re-
quested, but actually demanded that the division agree to a card
count of union cards signed by the grocery clerks.
The union was asserting confidently that it could produce the sig-
natures of a majority of the clerks and that — and most important of
all to us — unless we gave our consent to such a card count, the union
would refuse to renew the butchers' contracts in early October and
would pull the butchers of the three units involved out on strike.
In view of the seriousness of this development, I again discussed
the situation with the vice presidents of the division. All were in
agreement that the card-signing campaign was totally different from
the previous preelection activities of both the company and the out-
side unions that had sought to organize our grocery clerks.
In the summer and fall of 1952 there were two major differing
factors :
1. The card-signing activity was being quietly conducted by our
own butchers while on the job, and we had no way to judge the
effectiveness of their work.
2. In view of the union's reiterated threats to strike our stores, we
were extremely hesitant to make use of our right to persuade the
grocery clerks not to sign these cards.
As to the question of the seriousness of the union's threat to strike
the butchers, we had very much in mind the fact that in the three
units involved our meat business ran into millions of dollars a week ;
in the event the butchers struck that business would be lost. Further,
we estimated that a good many grocery clerks had joined the union
and would join the strike; moreover, we feared that many grocery
clerks who had not joined the union would neverthless honor a picket
line of their fellow employees.
Accordingly, we were forced to conclude that the threatened strike
would shut down nearly all of our stores in the three units. This
would have cost us conservatively a net loss of more than $700,000 a
week.
The union's threats of strike were the principal factors in our minds
during the entire period from the summer until early October 1952.
Our decision was to wait the matter out and continue negotiations on
the meat contracts — all in the hope that the union would abandon its
demand for a card count for the grocery clerks.
Indeed, we suggested to the union that a National Labor Relations
Board election for the grocery clerks be held as soon as legally pos-
sible, wliich would have been in early 1953 — by which time new
butcher contracts would have been signed and the strike threat eased.
But this suggestion was flatly refused by the union.
During this same period I was informed that the union had indi-
cated a willingness to enter into 5-year contracts for both butchers
and grocery clerks, which would have had the effect of preserving the
45-hour week for that period.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11221
Moreover we recognized that if our grocery clerks were unionized
at all, the division would be better oil' dealing with one union for both
butchers and clerks rather than be prey to the constant whipsawing
and competitive tactics which two unions in the same store would
entail.
Neither of these factors Avas controlling however. I can state cate-
gorically that the division would never have agreed to the card count
and the resulting contracts with the union were it not for the threat
of a ruinous strike.
The matter came to a head in early October 1952, when the union
gave us a final and formal written threat of strike and named a strike
deadline. At that point we decided, after weeks of testing the situa-
tion, that the strike threat was genuine and we had no choice but
to consent to a card count.
In so agreeing we had not lost all hope, for a quick management
survey indicated that the card count might be very close. Moreover,
the union had agreed that if it lost the card count it would proceed
to negotiate the new butcher contracts without recrimination.
I should add that we had received firm advice from our labor coun-
sel that a card count in that situation was perfectly proper.
That counsel was Burton Zorn, Esq., a senior partner of the firm
of Proskauer Kose Goetz & Mendelsohn. I have been informed that
Mr. Zorn is generally recognized as one of the leading labor lawyers
in this country.
It is my understanding that the impartial arbitrator, Mr. Joseph
O'Grady, selected by the legal representatives of management and the
union to sort out and count valid union membership cards was and
is a man of outstanding reputation in labor and civic fields and that
when he certified the union had a majority, the eastern division had
no choice but to negotiate an immediate contract prior to the deadline
already given us.
Our agreement with the union was that if it won the New York
card counts, we would agree to a card count for the two New Jersey
units. Having lost the card count in New York and feeling further
that the union had already signed up the majority of our New Jersey
employees, we did not oppose the union's campaign in our New Jersey
units.
The union won the New Jersey card count, and on December 1, 1952,
we entered into contracts with the locals of the union covering our
Newark and Paterson units for both butchers and clerks.
Following the signing of contracts with the Meat Cutters in New
York and New Jersey, we recognized that a substantial number of our
employees either favored two other unions active in the New York
area or were completely antiunion.
This situation was disturbing but we knew it to be inevitable. The
same situation would have faced us if any 1 of the 3 unions had
won a majority in a National Labor Relations Board election — or if
a majority of employees in such an election had voted for "no union."
No matter what the result, a sufficient number of employees would
have been disturbed to create some unrest. And we did have some
unrest.
But it is worth noting that in the fall of 1953 overall settlements
of certain National Labor Relations Board charges were effected, the
11222 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
most important feature of which was that any grocery clerk in four
units of the eastern division who did not want to continue his mem-
bership in the Meat Cutters Union or did not want to join that union,
was given a 30-day period in which to exercise that right.
I have been informed that of more than 7,000 employees involved,
less than 175 took advantage of that right.
Moreover, when our first clerks' contract with the union was to
expire in 1954, there was another National Labor Relations Board elec-
tion in the New York units, which election was won by the union.
That election was set aside on a technical gi'ound involving an insig-
nificant number of voters and a new election held in 1955.
In the 1955 election the union won by a sweeping majority, new con-
tracts were entered into with the union and those contracts are still in
effect.
No official of this division has any ax to grind on behalf of the
union. For more than 5 years the majority of our store employees
have consistently voted in its favor and we have bargained with it as a
consequence.
The union has given us no special favors ; indeed, other officials of
the division are prepared to demonstrate to you that no grocery chain
in the New York area treats its employees better than this division does.
For instance, let me point out one simple fact about the contracts
entered into with the Amalgamated Meat Cutters in the fall of 1952.
Under these contracts we gave a $5 across-the-board weekly increase to
our full-time employees who had completed age progression.
This increase was applicable to approximately 88 percent of our
male employees and 76 percent of our female employees. In addition,
we agreed to bear the full cost of the hospitalization plan which had
previously been contributory. Leaving aside all other benefits
granted to the employees by these contracts, the result was that be-
tween March 1952 and June 1953 the average weekly net wage (includ-
ing overtime) of full-time employees in the division rose by 8.9 per-
cent— and this at a time when the official cost-of-living index for New
York City had risen during that period only 1.6 percent.
In summary let me say that :
1. Were it not for the overhanging threat of an extremely effective
strike, the division would not have agreed to the card counts.
2. We were advised by counsel that the card counts were a proper
procedure.
3. The arbitrator selected for the card counts had an excellent repu-
tation for integrity and intelligence.
4. When the union won the card counts, we entered into contracts
with it — contracts which, Ave believe, more tlian matclied in their bene-
fits those made by competitors wlio dealt with other unions, as well as
with the Amalgamated Meat Cutters Union.
This division is proud of its relations with its employees.
We are also proud of our aim to make decisions which are not only
legal but proper. We are confident that the members of tliis com-
mittee will deem our pride justified when all the facts are put before
you.
Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, before you adjourn for the day, may I
say in behalf of the Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. that we certainly ap-
preciate the courtesy paid us by your permitting us to place in the
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11223
record at this point of your hearings Mr. Reynolds' sworn state-
ment.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you.
Mr. I^NNEDY. Mr. Chairman, during the course of some of our
other hearings, we have had some difficulty with the attorneys as we
have proceeded. I would like to say first, as far as the attorney
that appeared with tlie previous witness, who has as appeared before
the committee, Mr. Sheehan, he lias always been extremely coopera-
tive in all of our investigations, and also we have had a very fine rela-
tionship with Mr. Doyle who is appearing with this witness. We
have had some question about attorneys in the past, and where we
have had a good relationship I would like to point that out for both
of these men, Mr. Doyle and Mv. Sheehan, who preceded this witness.
The Chairman. It is the policy of the Chair, and I am sure it is
acquiesced in by each member of the committee, Avhere those that we
are investigating or whose testimony we need, or who have informa-
tion that we may require and need, where they cooperate with us, I
am always glad to be as accommodating as I can be. But with those
who obstruct, hinder, and ^ive us a little headache now and then, I
am not quite so accommodating.
Mr. Doyle. May I say, Mr. Chairman, that our feeling and my feel-
ing as a member of the bar equals that of your counsel. His atti-
tude, as far as I am concerned, has been in the best traditions of our
profession.
The Chairman. Thank you. The Chair will make this announce-
ment for the benefit of the press.
It is for the benefit of witnesses as well. Tomorrow, the commit-
tee will have to meet in room 457. Thereafter, we think we will have
this room for the balance of this week and the rest of the hearings.
But tomorrow morning, we will meet in room 457 at 10 : 30.
The committee stands in recess until that time.
(Whereupon, at 4:38, the committee recessed, to reconvene at
10 : 30 a. m., May 15, 1958. At this point, the following members
■were present: Senators McClellan, Mundt, and Gold water.)
INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE
LABOR OR MANAGE3IENT FIELD
THUBSDAY, MAY 15, 1958
United States Senate,
Select Committee on Improper Activities
IN the Labor or Management Field,
Washington^ D. G.
The select committee met at 1 : 30 p. m., pursuant to Senate Resolu-
tion 221, agreed to January 29, 1958, in the caucus room, Senate Office
JBuilding, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select com-
mittee) presiding.
Present: Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Senator
Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota ; Senator Carl T. Curtis,
Republican, Nebraska; Senator Frank Church, Democrat, Idaho.
Also present: Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel; Walter R. May,
investigator ; George H. Martin, investigator ; John Cye Cheasty, in-
vestigator ; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
(Members of the committee present at the convening of the session
were Senators McClellan, Church, and Curtis.)
The Chairman. Call the next witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Eugene Kemiedy and Mr. Picariello.
The Chairman. Do \q\\ and each of you solemnly swear that the
evidence you shall give before this Senate select committee shall be
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. E. Kennedy. I do.
Mr. Picariello. I do.
TESTIMONY OF EUGENE KENNEDY AND PATRICK J. PICARIELLO
The Chairman. Mr. Kennedy, will you state your name, and your
place of residence, and business or occupation ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Eugene Kennedy, 301 East 21st Street, New York
City, general manager of the Retail Food Clerks' Union, Local 1500.
The Chairman. Do you have counsel present ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir, I have.
The Chairman. Counsel, will you identify yourself, please ?
Mr. Picariello. Patrick J. Picariello. My address is 15 Park Row,
New York City. I am an attorney for local 1500.
The Chairman. You may proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy, how many members do you have in
your union, 1,500 ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. We have 7,900 full-time and 1,500 part-time
workers.
11225
11226 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Have you been attempting for a number of years,
or had you been attempting for a number of years to organize the
clerks of the A. & P. stores in New York ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir ; I have.
Mr. Kennedy. How many years have you been attempting to or-
ganize them ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Ever since 1945.
Mr. Kennedy. Has the main focus of your work centered on the
Brooklyn units of the A. & P. stores ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. No; that is not quite true, sir. On the overall
picture, it is besides the Brooklyn unit.
Mr. Kennedy. I didn't say you were working only on Brooklyn,
but that was the main focus of your attention.
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have an election on January 9, 1952?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That I did, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And in that election you received 262 votes ; is that
correct ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And local 474, Paddy Reape's local, received 40
votes ; is that right ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And there was 1,106 voted for no union ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. At that time did you appeal the election ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That we did.
Mr. Kennedy. And you appealed to the National Labor Relations
Board?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. You claimed that an unfair labor practice had been
committed by the company ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And the local regional board overruled your objec-
tion?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. But you then took the objection directly to the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board here in Washington; is that right?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. That election was in January, and then there was
the other election in March of 1952 that we discussed yesterday, where
both your union and Paddy Reape's union were involved ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And you also lost that election ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, we go on in 1952. This election on January 9,
1952, in Brooklyn, where you took the appeal to the National Labor
Relations Board, did you hear anything about the fact that the Meat
Cutters' Union Avas also attempting to organize the A. & P. Stores dur-
mg this period of time following that election or later on in the sunnner
and fall of 1952?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct, sir ; I did.
Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat reports did you hear about that ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. I got over 100 telephone calls from my people
whom I represented in the Brooklyn unit.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11227
Mr. Kennedy. When would this be, about ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. I would say in the latter part of September or the
early part of October.
Mr. Kennedy. Had you heard prior to that time that they were
attempting to organize the clerks in the stores?
Mr. E. IvENNEDY. I heard some rumors but around the latter part of
September or the first part of October, that is when I got this number
of phone calls.
Mr. Kennedy. "W^iat did the people say in the telephone calls ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That they were being compelled to sign cards not
only by the Butchers Union, but by the supervisors and managers of
the A. & P. Co.
Mr. Kennedy. Did this surprise you, these telephone calls that you
received ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Well, to be honest with you, Mr. Kennedy, nothing
surprises me as far as what the A. & P. would do.
Mr. Kennedy. What had the A. & P. attitude been prior to that time,
as far as the union attempting to organize the employees of the A. & P.
Co.?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Very much antiunion.
Mr. Kennedy. How did they exhibit that ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. By the number of elections that we had, and I
think we had four elections, and each one was a rerun and one particu-
lar election we had two reruns, and every election
Mr. Kennedy. You mean by a rerun you filed an unfair labor prac-
tice charge which was sustained ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir.
Mr. IvENNEDY. So they make them rerun the election ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. ^^Hiat you are saying in fact is that every time you
had an election or attempted to organize the employees, that the com-
pany was guilty of unfair labor practices ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you give us some examples of the type of thing
that they would do to 3'our employees ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. In the election of July 1, 1945, the hours at that
particular time were 48 hours, and prior to that, a couple of weeks
before the election, they reduced the hours to 45 hours, and gave them,
the majority of the people, an increase.
Mr. Kennedy. An increase in salary ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Which was to show that the individual employee
was better off with the company than with the union ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. How did they treat the organizers that used to come
around into the stores and attempt to get the employees signed up?
Mr. E. Kennedy. They would always give us a hard time. As a
matter of fact, in some cases they called the police.
Mr. Kennedy. Wliat do you mean by a "hard time?"
Mr. E. Kennedy. They tried to chase us out of the store, and then
when our men wouldn't leave, they would call the police, and, of course,
there were no cases presented in court against us but they would ask
for the police to come in and our men would have to leave the store.
11228 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. So there had been this antiunion activity from at
least 1945 up to 1952?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct, sir.
Mr. ICennedy. And so wasn't this a matter of considerable shock
and surprise to you when you heard in the first week of October that
the management was assisting the representatives of the Meat Cutters
to sign the employees up in the union ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. No, sir ; that was no surprise, because in the past,
in past experience, it had been proven that they would do everything
to defeat us.
Mr. Kennedy. They were bringing a union in, and they were help-
ing and assisting a union ?
Mr. E. Ejennedy. Well, whether they liked 1500 or not, that seemed
to be the issue.
Mr. Kennedy. Listen to the question. They were helping or assist-
ing, were they not, another union coming in ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. They were assisting 342.
Mr. Kennedy. Hadn't they been against unions coming in and or-
ganizing their employees ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Well, my experience has proven that they were,
but they reversed the picture in this particular instance.
Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't that a matter of surprise to you, Mr. Ken-
nedy ?
Mr, E. Kennedy. Well, it was a surprise to a certain extent.
The Chairman. Can you elaborate ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Well, when I heard that the company was partial
to 342, naturally I expected in any cooperation as far as 342 and the
company was concerned, they were going to work together against us,
and there was no question about it.
Senator Curtis. These unfair labor practices, were any of those
established by the NLRB, as such ?
Mr. E. I^nnedy. Well, my lawyer will be in a position to answer
that, Senator. He handled the legal end of it.
Mr. Pigariello. All of our charges were substantiated by either
the regional board or the national Board at Washington.
Senator Curtis. Now, this is during the time you were attempting
to organize, and prior to this signup with the Meat Cutters ?
Mr. Pigariello. That is right. In the 1945 proceeding, we had filed
charges on 2 separate occasions, and the election was run 3 times. Af-
ter the first election we filed charges, which charges to which the com-
pany consented, and agreed to have the election rerun. After the elec-
tion was rerun, we had occasion to file charges again, and after hear-
ings at the board the charges Avere sustained, and the election rerun
again. In 1950 we had the same experience, that was the proceeding
where we intervened witli local 474, and again we filed charges against
the company, after the election was conducted, and again our charges
were substantiated, and the election rerun.
In 1951 we had the same experience. We had to appeal from the
ruling of the regional board to Washington, and in December of 1942
Washington sustained our charges, and the election was rei'un in 1953.
There was a similar experience in 1954, when again the election had
to bo renin because of unfair lal>()r practices by the employer.
Senator Curtis. Throughout this period that you have told about,
these proceedings, you represented Mr. Kennedy's local ?
IMPROPER ACnvrriES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11229
Mr. PicARiELLO. I did, Senator.
Senator Curtis. So you know about the proceedings first-hand ?
Mr. PicARiELLO. Absolutely.
Mr. Kennedy. About that time, on October 8 when you received
these telephone calls, did you write a letter to the company ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. I did, sir.
The Chairman. I hand you a photostatic copy of the letter dated
October 8, 1952, from you to the Great Atlantic & Pacific Co., and ask
you to examine it and state if you identify it.
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Counsel may read the letter into the record.
Mr. ^Iay. This letter is directed to the Great Atlantic & Pacific Co.,
and it reads :
Gentlemen : Information from unimpeachable sources has come to us that
notwithstanding the tendency and still undetermined status of the above-entitled
representation proceedings initiated by our union as petitioner, your district
supervisors have been visiting your supermarkets in geographical area in said
petition involved, urging the employees comprising the bargaining unit to join
up and affiliate themselves with the Ajiialgamated Meat Cutters Union of Greater
New York, Local No. 342.
This incident and course of conduct symbolizes your company's well-entrenched
policy and constitutes but another manifestation of its utter disregard for the
provisions of the statutes enacted for the primary purpose of insuring the deter-
mination of its use arising in labor-management relations by legal and lawful
methods.
That the employees herein involved may choose their own collective bargaining
agent free from any interference, coercion, restraint, or threats of reprisals on
the part of management, either directly or indirectly as is their right, we urge you
to desist from continuing employing these tactics or any others calculated with
like intent or design.
Very truly yours,
E. A. Kennedy, General Manager.
The Chairman. The letter may be printed in the record as it was
read.
Mr. Kennedy. You had information from these telephone calls
and from other sources that they were actively assisting the Amal-
gamated Meat Cutters in attempting to organize the employees, is that
right ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. You brought that to their attention in this letter of
October 8?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you learn subsequently that they had in fact
signed a contract with the Amalgamated Meat Cutters?
Mr. E. Kennedy. I did.
Mr. Kennedy. When any of the employees of the A. & P. contacted
you, had they known that a contract was being signed ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. No, sir, they did not.
Mr. Kennedy. This was a contract that was signed in secret at that
time?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir, it was.
(At this point, the following members were present: Senators
McClellan, Church, and Curtis.)
11230 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Had you known any of the details ? Had a,nj of the
employees of the A. & P. told you of any of the details regarding the
signing of the contract ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. No, sir; I had not.
Mr. Kennedy. So this was a period of time in which you had an
unfair labor charge before the Board here in Washington as far as
the representation of these employees, which still had not been de-
cided, and the company signed a contract in secret with the Amal-
gamated Meat Cutters, is that right ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And you had drawn this to their attention 3 days
before— because the contract was signed October 11, you found out
subsequently ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You had brought to their attention some 3 days prior
to the fact that you knew of the fact that the management officials of
A. & P. were assisting and helping the Amalgamated Meat Cutters to
sign up the employees ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. So what action did you take? Maybe Mr. Picariello
knows what action was taken.
Mr. Picariello. On November 12, 1952, we filed a charge against
the company, asserting they had committed an unfair labor practice
by entering into the collective-bargaining agreement with local 342
while a certification proceedini^ was pending before the Board.
Mr. Kennedy. Was it your "judgment that what the company had
done under these circumstances was illegal and improper ?
Mr. PiCARiEELO. Without a question. We liad legal precedent for
that. We had the Midwest Piping case, which was decided by the
Board in Washington, which called such an act an unfair labor
practice.
Mr. Kennedy. Would that make it an illegal practice ?
Mr. Picariello. I believe it would ; yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Therefore, this contract that had been signed with the
meatcutters under these cricumstances had been an illegal contract ?
Mr. Picariello. Yes, sir; in my opinion it was. We petitioned the
Board and in our petition requested the regional board at Wasliington
to issue a complaint and to require the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea
Co. to cease and desist from its activities in derogation of its employees
in the Brooklyn unit and in violation of the National Labor Relations
Act.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you learn after the contract had been signed that
the company management was even more active in signing up the
employees ?
Mr. Picariello. I believe it was.
Mr. Kennedy. And Avas reported to you by certain of the employees
that they were threatened with being fired if they did not joint the
union ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And tliat lia])])ened after the signing of tlie contract ?
Mr. E. Kknnedy. That is correct.
Mr. Kennf.dy. Had tliere been a union contract provision in the
contract that had l)eon signed with the Meat Cutters, whereby the
employees had to join the union ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11231
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir ; tliere was.
Mr. Kennedy. Had it been brought to your attention that under
that provision of the contract, the management was going to the
various employees and telling them that they either sign the contract
or they would be fired ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And they were around assisting the meatcutters in
signing up the employees ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You brought these charges in November of 1952. On
approximately December 20, 1952, did the Board down here in Wash-
ington order a new election based on the first election that had been
lield on January 9, 1952 ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. They did, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. This is an election where you had brought an unfair
labor practice charge and had made an appeal to the Board here in
"Washington?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. It was during the period of this appeal that the
A. & P. signed this contract with the meatcutters ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Then the Board sustained your allegations of unfair
labor practices by the company, even on that January 9 election ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And based on the January 9 election, they ordered
a new election?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. That was the status, then, by the end of 1952 ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did many of the employees of the A. & P. Co., and
particularly the Brooklyn unit, approach you and tell you that they
were not in favor of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. So did you decide then that you would hold a new
election, tliat with the help of the National Labor Relations Board
you would have a new election in the Brooklyn unit?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct, sir. Of course, that was in accord-
ance with the decision made down here by the National Board in
"Washinglon.
Mr. Ivennedy. By the Board in Washington. In that case, you had
to abandon the unfair labor practice charges on the signing of the
contract of October 11 ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. So you decided under the order of the National
Labor Relations Board that you were entitled to a new election, so you
decided to have a new election in 1953 ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. In that case, they made you abandon the unfair labor
practices charges vou had made regarding the signing of the contract of
October 11 ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. So that was the status at the beginning of 1953 — •
that you decided on a new election ?
21243 — 58 — pt. 29 4
11232 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. During this jjeriod of time when the order came out
from the National Labor Kelations Board, did the company then take
steps to fire your supporters in the Brooklyn unit ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That they did, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And they fired a number of the leaders for your
union in that unit ; is that right ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir ; that is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you then have an election in 1953?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir; we did, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that election held on February 19, 1953 ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did your union win that election by overwhelming
numbers ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. We got 987 votes and neither got 190. We won
it overwhelmingly.
Mr. Kennedy. Neither union?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Well, which was the company, or 342.
Mr. Kennedy. Or nothing. So that you won that almost 8 or 9 to 1 ;
is that correct?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And this was in the same period of time that the
company had signed a contract with the meatcutters saying that the
Meat Cutters represented this group?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Yet when a free election was held, you won the
election, your union won the election, at a rate of about 9 to 1 ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is right, sir.
The Chairman. Were the Meat Cutters on that ballot ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. No, the Meat Cutters wasn't. They had neither.
I don't believe 342 was on the ballot. They did not appear on the
ballot.
The Chairman. If they already had a union, and were already
under contract, I don't quite understand — maybe you explained it but
I did not hear it — how you were able to hold an election.
Mr. PicARiELLO. They could not appear on the ballot because they
were not parties to the initial proceeding commenced in 1950 or 1951.
They were not parties to the initial proceeding. May I interject this :
That 2 days before the election on February 17, the A. & P. mailed a
letter to the employees in the election unit suggesting that they vote
for neither if they want to support local 342.
The Chairman. If they wanted what?
Mr. PiCARiELLO. If they wanted to support local 342, to vote for
neither union.
The Chairman, Wliat I am trying to find out is, Was the issue
really drawn in this election between the meatcutters and the clerks
tmion?
Mr. PiCARiKLLo. There was no issue drawn between the Meat Cutters
and the Clerks Union. The only issue in this election was the Clerks
Union and the A. & P.
The Chairman. I understand, but indirectly
Mr. PiGARiELLo. Indirectly.
The Chairman. They were not on the ballot; the Meat Cutters
Union was not on the ballot.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11233
Mr. PiCARiELLO. That is right.
The Chairman. They had a choice, as I understand it, to vote either
for the Clerks Union or no union.
Mr. PicARiELLO. Or no union ; yes, sir.
The Chairman. Although they were already, possibly without their
knowledge and consent, under contract with the Meat Cutters Union.
Mr. PicARiELLO. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. So the strategy was, in that election, if they wanted
to continue to have the Meat Cutters Union represent them, they
should vote for no union ?
Mr. PiCARiELLO. No union ; yes. Senator.
The Chairman. Was that made clear to the men ?
Mr, PicARiELLO. By letter mailed by the company to the clerks in
the Brooklyn union.
The Chairman, The company wrote a letter ?
Mr. PiCARiELLO. Yes, Senator.
The Chairman, Clearly defining this situation ?
Mr, Picariello. Yes, sir, I think I have the letter here, or a copy
of it.
The Chairman. I would like to see it. In other words, what I
am trying to determine is this: You have an election here that you
won by 8 to 1, 1 believe, or something, Wliat I am trying to determine
is whether the issue was clearly drawn, whether they were really able,
in that election, to assert a choice.
Mr. Picariello. I have a photostat of the letter here. Senator.
The Chairman. That is all I would need. You know this to be a
photostat of the letter ?
Mr. Picariello. I had the photostat made. Senator. I don't have
the original. That is a photostat.
The Chairman. I say you can verify this as the photostat of the
letter to which you refer.
Mr. Picariello. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Kennedy, you may proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. The election results were in fact a repudiation of the
policy of the company and of the Meat Cutters, was it not?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is right, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And it was a repudiation of the company signing
the contract with the Meat Cutters ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time, the company had indi-
cated to the employees actively that they had better join the Meat
Cutters?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And by having this election and going in and voting
for your union, this was a repudiation of what the company had been
attempting to do ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is right, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And it was a repudiation of the company's contract
with the Meat Cutters, was it not ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is right, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. This election was held under the supervision or au-
spices of the National Labor Relations Board ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir.
11234 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. After you won the election, did you take some steps
to have yourselves certified by the National Labor Relations Board as
the bargaining unit, the bargaining agent for this unit ?
Mr. E. I^NNEDY. Yes, sir ; we did.
Mr. KJENNEDY. Did you write a letter to the company ? That is on
March 2, 1953, that the National Labor Relations Board certified your
union, local 1500, as the bargaining agent representative of the Brook-
lyn unit ; isn't that right ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. That was March 2, 1953 ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you get in touch with the company and attempt
to discuss a contract with them ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Well, we wrote to the company stating that we
wished to sit down with them with reference to negotiating a con-
tract.
Mr. Kennedy. What was that date ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. March 4.
Mr. Kennedy. So the situation at that time, as of March 4, was you
had been designated as the bargaining agent by the National Labor
Relations Board to bargain for the Brooklyn employees, and the A. &
P. Co. had a contract covering those employees with the Amalgamated
Meat Cutters?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is right, sir.
(At this point, Senator McClellan withdrew from the hearing room.)
Mr. Kennedy. So you wrote to the A. & P. Co. under the instructions
of the National Labor Relations Board, pointing out that you had
been designated as the bargaining agent, and requesting to sit down
and discuss terms of the contract ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is right, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive an answer on March 9, 1953 ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That we did, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. From whom was that answer ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. I believe it was answered by Mr. Burt Zorn, the
attorney.
Mr. Kennedy. He was the attorney for the A. & P. Co. at that
time ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct, sir.
Mr Kennedy. Did they tell you at that time that they would sit
down and bargain with you in good faith ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. They refused to bargain with us.
Mr. Kennedy. They refused to bargain with you, and this was just
after you won the election ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct.
Senator Church. I have a copy here of a letter under date of
March 9, 1953, signed by Burton A. Zorn. Will you identify this
for tbe comniittee, please, for ])urposes of its inclusion in the record?
(The document was handed to the witness.)
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Senator Church. That is the letter to which you have just re-
ferred in your testimony ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Tliat is the letter, sir. Yes, sir.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11235
Senator Church. That letter will be made exhibit No. 1.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 1" for refer-
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 11547.)
Mr. Kennedy. In it, ]\Ir. Zorn, representing the company, stated
they would not bargain with your union?
Mr. PI Kennedy. That is correct.
(At this point. Senator McClellan entered the hearing room.)
Mr. Kennedy. Could I read it into the record ?
The Chairman. Surely.
Mr. I^JENNEDY. "March 9, 1953, Retail Clerks Union, Local 1500,
attention, Mr. Eugene Kennedy."
Mr. May. It reads as follows :
Gentlemen: Your letter and euc-losures dated March 5, 1953, requesting a
meeting with the company for the purpose of discussing terms and conditions
of a collective-bargaining agi-eement has been referred to us. We must ad-
vise you that the certification of local 1500 as bargaining agent for the employees
described therein by the order of the Board dated March 2, 1953, is illegal
and without force and effect. The National Labor Relations Board acted out-
side the scope of its authority in issuing said certitication, and the company
intends to test the legality of said order before the National Labor Relations
Board in the Federal courts if necessary.
On behalf of the company, we must inform you that it cannot now recog-
nize local 1500 as the appropriate bargaining agent and, therefore, it must
decline to meet with your committee.
Very truly yours.
Burton A. Zoen.
The Chairman. The Chair has examined the letter referred to by
the witness, the letter of February 17, 1953, which the company is-
sued under the name of its vice president — what is his name ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Mr. Charleton, I think, of the Brooklyn unit.
The Chairman. With respect to the pending election, directing or
suggesting to their employees, if they wanted to remain under local
342, the Meat Cutters' local, that they should vote "Neither" on the
ballot.
That letter has already been identified. It may be printed in the
record at this point. I have shown it to other members of the com-
mittee. It will not be necessary to read it. It may be printed in the
record at this point.
The Geeat Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.,
Eastern Division,
Brooklyn, N. Y., February 17, 1953.
To all Employees : Grocery, Produce, and Dairy Departments:
On Thursday, February 19, you will vote to indicate whether you wish to be
represented by "Local 1500," A. F. of L., "Local 474," CIO, or "Neither." Local
342, A. F. of L., will not be named on the ballot. If you want to support Local
342, A. F. of L., you should mark the ballot in the box designated "Neither."
In determining how your vote should be cast, I feel that you should be fully
informed as to how the present contract came about, because of accusations by
both locals 1500 and 474.
Consequently, you should know that Local 342, A. F. of L., after conducting
an organizing campaign during which they obtained signatures of a substantial
majority of our employees, demanded a contract. The signed cards authorized
Local 342, A. F. of L., to bargain for you and to negotiate a contract that would
govern your working conditions.
Under the law, where a majority of a group sign applications, no election
is required.
After insisting on verification of signatures claimed by Local 342, A. F. of L.,
and having them certified by an outstanding public arbitrator, Hon. Joseph E.
11236 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
O'Grady, we saw no alternative, and signed a contract which we felt was not
only fair and equitable but far superior to any other grocery contract in the
metropolitan area.
Sincerely yours,
F. W. Chaklton,
Vice President.
Senator Curtis. "Wlio determines the form of a ballot for such an
election ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. The Board.
Senator Curtis. The Board did ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. How can you have an election without having all
of the names of the candidates ?
Mr. Pigariello. May I answer that, Senator ?
Senator Curtis. Yes.
Mr. Picariello. Because these proceedings were commenced on
October 11, 1951, at which time the Amalgamated Meat Cutters Lo-
cal 342 had no interest at all in these people.
Senator Curtis. When was the election held?
Mr, Picariello. The first election was held on January 9, 1952, but
8 months before the contract was signed, at which time the Amalga-
mated still showed no interest in these people.
Senator Curtis. But this letter which was introduced here was
written after the contract was signed.
Mr. Pigariello. The letter was written directly before the second
election, 2 days before the second election.
Senator Curtis. Why weren't all the unions concerned listed on the
ballot in the second election? I am not condemning or condoning
what any of the parties may have done here, but I am thinking of the
right of a worker to express a choice without having to accept ex-
planations from management or anybody else.
Mr. Picarieli>o. Well, it may very well be that the Butcher local
never applied for permission to be put on the ballot.
Mr. Kennedy. Maybe I could help.
Senator Curtis. Certainly, the Board knew it.
Mr. Kennedy. Sure; the Board knew it. Of course, the Board
knew it.
Senator Curtis. It seems to me that, in so many of these situations,
the rights of the workers are totally ignored. It is a battle between
union leadership and management. I think that they should have the
right to express every alternative that is theirs through the ballot and
not have to rely upon — well, maybe the election would come out the
same way, but I am talking about the practice as an abstract
principle.
Mr. Kennedy. Senator, all I could say is this, that, not being
parties to the original proceeding, the Amalgamated had no right at
all to intervene and be put on the ballot. We have certain rules and
regulations, promulgated by the Board, which state that a union, in
order to intervene, must file its intervention within a certain number
of days after the petition is filed.
There was no such petition filed for intervention on behalf of the
Amalgamated Butcher local.
Senator Curtis. But, rightly or wrongly, they were the bargaining
agent and had a contract, an alleged contract, and, if that had been
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 11237
fraudulently obtained against the wishes of the workers, it would
be a good chance to test that. I still can't condone the action of the
Board in not providing a form of a ballot that workers could under-
stand their different choices without having to take explanation from
anybody.
Mr. KJENNEDY. Senator, I believe the election that was run at that
time, on February 19, 1953, was a rerun of the election of January 9,
1952. The parties and participants that were on the ballot on Janu-
ary 9, 1952, were on the ballot on February 19, 1953.
What the Board ordered was a rerun of the election of Janu-
ary 9, 1952. At that time, the Amalgamated Meat Cutters were never
on the scene. The company and the Amalgamated Meat Cutters
made an agreement or a contract in between, unbeknownst to any-
body, but that did not give the Amalgamated Meat Cutters the right
to be in on the election of January 9, 1952, when they were not
around.
Senator Cuetis. May I see a copy of the ballot ?
Mr. PiCARiELLO. I am trying to locate one.
Senator Curtis. If there is a political election and the name of one
candidate, and a box to vote for "neither," I don't know what
"neither" would mean.
(The witness conferred with is counsel.)
The Chairman. Can we proceed ?
Go ahead, Senator.
Senator Curtis. For clarifying the record, I have before me here
what appears to be a sample ballot.
It says "mark an X in the square of your choice."
The first column is Retail Food Clerks Union, Local 1500,
A.F.ofL.
That is your union, is it ?
Mr. E. IvENNEDY. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. Then what union is Local 474, CIO, RWDSU?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That was formerly Mr. Reape's union when he
was with the CIO. He is now with the Amalgamated Meat Cutters.
Senator Curtis. What was that then ?
Mr. E. IvENNEDY. CIO. Retail, Wholesale, Department Store
Workers, something like that, CIO.
Senator Curtis. In other w^ords, it was a comparable union to
yours, only yours was an A. F. of L., and this was CIO, before the
merger ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct, sir.
Senator Curtis. Were they parties to the previous election ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. Well, now, I would like to ask the attorney this
question : Would the board have had legal right to order a ballot that
would have set forth the name of all of the unions involved at the
time the second election was held ?
Mr. PiCARiELLo. I don't think so, Senator. These was legal pre-
cedent which states that the only parties to a rerun election shall be
those parties on the original ballot of the original election.
Senator Curtis. What ruling is that?
Mr. PicARiELLO. I don't have the ruling offhand, but I am quite
sure there is one.
11238 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Curtis. Did that ruling take into account where in the in-
tervening time it was alleged that a third union had gained represen-
tation by signing cards and liad executed a contract?
Mr, PicARiELLO. This was a peculiar situation, Senator.
Senator Curtis. I don't say the contract Avas all right, or binding,
and I don't know. But what I am questioning is the procedure that
ends up where a worker has to rely on an interested party's explana-
tion of how he should cast his ballot. I think that he should have a
clear-cut choice that he can understand.
Mr. PiCARiELLO. Well, I don't know. I dont' believe the board
had the right under these peculiar circumstances to include on the
ballot local 342.
Senator Curtis. Let us suppose that their contract had been a good
one, and let us suppose that they had received the cards or had re-
ceived membership cards from substantially all of the members.
You would still contend that they wouldn't have a right to be repre-
sented on the ballot ?
Mr. PiCARiELLO. I can't conceive how such a contract could be a
good and valid contract, if it was executed during the pendency of a
certification proceeding at the Board. That is an impossible state of
facts, in my opinion.
It could not be a valid contract because the contract when it was
executed at the time the certification proceeding was pending before
the Board, and under the policy or theory of the Midwest Piping Co.
case, such a contract is illegal and has no force and no effect.
Senator Curtis. Who won the first election ?
Mr. PiCARiELLO. The company did, by a vote of 1,100 to 262.
Senator Church. What was the the date?
Senator Curtis. Wliy was it rerun ?
Mr. PiCARiELLO. It was rerun because the company had increased
the wages of the grocery clerks working in adjacent counties by $3
a week.
Mr. E. IvENNEDY. In other words, the Bronx unit, and the Garden
City unit and the Brooklyn unit. Why the election was rerun in
the Brooklyn unit, was because of the company giving increases to
their employees employed in the Garden City unit and the Bronx
unit.
Mr. PiCARiELLO. May I explain thatj Senator? On December 13,
1951, about 3 weeks before the election was scheduled, the com-
pany wix)te a letter signed by its vice president to the employees in
the Brooklyn unit, who are the employees who were supposed to
vote 3 weeks hence, stating to them that they had increased the
salaries of all of the clerks in the grocery departments in the Brox,
and Garden City units by $3 per week.
They intimated, I assume, and this is just my conjecture, that the
employees in the Brooklyn unit might have received the same $3 had
it not been for these proceedings pending at the Board.
Senator Curtis. I am not defending what anybody has done, but
I am concerned about these people tliat appear to be innocent by-
standers, the workere there. They ought to be able to underetand
their ballot without having the management tell them what it meant.
The Chairman. May I see if we can't straighten this out. In
January of 1952, you had an election. At that time there was local
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11239
1500 and local 474 on the ballot. One was AFL, and the other was
CIO.
I assume in that election they had a chance to vote "neither," and
that is vote for no union,
Mr. PiCARiELLO. Tliat is right.
The Chairman. The results of that elections were that the votes
for "neitlier" or no union, was about 1,100 votes. You received in
your union 262, and the other union, local 474, recieved 40 votes.
Mr. PiCAiaELLO. Yes, sir.
Tlie Chairman. On the basis of that election, because of an alleged
improper practice on the part of the company, you appealed to the
Labor Board?
Mr. PicARiELLO. We did.
The Chairman. And the Labor Board finally sustained the
charges, that the company had been guilty of unfair practices?
Mr. PicARiELLO. Not the regional board, but the Board at Wash-
ington.
The Chairman. Well, I don't care, whatever board it was. There-
fore, they held the election invalid, the election in which the com-
pany won, and ordered a reelection or that it be run over ?
Mr. PicARiELLO. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Therefore, at that time, local 342 at the time of
the original election was not in the picture at all. It is just like ap-
pealing the case to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court reverses
it, and regardless of what may have intervened as between outside
parties during the time.
Mr. PiCARiELLO. That is what I am trying to indicate.
The Chairman. They had no jurisdiction over 342, and it wasn't
a party to the proceedings, and so it simply ordered another election
between the three parties, the company and the two clerks' unions,
and just ordered it to be run over.
Mr. PicARiELLO. That is right.
The Chairman. Wien it was run over, then as between your local
1500, and local 474 and "neither," your union won 6 or 8 to 1, or some-
thing like that, is that correct ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Is that a correct summary of it ?
Mr. PicARiELLO. It certainly is.
Senator Church. Just to complete that picture, before the rerun
election, the company had entered into an arrangement with the
Amalgamated Meat Cutters ?
Mr. PiCARiELLo. That is right.
Senator Chtirch. And just prior to the election, on a ballot that
conformed with the direction of the Board, the company advised all
of its employees that if they wanted to vote for your union it would
be on the ballot, and if they wanted to vote for the CIO union it would
be on the ballot, but if they wanted to approve of the arrangement
that had been entered into between the company and the Amalgamated
Meat Cutters, then they should indicate that choice by voting "neither."
Mr. PicARiELLO. That is very correct.
Senator Church. The issue was very clear at the time that they
went to vote ?
Mr. PicARiELLO. That is right.
The Chairman. Proceed.
11240 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Now, we are up to March 9, 1953, when you received
a letter from Mr. Zorn, in which he stated that the company would not
bargain.
Mr. E. KJENNEDY. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time where the company was
making efforts to get the employees of the Brooklyn unit to join the
union and pay dues
Mr. E. K^ENNEDY. Yes, sir.
Mr. IvENNEDY. This was even after you won the election ?
Mr. E. KJENNEDY. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Did the people that had supported your miion, local
1500, a number of them, refuse to pay dues ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Did the company indicate to them that they would
be fired in view of their attitude ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did a number of them bring charges before the Na-
tional Labor Kelations Board regarding being forced into or to pay
dues into the Amalgamated Meat Cutters ?
Mr. PiCARiELLO. May I interject this, Mr, Kennedy, that a number
of these affidavits were submitted to the Board to support charges
which the union had preferred against both the union and the
employer.
Mr. Kennedy. Did a large number of them sign a petition stating
that they were being forced to pay dues into the Meat Cutters?
Mr. Picariello. Quite a number did, yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. How mai/y, do you have the figure there ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. I would say there was over 100.
Mr. Kennedy. I am talking about the employees who signed a peti-
tion to the National Labor Relations Board, saying they were being
coerced into paying dues. Weren't there some 960 of those people,
those signatures ? You don't remember that ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. I don't remember offhand.
Mr. Kennedy. You don't remember these ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. I don't remember that one offhand, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. On March 20, 1953, you brought charges before the
National Labor Relations Board, and had as your support some 960
signatures of individuals who stated that they were being coerced
into paying dues into the Amalgamated Meat Cutters.
Mr. Picariello. We brought the charges, and I have a notation on
my file, but I didn't know the exact number of names on these sup-
porting petitions.
The Chairman. You did have names from the workers supporting
the petition. The number that you secured, you do not remembers
Mr. Picariello. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. The records show there were some 960 different in-
dividuals who signed these petitions which would indicate that you
had great support for your position at that time, is that right?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Now that you refresh my memory, I remember
the delegates bringing it in, that is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. As the company refused to bargain with you, and
sit down and discuss a contract, was there then discussion among the
employees of the Brooklyn unit that you would have a strike?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir, there was.
EVIPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 11241
Mr. Kexnedy. And you had a meeting at that time ?
Mr. E. IvENNEDY. Well, they started to lay off a lot of people, and
I think approximately 80 people or more were laid off by the com-
pany, or else being transferred from one store to another. In other
words, a store that we say was solidly for local 1500, the company
method in conjunction with 342 was to transfer a lot of those men
out of that particular store into other stores, to break up that strength
that we had in those various stores, besides dismissing a lot of the
employees.
Mr. Kennedy. So the employees of the A. & P. Co., in the Brooklyn
unit, were concerned ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Very much so.
Mr. IvENNEDY. Did they decide to call a strike ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And a strike was called ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That was called on April 8 at a meeting of the
A. & P. employees of the Brooklyn unit.
Mr. Kennedy. Was it successful insofar as the employees in the
clerks' division walking out of the stores ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they walk out almost 100 percent ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. We had 1,400, 1 believe, out of 1,455, and it was
practically 100 percent.
Mr. Kennedy. This was again over the opposition of the company
and over the opposition of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters Union?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Which would be against the strike ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. The butchers stayed in the stores ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct.
The Chairman. Did that many walk out in a strike, in protest to
the company's refusal to bargain with 1500 after the election ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct, Senator.
Mr. Kennedy. How long did you remain out on strike ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Ten days, sir.
Mr. I^NNEDY. Will you tell the committee briefly the situation that
brought you back into the stores, and ending the strike?
Mr. E. KJENNEDY. I had a meeting with employees on April 8, 1953,
and at that time the employees voted to give the union the authority
to have a strike. I called the strike on April 16, 1953. The day before
Mr. French Katcliffe met me in the Papus Restaurant at 10 o'clock.
Mr. IvENNEDY. That is Mr. Radcliffe from the A. & P. Co.?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir ; from the A. & P., requesting that I forget
about the strike for the time being, and I told him that we had given
the company ample time to straighten out the situation, and the men
had voted for a strike, and in fact were being laid off and transferred,
and being misused and therefore the strike would go on the following
morning. That was April 16.
On April 23, which was a Friday, I received a phone call from Marty
Lacey, head of the Teamsters Council, who is now since been de-
ceased, and he called me down to his office. At the office I met Mr.
Tom Hickey, of local 607, who had the Teamster contract with the
11242 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
A. & P., and I met Johnny Strong who is president of that particular
company, and I met Max Block, and I met Mr. Lacey at that time.
Mr. Lacey at that time asked me what I was trying to do, and I
said my people had won an election and was certified by the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, and I wanted a contract and the
company refused to negotiate with us, and tlierefore I had no alter-
native due to the employees' wishes that a strike was called. I was
never in favor of a strike. But because of the facts of the delay of
the company and also the Board, I had no alternative because we
had notified the Board prior to the strike that the people were being
laid off and being kicked around by the company, and the Board
did not seem to take any definite steps to correct that situation.
I know the A. & P. is a big company, and I certainly don't like
to put people out on the street because I recognize my responsibility
to the people, but, after all, where I won an election fairly and
squarely in the law, I felt that I should get some consideration from
the law-abiding people and also from the labor movement.
That was on a Friday when I spoke to these gentlemen. They
asked me what I wanted and I told them I wanted a contract
for my people. Max Block said that he would go back and talk
to the A. & P. and see what could be done about it. The following
day which was a Saturday, which was April 24, the same parties
met again in the same office, and we worked out an agreement
whereby the people would go back to work, and the people wiio were
laid off would go back to work, and we would service the contract
with 342, the contract would remain in force, until the termination
of the contract, but during the interim that Max Block would sit
down with me and at the end of the termination of the contract
that the people would be turned OA'er to local 1500.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, so that I can understand
Mr. E. Kennedy. In conjunction with that we were to service the
complaints, the grievances, and with that thought in mind I said
I would take everything back to the members.
(At this point the following members were present: Senators
McClellan, Church, and Curtis.)
Mr. Kennedy. This was an agreement that was brought about
in the office of the Teamsters; is that right?
Mr. E. KIennedy. The Teamsters' counsel, Marty Lacey's office;
yes, sir.
Mr. KJENNEDY. They would have a very important role or deter-
mination as to whether the strike was a success or not?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Well, 807, of course, because they were the
Teamsters connected with the A. & P. deliveries.
Mr. Kennedy. And upon their urging and upon the urging of Mr.
Block and ultimately the agreement of Mr. Block, you agreed at
that time tliat the contract that the Meatcutters had signed with
the A. & P. would remain in existence?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Until its termination?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. At that time, Mr. Block stated he would turn over
tlio employees to you, to local 1500, after the 2-year contract was
finished?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11243
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct, on the Brooklyn unit,
Mr. Kennedy. That would be 1954, then, October?
Mr. E. IvENNEDY. Yes, sir.
Mr. IvENNEDY. You would then receive those employees?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Or they would all become members of 1500?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. The company was not represented at this meeting,
but Mr. Block had gone back and had said that he had had discus-
sions with the company and they had agreed to it?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Block was representing the company, at least
according to what he stated ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct.
]\Ir, Kennedy. And at that time, you said you would take that
back to your membership ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Was there a hard and fast agreement that they
would in fact turn over the employees of the A. & P. Co., the Brook-
lyn company, to you in 1954: ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. As far as the stipulation was concerned. It is
not conclusive, but it was discussed, the same as I stated before, that
we would sit in on the conferences with reference to grievances, we
w^ould collect the dues for 342 and turn them over to 342 every month,
which we did.
Mr. Kennedy. What you say is that you signed an agreement,
but you didn't include the fact that they were to turn over the em-
ployees after 2 years ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Well, it was to the effect that we would discuss
it during the interim.
Mr. Kennedy. If you had actually agreed to it, why didn't you
write that into the stipulation ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Well, it should have been written in as far as
that is concerned, because that was the definite arrangement that was
made.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, you didn't write it in ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. No, sir, we didn't.
Mr. Kennedy. AVe will follow along as to what occurred. But
you took this to the membership. Did they approve of it or disap-
prove ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Well, it took us about 3 hours to finally have the
people decide to go back. As I stated before, I told them that we
would sit on all the grievances. I explained to them that at the end
of their contract, the people would become members of local 1500,
they would pay dues to local 1500 during the term of the contract
and we, in turn, would turn it over to 342. We did get grievances.
We sent them over to 342 with a registered receipt requested.
Mr. Cody, president of our union, attended one meeting with Billy
Casale, who is secretary of 342, with Mr. Lon Heddy, who repre-
sented the A. & P. in the Brooklyn unit.
Mr. Kennedy. You don't have to go into all of that.
Mr. E. Kennedy That was with reference to the complaints. It
just seemed to be that the A. & P. and 342 went through the move-
ments.
11244 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Even after this agreement, the people from the
A. & P. store in the Brooklyn unit all went back to work, and this
agreement was supposed to come into effect.
Did the company then continue to support the Meat Cutters rather
than yourselves?
Mr. E. Kennedy, That they did, sir,
Mr Kennedy. Then did you speak to Mr, Block about living up to
the agreement that he had made?
Mr, E. Kennedy. I spoke to him several times.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he indicate that he was going to live up to the
agreement or not i
Mr. E. Kennedy. That he did, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he then turn over the employes in October of
1954 to your union ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. No, sir ; he did not,
Mr, Kennedy, Did he subsequently indicate that he was not going
to turn them over ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. I met with ]Mr. Block and Mr. French Eatcliff
in the Black Angus Eestaurant in reference to these complaints and
how we would proceed to handle these complaints, so the company
was ver}^ well informed as far as the procedure that was to be in
effect, I also had Mr, Picariello, my attorney, and Stephen Vladeck,.
who was an associate of Mr, Picariello, meet with Burt Zorn, the at-
torney for the company, and Arnold Cohen, the attorney for 342, in
Max's restaurant, tlie Black Angus. I think Mr, Picariello can tell
you the details of that with reference to consummating this deal of
turning the people over at the end of the contract time.
Mr. Kennedy. What it amounted to was that he indicated he was
not going to turn them over ; did he not ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Well, finally, on November 13, when these two-
lawyers of mine which I just mentioned met with Mr. Block in his
office and Arnold Cohen
Mr. Kennedy. Wliat year was tliis ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. 1953, November 13. Then I could see that ^lax
was not going to live up to his promise and that is when I started
to lay my organizational program for tlie next election.
Mr, Kennedy. Did you also try to get an intermediary, an in-
dividual who was close to Max Block, to try to get him to live up to his
agreement ?
Mr, E. Kennedy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Who did you contact?
Mr. E. Kennedy. I did not contact anybody. Mr. Lawrence Bras-
cia, and my brother-in-law is his uncle, he called me, and he stated
"I understand you are having a problem with Max Block and the
A. & P,"
Mr, Kennedy, Who is Lawrence Brescie?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Who is he?
Mr, Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. E. Kennedy, My brother-in-law is his uncle.
Mr. Kennedy. Other than that, is there any other identification you
can give us?
Mr. E. Kennedy. As far as I know, no, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. He spent a good deal of time in the penitentiary,
has he not?
IMPROPER ACTR'ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11245
Mr. E. Kexxedy. According to the newspapers, yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. He is known as Chappie Brescia?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And he went to jail. Is he in jail now? Well, I
guess he is out.
Mr. E. Kennedy. I don't know, sir. I never see the gentleman.
Mr. Kennedy. He has gone for extortion several times, has he not?
Mr. E. Kennedy. I don't know, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not know his background ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. No, sir, 1 did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he come to you then ?
Mr. Fj. Kennedy. He met with me and Max Block.
Mr. Kennedy. How was it arranged that he got involved in this?
Mr. E. Kennedy. He most likely saw it in the newspapers, I pre-
sume. I could not say how he got it.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he come to you and say he might be able to
make an arrangement?
Mr. E. Kennedy. He called me on the phone and said "I under-
stand you are having trouble with Max Block and the A. & P.," and
1 said "That is right."
He said "Maybe you would like for me to help you out" and I said,
"That would be fine. I hope you can."
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have a meeting?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is right, with Max Block, in Luchow's
Restaurant.
Mr. Kennedy. Was he able to arrange anything?
Mr. E. Kennedy. At that time, Max told him he was going to turn
the peojjle over.
Mr. Kennedy. Had he been a friend of Max for a long time?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That I wouldn't know, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You don't know what the relationship is ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. No, sir, I don't.
Mr. Kennedy. Ultimately he did not turn them over ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. No, sir, that is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you make arrangements to hold another election ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you make arrangements to hold it just in the
Brooklyn unit?
Mr. E. Kennedy. No, sir, we did not. We were all set to take either
unit separately. We had our petitions all set.
Or we would take it just as an overall group.
Mr. Kennedy. Why didn't you take it in the Brooklyn unit since
you had been successful there ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. For the simple reason the Butchers Union wanted
the overall picture, No. 1. No. 2, we felt that the contract would be a
bar. No. 3, the company wanted to have the overall picture. There-
fore, in order to avoid a lot of litigation, a lot of postponements of
hearings and everything else, and the company could have used the
propaganda, plus 342, that we were holding up increases in different
projects, and improvements and conditions for the worker, we knew
that if that went into the picture, I would not have gotten practically
any votes.
Mr. Kennedy. So you got talked into having it for the whole
11246 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. E. Kennedy. We did not get talked into it. I think we felt we
would use better judgment that way, because with this litigation and
the way things have been going in the past, it would be a couple
of years before an election would be held, and the propaganda that
the company and 342 would have used against us, we would not have
gotten practically any votes.
Mr. Kennedy. By this method, you were competing against three
different locals of the meatcutters ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Locals 400, 342, 489 and the company.
Mr. Kennedy. There was just your local against all of them?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the final result ?
(At this point. Senator Mundt entered the hearing room.)
Mr. Kennedy. 4,482 votes were cast.
Mr. E. Kennedy. We got 1,942, the Butcher locals combined got
2,409, the company got 131.
Mr. Kennedy. And there were 1,800 votes that weren't cast ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Challenged votes 210.
Mr. Kennedy. Some 1,800 did not cast their votes at all?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir. There were approximately 6,500 and
4,692 people voted.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you bring a charge of mifair labor practice
against the company in that election ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Wliat were the votes ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Local 1500 has 1,942, the Butchers locals com-
bined were 2,409; the company vote was 131, challenged votes were
210, making a total of 4,692 votes cast out of approximately 6,500.
Mr. Kennedy. So you brought charges of unfair labor practice
against the company ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did the Board sustain your charges and order a
new election ?
Mr. E. I^nnedy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. They did?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And you had a new election then on March 13, 1955 ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And there were, for the three Butchers locals, 342,
400, and 489, they received 2,905 votes, is that correct?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And your local 1500, received 1,183 votes ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. No union received 96 votes?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That was challenged votes.
Mr. Kennedy. Challenged votes ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. So you got beaten in both of these elections ?
IMr. E. Kennedy. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. How do you explain if the people did not want the
Meat Cutters, how do you explain the fact that when this election
was held that they did not support you ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11247
Mr. E. Krxnedy. Well, that is very easy to explain, Mr. Kennedy,
for the simple reason that the supervisors, the managers, and every-
body else spoke to the workers, promised them a lot of things, took
them down to the downstairs, to the back room, promised them every-
thing to vote for local 342 and the rest of the Butchers Union. I
mean, I could understand that very clearly, the feeling of an employee
that he felt his position was a veiy dubious one if he didn't go along
with the company.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you think that the individual employee was dis-
couraged and disgusted by this time?
Mr. E. Kennedy. I believe he certainly was.
Mr. Kennedy. That is all.
Senator Curtis. Going back to this time when the contract was
signed with the Meat Cutters, and A. & P., that was the Brooklyn
unit, Avasn't it?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. How many workers were involved ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Do you mean the contract signed by the Butch-
ers, just for the Brooklyn units ? Is that what you mean ?
Senator Curtis. Yes.
Mr. E. Kennedy. No, the contract was signed for all the units.
Senator Curtis. I am not talking about the last one you referred to.
Mr. E. Kennedy. I see.
Senator Curtis. I am talking about the contract where you ended
up that you were going to service the contract, and they would be
turned over to you at the end of a couple of yeais.
That particular contract was for what area i
Mr. E. Kennedy. That contract that was signed on, I believe, Oc-
tober 10 or 11 was the separate one for the Brooklyn unit, a separate
one for the Garden City unit — not the Garden City unit, a separate
one for the Bronx unit, a separate one for over in Jersey.
Senator Curtis. But the principal dispute involved the Brooklyn
unit ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct, sir.
Senator Curtis. How many workers were involved in the Brooklyn
iniit, just roughly?
^Ir. E. Kennedy. I would say when we went out on strike it was
around 1,455, around 1,500.
Senator Curtis. And how many of them had expressed their dis-
satisfaction with the Meat Cutters Union ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Our election, I believe, would have shown that,
987 that we got, 987.
Senator Curtis. Why couldn't thev just stop paving dues to the
Meat Cutters?
Didn't they want to belong? Didn't they think they were getting
a good deal ? If not, why couldn't they just stop paying dues ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Naturally, Mr. Senator, they felt they would be
discharged in accordance with the contract that the butchers had
with the company, and a number of them were, because they would
not pay dues to 342.
Senator Curtis. It was a union shop contract?
Mr. PiCARiELLO. Yes, Senator.
21243 — 58— pt. 29 5
11248 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Cuetis. So even though they had been forced into a union
against their wishes, they were dissatisfied with the union, dissatisfied
with the contract they got, there had never been any election held,
they were still in a position where if they quit supporting that union
they lost their jobs?
Mr. E. I^NNEDY. There is no question about that. A number of
them did actually lose their jobs because they refused to pay dues to
local 342. A number of these employees were sent to the regional
board and the regional board investigated the matter and had them
sign affidavits to that effect, and these affidavits became part and par-
cel of some of our charges filed against both the union and the em-
ployer.
Senator Curtis. I think that deals with a legislative proposition
that the Congress should take concern of, and that is the right of the
workers to get out of a union without losing their jobs. If they didn't
have such power of contract over them, they would have a little of
their liberties left.
The contract that we are talking about, how long did it run ?
Mr. E. IvENNEDY. It ran for 22 months.
Senator Curtis. I thought it was a 5-year contract.
Mr. E. Kennedy. Sir?
Senator Curtis. Wasn't it a 5-year contract ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. No, sir; not this contract. It was 22 months. It
expired in August 1954. It started October 10, 1952.
Senator Curtis. How long have you been in the union business in
the New York area, Mr. Kennedy ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. I have been in there since May of 1940, sir. I
have been general manager since that time.
Senator Curtis. What other instances do you know of where
workers have had a contract forced on them where they were never
advised what the contents were ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Well, I don't know of any, because in my actual
experience I don't operate that way.
Senator Curtis. I didn't ask you about yours. I asked you if you
knew of any others. We took quite a little testimony last fall, witli
reference to Dioguardi and other labor leaders in the New York area,
involving many of the Puerto Ricans, where workers were not only
put in a union without their knowledge or consent, but they never had
any idea what the contract with their employer was about.
Mr. E. Kennedy. I don't know any of those gentlemen. After all.
I stay by myself in this labor movement, and I don't know of anything
like that that transpired, because I don't know any of those people.
Senator Curtis. We have the sworn testimony.
Mr. E. Kennedy. I am not questioning you, Senator.
Senator Curtis. What is that ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. I am not questioning you.
Senator Curtis. Well, how can that be remedied ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Well, 1 think elections should be held, either by
the NLRB or the honest ballot association.
Senator Curtis. Mr. Kennedy, you were mentioned in the hearings
on the Food Fair.
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct, sir.
Senator Curtis. And you gave a couple of affidavits ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Yes, sir.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11249
Senator Curtis. Mr. Julius Schwartz was connected with the man-
agement of Food Fair ; was he ?
Mr. E. Ejennedy. That is correct, sir.
Senator Curtis. Did he come to you in August or September of
1955 and talk to you about the purchase of stock in the Food Fair
Properties, Inc.?
Mr. E. Kennedy. He spoke to me and wanted to know if I would
be interested in purchasing any stock in the Food Fair Properties, Inc.
I told him at that time that I would not bo interested in it, but there
was a possibility that my sister might be interested in it. I spoke to
my sister. Two weeks later, he called me back, and I told him that
my sister would be interested, and she purchased 500 shares of that
stock; yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. Did your sister gain anything by this purchase?
Mr. E. Kennedy. She still has the stock, sir.
Senator Curtis. I didn't ask that.
Mr. E. Kennedy. She still has the stock, sir.
Senator Curtis. I mean at the time.
Mr. E. Kennedy. The stock was selling for a dollar a share. What
it is today, I don't know, or at that time.
Senator Curtis. What was it worth at the time you got it for your
sister ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That was before it went on the market. I think
it was worth a dollar a share.
Senator Curtis. Immediately when it went on the market, what
was it worth ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. I understand it went around $4, I believe.
Senator Curtis. It was worth $4?
Mr. E, Kennedy. I believe so ; yes.
Senator Curtis. So your sister paid $500 for the 500 shares of stock ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct, sir.
Senator Curtis. And as soon as it was on the market, at the same
time, it was worth $2,000 ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct, sir.
Senator Curtis. And that was what Schwartz told you about it, and
it had been your opportunity to take it?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That would have been mine, yes, sir, if I had
wished to have taken it, that is correct.
Senator Curtis. You didn't take it for yourself, but you took it for
your sister?
Mr. E. Kennedy. My sister said she would be interested in it.
Senator Curtis. And at that time, your union did have collective
bargaining arrangements with Food Fair ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is also correct, but it has no bearing on the
case. Tliat I can definitely tell you. At no time.
Senator Curtis. Well, they came to you with the information
about it.
Mr. E. Kennedy. They came to me, but it would have no bearing on
the case, regardless, if I had 1 contract with them or 15.
Senator Curtis. I am not alleging it has any.
Mr. E. Kennedy. I just want to keep the record straight.
Senator Curtis. I am not alleging that that would affect your
judgment or your vigor in speaking up for the workers you represent.
I wish to make no such reference as that.
11250 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. E. Kennedy. No. I will stand on my record. Senator.
Senator Curtis. But the point is it was something of value offered
to you, and you did not take it but you arranged for vour sister to
take it I
Mr. E. Kennedv. I did not arrange it. My sister took it. But I
did not arrange it. She was interested. If she was not interested,
she would not have taken it.
Senator Curtis. Well, you talked to your sister about it?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is right.
Senator Curtis. And you talked to lier because the management of
Food Fair talked to you ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. Well, that is correct, sir.
Senator Curtis. And you transmitted the check ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. That is correct, sir, and she reimbursed me.
Mr. Kennedy. In that connection, there is no question that the
company approached you, is that right, about purchasing the stock \
Ml'. E. Kennedy. Xo, sir.
jNIr. Kennedy. You did not approach them ?
Mr. E. Kennedy. No, sir. She still owns the stock, too.
The Chairman. Are there any other questions ?
If not, thank you very much.
Call the next witness.
Mr. Kennedy. "William Ross.
The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear the evidence you shall
give before this Senate select committee shall be the trutli. the whole
t^'uth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God '.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM ROSS
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your
business or occupation.
Mr. Ross. William Ross, 3150 Bailey Avenue, unemployed at the
moment.
The Chairman. What is your former occupation, Mr. Ross ?
Mr. Ross. I am unemployed, but I am a bartender, looking for work.
The Chairman. I did not know anybody was unemployed in that
profession.
Do you waive coimsel, Mr. Ross ?
Mr. Ross. Yes ; I do.
The Chair:\ian. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy.
ISIr. Kennedy. ]Mr. Ross, did you say you used to work for the
A. & P. Co., is that correct ?
Mr. Ross. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. For how many years did you work f<n- tlie A. & P.?
Mr. Ross. I bel ieve it would be about 6 or 7.
Mr. Kennedy. Wlien did vou start to work for them I
Mr. Ross. 1947.
Mr. Kennedy. You. were in tlie Arm.y, were you ?
INfr. Ross. I was in tlie Navy.
]\[r. Kennedy. For how long?
Mr. Ross. Three years.
Mr. Kennedy. And you were head of j^our American Legion post?
Mr. Ross. I am a past commander of an American Legion post up
in Manhattan.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11251
Mr, Kennedy. What j^ears were you in the Navy ?
Mr. Ross. I was in the Navy from 1943 to 1946.
Mr. Kennedy. And shortly after getting out of the Navy, you
started to work for the A. & P. Co., is that right ?
Mr. Ross. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And you were Avorking for the A. & P. Co., as a clerk ?
Mr. Ross. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you interested at that time in having yourself
and your fellow employees join a union ^
Mr. Ross. I became interested shortly after going to work for the
A.&P.
Mr. Kennedy. You were working in the Bronx unit, is that right ?
Mr. Ross. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we had a witness yesterday who testi-
fied mostly on the Bronx unit, and, of course, Mr. Eugene Kennedy
testified today mainly on the units in Brooklyn. "We will have some
witnesses, such as Mr. Ross, who will testify on the situation in the
Bronx, and who were employed there and employed at the time by the
Brooklyn unit also. They would only have information regarding
their particular area. I wanted to get that clarified.
What union were you working for, once you became employed in
the A. & P. over in the Bronx ?
Mr. Ross. I became interested in local 474 of the CIO at that time,
retail, whole^ule.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you work actively for them during this period
of time. 1947 on. through 1958 ?
Mr. Ross. Yes, I did, very much.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you feel you were making progress as far as
unionization was concerned ?
Mr. Ross. Yes, I did.
]Mr. Kennedy. O21 March 19, 1952, j^ou held an election ?
Mr. Ross. That is right ; a representation election.
Mr. Kennedy. At that time you received 772 votes ?
Mr. Ross. Correct.
Mr. Kennedy. That was a great improvement over the votes you
had received in the past ?
Mr. Ross. Yes, it was.
Mr. Kennedy. Was there optimism as far as 3'our union was con-
cerned and your people were concerned ?
Mr. Ross. We felt it was a moral victory and knew that the day
was near when we would succeed.
Mr. Kennedy. Later on in 1952, after that election, were you ap-
proached by anybody from Local 400, of the Meat Cutters Union ?
Mr. Ross. Well, while waiting for the year to run out, I met per-
sonally some of the meatcutters in the summer of 1952.
Mr. Kennedy. What did they say to 3^ou at that time regarding
their organizational drive ?
Mr. Ross. It seems that the}^ had entered my store and had been
spreading a story to the effect that if the men were to sign these au-
thorization cards, we would receive an election. As I had known,
and had infoiined the men at that time, there could not have been
an election for 1 year following March 1952, so with that, they had
failed momentarily, as they thought, and then had butchers in the
11252 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
store take me into the cellar or meet me in the cellar and try to give
me the impression that I could get in on the gravy train or on the
ground floor, as they had put it, and get myself a job with their union
if I would cooperate.
They handed me a number of authorization cards, which I said
I did not want. They said "Well, take them anyway, if you should
change your mind."
I said "It would never happen," and I destroyed the cards right in
front of them.
Mr. Kennedy. At this time, you knew they could not have an elec-
tion?
Mr. Koss. I knew. Legally they had to wait 1 year.
Mr. Kennedy. So when they were going around telling the em-
ployees to sign these cards, the cards would obtain an election for
them so that they could select a union, you Iviiew that was incorrect ?
Mr. Ross. I did, and told them.
Mr. Kennedy. They persisted in trying to get people to sign cards ?
Mr. Ross. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Some of the people did sign the cards with the un-
derstanding that they would obtain an election ?
Mr. Ross. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. That is what they were telling them ?
Mr. Ross. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. They did not tell them at that time "If you sign
the card, this delegates the Meat Cutters as your bargaining agent" ?
Mr. Ross. No, never.
Mr. ICennedy. They just told them that this would obtain an elec-
tion for them ?
Mr. Ross. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you surprised, therefore, when it was an-
nounced that a contract had been signed ?
Mr. Ross. Yes; because we did not see them any more after that,
maybe a week or so in the middle of the summer. We no longer met
them. On, I believe, the second week in October, when we went to
work, we had a letter handed to us, signed by, I believe, the vice presi-
dent, Mr. Bieber, stating that they had signed a contract with the
Amalgamated Meat Cutters, and in the near future we would receive
the provisions of such a contract.
Mr. Kennedy. What was your feeling at that time ?
]\Ir. Ross. In fact, at that time, the men all spoke to me and wanted
to walk out of the stores. They said "What right did the A. c^- P. have
to put us in a union ?"
^Ir. Kennedy. Was there great bitterness at that time ?
Mr. Ross. Yes ; very strongly.
Mr. Kennedy. Can you describe it ?
Mr. Ross. Well, at some of the stores the men wanted to walk out.
Naturally, I contacted the union I was fighting for, 474, and they in-
formed me it would be the worst thing we could do, to walk out of our
stores, and we sliould wait and see if it could not be fought elsewhere
without making a move as that.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you feel that the rights of the individual em-
ployees had been completely ignored ?
(At this point. Senator Curtis withdrew from the hearing room.)
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11253
Mr. Ross. It was completely ignored, in our eyes and as we be-
lieved. "We knew the company had been successful in all these matters,
in the two elections I was involved in, were successful in having the
men believe they did not need a union, and the men were believing it,
but at the same time we fought harder and were proving to the men
that we did need one in the A. & P. It was our contention that the
A. & P. signed this contract knowing that it was a moral victory for us
in March 1952, and thought that the men had let them down by giving
us so many votes in that election. We believed at that time the A. & P.
was out to get themselves a union they could do business with.
Mr. Kennedy. Is that what it turned out to be ?
Mr. Ross. As far as we were concerned, yes.
Mr. IvENNEDY. Was that the feeling of your fellow employees in the
store?
Mr. Ross. All of tliem.
Mr. Kennedy. There was great bitterness about them ?
Mr. Ross. Yes, sir, almost 90 some percent. The men who had
stuck by the company and had voted no union in the previous elections
now were even bitter to think that they believed the company. A
letter had been sent maybe a week or so before the election in 1952,
where A. & P. stated :
There will never be a union in A. & P. Stick with us. We don't need a
union. Why pay dues to a union? We will never have a union.
Here 6 or 7 months later, those men were put in, and they were veiy
hurt, thinking this, that they had stuck with the company, and now
they were put m a imion.
Mr. Kennedy. And they had no right to select the union at that
time?
Mr. Ross. They had no right to select them. God knows where they
got the names, certainly not from us. There were 200 of us in one
area. They may have gotten a handful, and how they got the hand-
ful was because they were misled by being told it was for an election.
And some, before getting the information from us that there coidd
not be an election, foolishly signed the cards on those pretenses.
Mr. Kennedy. "W-liat happened after they announced to you that a
contract had been signed ?
Mr. Ross. About a week after this had happened, jNIr. McXally, my
supeiwisor, came down to the store and took me for a car ride, and
at that time showed me a contract whicli I read, as much as I could
in the little time that he gave me, and I came across one particular
article of interest to me, and that was the welfare article which dis-
tinctly stated the company shall pay $10 per month per man to the
union to provide the union's welfare plan, and it also stated the union's
welfare plan would be in accordance with the New York State law
pertaining to sick benefits, noting that a man would have to be ill 5
days before he would receive a day's pay of sickness.
I said to Mr. McXally at that time ''We have a better sick plan
given to us by the A. & P. Why should we now have one the union
isn't going to meet, although you are giving $10 a month ?"
Now 1 week later, I tlien see 2 more contracts and that article
isn't in there any more. I got up before the men at a meeting in the
Bassett Temple in the Bronx and I told them that I read this article.
11254 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Now wliat happened ? I visit stores and managers came to me and
said "Ross, how could you lie like that? The A. & P. would never
take your sick benefits and turn them over to a union."
I said, "I read it with my own eyes, it is in tlie contract," and now
management have the men believing that possibly I did lie, when I
didn't.
Mr. Kennedy. What the union had done was to have a clause in
there dealing with tliesick benefits?
Mr. Ross. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And that clause was not as good as the provision
you already had from the A. & P. Co. itself ?
Mr. Ross. Not nearly as good.
Mr. Kennedy. And you pointed that out to them ?
Mr. Ross. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And they showed you a contract later on and that
clause was out?
Mr. Ross. It was out. I saw two more contracts after that. I was
over in Joe Cohen's office, and I had filed a protest with him, and
had gone over, and we went over in bodies of men, and protested,
how could the union do a thing like this, or how could the two col-
laborate and put us into a deal when most of us didn't want a union
at the time, and the rest of us that did, we had the miion we wanted,
and we knew the day Avas going to come when those men that had
voted no union in 1952 were voting because they figured 75 percent
of us were voting no union.
The men were surprised when they saw that almost 50 percent of
us voted union, and they were going to come witli us, 1 year hence,
wlien we were going to vote again.
Mr. Kennedy. After they signed the contract, what was the com-
pany doing as far as the individuals, the employees? Were they
trying to get them to sign the cards, then ?
Mr. Ross. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you explain that ?
Mr. Ross. Every day something was doing in the store, particular-
ly my stores on the upper West Side. As I put out a letter and put
my name to it, the supervisors were the delegates of the union and
the managers were the shop stewards, because it was them that were
trjdng to get us to join the union and go into it, and we wouldn't.
But no union official had the nerve to come around and talk to us.
None of them showed up. The only ones that were campaigning
for the union to get us to sign the membersliip cards or application
for membership was the supervisors and tlio managers. They were
telling us in accordance with a certain article, which Avas the union
shop clause as a condition of employment, we must liold membership
in tlie union, and we defied to join what.
The Chairman. Supervisor and manager of what?
Mr. Ross. Of A. & P. supervisors and A. & P. managere.
The Chairman. They personally came around and solicited the
signin^^of the cards?
Mr. Ross. Yes. Every man in the stores was approached by man-
agers and every man like myself who was active were appi-oached
by supervisors and told that we had to, in accordance with the con-
tract, make membei-ship in this union.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11255
The Chairman. That was after the contract had been signed?
Mr. Ross. After it was signed.
The CiiAiR.MAN. Was that during the card campaign ^
Mr. Ross. Tlie card campaign? There was hardly any of it tliat
summer, as I said. That was the authorization card.
The Chairman. The card campaign is a bit of a mystery.
Mr. Ross. Tliat was tlie authorization card, giving them authority
to be our bargaining agent. The few that they did hand to me were
ripped up in front of them. Now the card I am referring to is an ap-
plication for membership in the union.
The Chairman, That is after the contract was signed ?
Mr. Ross. Yes.
The Chairman. You had to sign another card then for membership
in the union ?
Mr. Ross. Yes.
The Chairman. That would authorize them to withhold your dues?
Mr. Ross. Well, no; that was another card which we never saw.
The checkoif card we never saw. This card was an application so
that we could put down our benefactor for death benefits, I believe,
and particulars, our age and all.
The Chairman. In other words, it was to make a record of you
as a union member and get you into the union ?
Mr. Ross. Correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Despite the fact that management was urging you
to sign the cards, did a large number of the employees refuse to sign
the cards ?
Mr. Ross. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you one of those who refused to sign ?
Mr. Ross. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did the manager of your store tell you that they
had a meeting of the managers, and they were told to intensify their
efforts to try to get people to sign ?
Mr. Ross. Yes ; that is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you about the fact that they had great op-
position on the part of all the employees throughout the district who
refused to sign ?
Mr. Ross. Yes. It w^as our whole unit that had offered resistance
to this move. As such, managers were brought to meetings and in-
structed as to more or less put questions to the men so that they would
ask them, and they would have the answers to give them.
Mr. Kennedy. Why was there so much opposition? You had
wanted a union.
Mr. Ross. Why was there so much opposition? Because only 6
months before then the men did not want a union and those men were
voting no union in previous elections and then we who were becoming
larger and larger in number were succeeding to come to our goal of
bringing in the local we wanted.
How come all of a sudden the company men turned around and
wanted to be union men of a union they know nothing about, and how
come we who knew what we wanted were going to change our minds ?
We wanted a grocery union, the one in the competitor of the A. & P.,
Safeway. We felt put two pieces of rope together and it will be
stronsrer.
11256 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST ^THE LABOR FIELD
We felt if Safeway was organized, let's get tlieir local and we will
have one that will fit both Safeway and A. & P. and not have two
pieces of rope fighting against each other.
Mr, Kennedy. Did the manager disclose to j^ou or indicate to
you what a small percentage of the people they were able to get
signed up?
Mr. Koss. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. ^Vliat did he tell you ? _
Mr. Ross. They returned from one of their meetings one night,
and our manager had expressed or told me of the meeting and said
"Boy, we got some territory."
Now, our territory was on the upper West Side. It consisted of
possibly 12 stores, totaling a number of 200 clerks, 200 of us that
were put in local 400. Out of that 200, I doubt if the union could
produce 25 men who had made application for membership. The
manager told me, he says :
Well, Bill, our territory stands to worsen tbe whole Bronx unit. Only 17
percent.
That would be probably 34, if it were a total of 200.
Only 17 percent of our men have signed membership cards. We have to
do something about this. I am on the carpet because in my store, none of
them will sign up.
That is the words of the manager.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they tell any of the employees then about the
raise that they might get or might lose if they didn't join the union?
Mr. Ross. Yes, They tried, and that was dropped very fast, to
have us believe that this contract, which was to give us a $5 raise;
the $5 was going to be denied us if we hadn't made membership or
application for membership in this union. We said, "How ridiculous.
If a man gets a $5 raise, he gets it, whether he joins or not."
Mr. Kennedy. Did the managers tell you you would not get your
$5 raise unless you signed up with the union ?
Mr. Ross. Yes, We were not going to get it unless we signed up
with the union,
Mr, Kennedy, Were you working actively against the Meat Cuttei'S
Union?
Mr, Ross, Yes ; I did. I would also like to bring a point out that
happened to me for the time, for the few years I was organizing.
When I went into A. & P. stores and handed a leaflet to the men, not
holding them up on their jobs as, maybe, the company might say; I
was not there long enough, because I had to rmi. The manager was
going to take me by the back of the neck and throw me out, as he
did. On two dift'erent occasions I was handled by a manager on Third
Avenue and one on Tuckahoe, one that tried to throw me over a
box.
I had to run from those stores, so I didn't spend more than a few
seconds handing a leaflet to a man.
Some managers collected those leaflets from those men and ripped
them up in front of them. But when the Meat Cutters came along
in that summer of 1952, they were allowed the whole store, and could
do whatever they wanted. "Wliy was it I was thrown out? I also
received notice from a man, my supervisor, Mr. McNally, that, if I
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 11257
ever set foot in another A. & P. store, he had orders to terminate
my employment.
I wrote a circular and said, "'Where does Mr. McNally or the A. & P.
have the right to prevent me from going into a store ? "
I handed that circular out and went into A. & P. with it and they
said, "Where does Bill Kosh get the right to do a thing like that?",
and I said, "This is Bill Ross, and I will still do it."
Butchers were allowed, but not us.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand or learn that there might be a
secret agreement between the company and the union on the terms
of the contract ?
Mr. Ross. No. I do know our butchers wanted a 40-hour week, and
they said they would do anything to get the 40-hour week. Near the
end there, or when the contract came out, I said, ""What happened to
the 40-hour week?" and they said, "Well, we got you people, instead.
We were told at a meeting we would have to sacrifice the 40-liour week
for the time being, and 10,000 clerks now belong to the Amalgamate(?
Meat Cutters."
Mr. Kennedy. Were they dissatisfied ?
Mr. Ross. They, most certainly, were dissatisfied. They wanted a
40-hour week.
]Mr. Kennedy. So, everybody in the A. & P. stores was unhappy ?
Mr. Ross. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Except the management ?
Mr. Ross. I gues not. It seems management was quite happy.
Mr. Kennedy. You were actively working against the Meat Cutters
after they signed the contract. Did they take any steps against you,
management, personally ?
Mr. Ross. Yes. Management transferred me to the East Bronx.
I would like to say this. The A. & P. policy was to keep a man within
a territory. There were so many territories in the Bronx unit. I was
in the upper West Side territory. We remained in those territories,
unless, maybe, a man received a promotion and was sent to another
territory.
Never was it the practice of the A. & P. to go from one territory to
another. This time, I was sent from one territory to another. I was
sent to the East Bronx, double carfare, and everything else. Why?
Because I stood up and said, "W^e will not join this union."
And I filed unfair labor practice charges with the Board, saying that
I was discriminated against, that they had no right transferring me
over.
Mr. Kennedy. Did any of the supervisors explain to you why they
were transferring you to the East Bronx ?
Mr. Ross. Yes: I went to the office store of my territory, and the
supervisor was off that day, but the acting supervisor I met him, and
I said, "Why is this? Whv should I have to be transferred to the
East Bronx?"
He told me, in every plain words, "Bill, you know what it is. It is
your union troubles. Wliy don't you keep out of it and let the union
men do their own fighting ?"
He said, "You get down to business. You got a family. Do your
work in the grocery store," which I know I had always done to stay
one step ahead of the A. & P., and he told me if I did stay out of it,
11258 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
he would see there would be no trouble in getting me back to the West
Side, where I come from.
Mr. Kennedy. He told you about the fact that you should not be
sticking your neck out in the interest of yourself in fighting the Meat
Cutters ; that you had a family responsibility ?
Mr. Ross. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And, if you gave up your activities, he would be able
to arrange for you to be transferred back ?
Mr. Ross. Correct.
Mr. Kennedy. What did you say ?
Mr. Ross. I didn't go along with it one bit. In fact, I probably did
say, "It would never happen. Not in a million years would I give up
fighting for what I believe in."
Mr. Kennedy. So you filed an unfair labor practice against the
company ?
Mr. Ross. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that sustained ?
Mr. Ross. Yes. The company had settled down at the Board and
returned me to the West Side, with a notice stating that no prejudice
to seniority or any other benefits.
jNIr. Kennedy. So, you won ?
Mr. Ross. I won.
Mr. Kennedy. So you went back to work at the West Side of the
Bronx?
Mr. Ross. I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you continue to work against the Meat Cutters ?
Mr. Ross. I most certainly did. There were men like me in all parts
of the Bronx unit, and we met quite often. If not speaking on the
phone every couple of days, we met at least once a week and continued
our organization within an organization.
Mr. Kennedy. This is 1953, then ?
Mr. Ross. 1953; yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you make arrangements at that time, or did you
try to work to try to get rid of the Meat Cutters ?
Mr. Ross, Yes. At that time, we started an extensive campaign
to petition for, a U.D., deauthorization of the union-shop clause, and
wo succeeded in getting, as was mentioned yesterday, we got probably
50 percent of the men to sign this petition, and went down and got
an election.
Mr. Kennedy. You got over 900 people to sign a petition, did you
not, in the Bronx ?
Mr. Ross. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And you requested an election so that you could get
rid of the union clause in the contract that you would have to pay
your dues?
Mr. Ross. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the atttitude of the company during this
period of time when you were trying to get rid of the ^leat Cutters?
Mr. Ross. Well, Avhat ]iap])ened was, we were given our election and
the A. & r. campaigned Avith the union to keep us from the polls.
There again, I would like to say we had two representations and the
A. & P. didn't feel it was going to be a burden (Mi their company
when they asked for the roving ballot box.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11259
Mr. Kennedy. You will have to explain that. First, your first
point is that the company actively campaigned against you and for
the Meat Cutters ?
Mr. Eoss. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. They actively wanted the Meat Cutters to remain in
as the bargaining agent?
Mr. Ross. Detinitely.
Mr. Kennedy. And to represent the employees ?
Mr. Ross. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. This, of course, was a complete reversal of their
antiunion activity prior to this time ?
Mr. Ross. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. The second thing, you were talking about the ballot
boxes. What did they do about the ballot ])oxes ?
Mr. Ross. When they had these preliminary hearings at the Board
before setting up the election. The A. & P. and union acted together
in setting up the elections. They said yesterday it was 2 against 1,
the A. & P. and the union.
Mr. Kennedy. Was the company trying to get people out to vote
or not to vote ?
Mr. Ross, They were trymg to keep them away from the polls,
knowing that not going to the polls was a vote for the company or the
company union.
Mr. Kennedy. You have to get 50 percent of the eligible votes; is
that right?
Mr. Ross. We had to get 50 percent of tlie eiligible voters to go to
the polls.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they restrict tlie number of ballot boxes and the
convenience of the ballot boxes?
Mr. Ross. Yes, they denied a convenience. They had so willingly
given before when they were so antiunion and now were prounion.
Mr. Kennedy, They made it difficult ?
Mr. Ross. They made it difficult for us to get to the polls.
Mr. Kennedy. And the local, as well as management, campaigned
against people voting in the election ?
Mr. Ross. Yes.
]Mr. Kennedy. Both of them ; is that right ?
Mr. Ross. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the feeling amongst the employees about
voting? Did they feel that they would get in any difficulty if they
came to tlie polls and cast their ballots ?
Mr. Ross. Tlie men, tliose that wore just going along and Avere
happy with tlieir jobs but still refused to pay Avere being t'old — and as
they told me — "Bill, we are informed if we go to the polls, we are go-
ing to be marked men,'" and they were afraid to stick their necks out
and go there and vote with us. They said, "Why can't the ballot box
be brought to the store where T can go in and it is there at my con-
venience, and managemeut or union would not know Avhether I was go-
ing in to vote."
So they said they Avould not go because they were to be marked men,
and that is Avhat the managers had spread the word on. Of course,
they would never say it to me, but they went to the men in the store who
they felt Avould listen to them, and they were telling them, "You will
11260 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
be marked men if you go near that poll tonight, or a week from now,
whenever it is."
Mr. Kennedy. The company told them that ?
Mr. Ross. Management told the men that.
Mr. Kennedy. That if they went and voted they would be marked
men?
Mr. Ross. They would be marked men.
Mr. Kennedy, Did the company have anybody at the polls to find
out who voted ? Do you know that ?
Mr. Ross. I am trying to think now who the observers were. I am
not certain whether the company had an observer on the election board.
The Amalgamated Meat Cutters had an observer; a man like myself
would have been an observer for the petitioners. I am not certain
whether the company had an observer.
Mr. Kennedy. How many people did you get to come out and vote
against the Meat Cutters ?
Mr. Ross, We got almost 50 percent of the eligible votes.
Mr. Kennedy, You got 979 employees who voted against the union ?
Mr. Ross. Nearly 1,000 of us to go out and vote "no union."
Mr. Kennedy. One hundred and seventy-two voted to keep the
union, and 979 employees voted to get rid of the Meat Cutters ; is that
right?
Mr. Ross. Yes.
(At this point, Senator Mundt withdrew from the hearing room.)
Mr. Kennedy. This was not the 50 percent that was necessary,
however ?
Mr. Ross. No. In fact, some of those "no" votes probably would
have been ours if the men knew what they were doing when they got
to the polls. The way the question was put, it certainly was difficult.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any personal experiences while you
were working at the polls ?
Mr, Ross. Yes. Starting with their first store at Mount Kisco, down
through a couple of the counties up there, we did have a roving ballot
box. We came down as far as Bronxville, I believe and then the
difficulty started in Yonkers and White Plains where those men might
have lived miles away from tlie polls, and they wanted a ballot box
in the store to vote, but we failed to get it for them, because the com-
pany refused to give it to us. But I went up to Mount Kisco. I
started down in the morning with a roving ballot box. I had the
eligibility list of the men in each store eligible to vote. It so happens
I go into a store and made known who was eligible at one point and a
fellow turns around and says "He is not with us no more. He was
here last summer. He goes to college or something or other. He was
only here for a short time." This is 0 months later. The man is no
longer with them. How could I possibly get him to vote out the union-
shop clause when he Avas not with the company ?
Mr. Kennedy, Who made up the eligibility list ?
Mr, Ross, The NLRB made it up, and from what I understand, the
company submitted to them a payroll sheet, which the National Labor
Relations Board took names off of and made an eligibility list of it.
Mr. Kennedy. It was advantageous for the company, was it not,
to have as many names as they could on the eligibility list?
Mr. Ross. Certainly it seemed so, and all of a suJlden inside of a
year we had more employees.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11261
Mr. Kennedy. In this election if they wanted to keep this union, it
■was advantageous to have a large number of people, as many people
as possible on the eligibility list i
Mr. Koss. Yes, sir.
IVIr. Kennedy. Because you had to get 50 percent of those people to
vote against having the union in order to get rid of the union ?
Mr. Ross. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Certainly the more jDeople you had, the higher the
50 percent would be ; isn't that right ?
Mr. Eoss. Correct.
Mr. Kennedy. You didn't get the 50 percent, and did you bring
some charges after the election was finished ?
Mr. Ross. Yes, sir; as the petitioner, myself, and two more, we
went down and filed charges, and we felt that the company, in our
words, had padded the eligibility list, making it more difficult for
us to win in throwing out the union-shop clause.
The Board didn't help us, or how would I put it — they didn't go
out of their way to help us in getting proof of this. We wanted a
copy of the eligibility list and the NLRB refused to give it to us and
they said they weren't allowed to. So we had to accept tliat, but we
did succeed in getting a portion of it in that the Board examiner that
was going to handle these charges had given us a small piece of tliis
eligibility list.
With that small piece I went up and at that time I said, "Would
the A. & P. be willing to allow a couple of petitioners to leave the
company with a leave of absence for a couple of weeks while we
check," and A. & P. was refusing to do it until the Board agents said,
"Well, it is not being in good faith by denying these petitioners a
couple of weeks off to check this eligibility list."
Well, we succeeded in getting a couple on a leave of absence through
the help of the Board, and we found fraudulent names to the eligibil-
ity list up in the counties, and a couple of cases down here in the city,
but as the Board agent said, it wasn't to the extent that it would
change the vote in the election.
It was our contention that at least we had proved the A. & P. had
padded this list. But to our sorrow, it was short of the required num-
her to turn the election in our favor.
Mr. Kennedy. After this, did the A. & P. Co. then take further
steps to get the employees to sign up with the union ?
Mr. Ross. Yes, and they continued and continued. They sent us,
I believe, a number — maybe four letters.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you refuse ?
Mr. Ross. I certainly did refuse.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you ultimately discharged then for not pay-
ing ?
Mr. Ross. Yes. In November, 13 months later, since the contract
had been signed, we still held our ground and refused to join. Every
notice we received from the A. & P. was supposed to be the final
notice, and each one said if you didn't pay by this time, you are going
to be dismissed.
AVe still tore up the letters, and now we received another one, and
it was getting to be a little more threatening than past letters, and
so I personally called ]Mr. Barr ISlcKee, personnel manager of the
Bronx unit, and made arrangements with him to meet the A. & P.
11262 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Now, I liad met with my group the night before, and they had
agreed I w^ould call the next day to the A. & P. So the A. & P. made
arrangements down at the Vanderbilt Hotel, and they got a suite of
rooms. Myself and two other boys went down and we met with the
A. & P.
It was our feeling then and as we said it and I remember very dis-
tinctly, and Mr. McKee, Mr, Ratclitfe was there with him also, *'You
have ignored the contract for 13 months, and there is only 10 months
left, and why should we make a move now ? You ignored the union-
shop clause for 13 months, and you succeeded in letting it slide by,
and why not let it slide by another 10 months' Icnowing that we were
then going to petition for a representation election.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they lire you ?
Mr. Ross. Yes, they fired me.
]Mr. Kennedy, And some nine of the other leaders ?
Mr. Eoss. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. These were people that had led the fight against the
Meat Cutters?
Mr. Ross. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And you were fired then ?
Mr. Ross. Yes, sir; and we were handpicked, might I saj-. It
■wasn't only 10 of us that refused. There were hundreds of us.
Mr. Kennedy. And they selected the 10 that had been the ones
most vocal against the Meat Cutters ?
Mr. Ross. That is why I am here today. I was one ; No. 1, maybe.
Mr. Kennedy. What happened then? Did you file a charge?
Mr. Ross. We filed charges against the A. & P. and against the
union, in that I felt, and we knew that there were more than 10 of us.
Mr. Kennedy. So what happened ?
Mr. Ross. Well, I don't believe I remember
Mr. Kennedy. Ultimately you settled the charges ?
Mr. Ross. We settled the charges.
Mr. Kennedy. And you were each paid $500 ?
Mr. Ross. We w^ere each paid $500.
The Chairman. You mean they paid j^ou $500 for the privilege of
firing you ?
Mr. Ross. It certainly looks that way.
The Chairman. It does from here. Go ahead,
Mr, Kennedy. That is all.
Tlie Chairman. Is there anything further?
Senator Church, I have no questions.
The Chairman. You haven't worked for them since that time?
Mr. Ross. I guess not.
The Chairman. What I am trying to get at is that actually in
order to get you to witlidraw tlie cliarges and in order to settle your
charge against them for discrimination by discharging you, Avhile
retaining otliers who had been delinijuent as long as you had been,
and who had been ligliting the Meat Cutters' Union,' they actually
settled with you for $500 to drop the charges?
Mr, Ross, That is correct.
The Chairiman, So you dropped llie cliarges for the $500 ?
Mr, Ross, That is riffht.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11263
The Chairmax. Did each of the 10 receive $500?
Mr. Koss. Eight of us, seven more besides myself.
The Chairmax, Eight of you received $500 ?
Mr. Ross. Yes, sir.
The CiiAiR:\rAx. What happened to the other two ?
Mr. Ross. The other two, one withdrew his; or both, in fact, with-
drew them for reasons I don't know, prior to this.
The Chairmax. Two of the ten that joined in the charges had with-
draAvn theirs '.
Mr, Ross. Yes, sir.
The Chairmax. And they settled with you for $500 each ?
Mr. Ross. Yes, sir.
The Chairmax-. IJo you know whose money paid you ?
Mr. Ross, No ; I couldn't tell you. I know the check was made out
for $4,000, and then it was broken into pieces.
The Chairmax. You don't know wliose money it was?
Mr. Ross. Xo.
The Chairmax. Or what account the check was on ?
Mr. Ross. Xo ; I don't,
Mr. Kex'xedy. Whether it was the company or the union's money ?
Mr. Ross. I couldn't tell you. All I know is that we felt we had
been fighting it long enough, and now we were out, and if we continue
to figlit I certainly would not ever want to work for the A. & P. again,
and that may have been the decision of the Board if we were to win,
and we would go back to work for the A. & P., and "Well, let us take
money while we can."
The Chairmax-. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kexx'edy. I have just one question.
Did you ever know how many people there were in your group that
were opposed to the Amalgamated other than in your own particular
shop of 200 employees ? Did you ever get any figures from any of the
other employees ?
]\Ir. Ross. Keymen like myself from the different parts of the Bronx
unit could give an estimate of 1,500 of us.
Mr. Kex'xedy. Who were opposed, you mean ?
Mr. Ross. Yes. That poll would have been around December or
January. I think it was December, 2 months after the contract had
been signed.
Mr. Kex'xedy. That was just in the Bronx or all over ?
Mr. Ross. In the Bronx unit. That covered part of Westchester
and Dutchess County.
Mr. Kexxedy. How many employees would there be, 1,500 out of
how many?
Mr. Ross. Well, the companv said in that election there were around
2.300 or 2,400.
' Mr. Kexxedy. That is about 1,500 opposed out of 2,300 or 2,400 ?
Mr. Ross. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kexxedy. That was 2 months after the contract had been
signed ?
Mr. Ross. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kexxedy. All right.
The Chairmax. Call the next witness.
21243 — 58 — pt. 29 6
11264 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. James Conlon.
The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall
give before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. CoNLON. I do.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES P. CONLON
The Chairman. State your name, and your place of residence, and
your business or occupation.
Mr. CoNLON. James Conlon, 121 LaSalle Street, New York City. I
work for Beech-Nut Packing Co.
The Chairman. Do you waive coimsel, Mr. Conlon ?
Mr. Conlon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Conlon, you were employed by the A. & P. Co. ?
Mr, Conlon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. During what period of time ?
Mr. Conlon. Between 1949 and 1953.
Mr. I^nnedy. During that period of time, had you worked activelv
for local 474?
Mr. Conlon. I became active in about 1949.
Mr. Kennedy. That is 474 of the CIO ?
Mr. Conlon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You worked in the Bronx unit; did you not?
Mr. Conlon. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you aware of the fact that during the cam-
paign of Local 474 of the CIO that the company was actively against
this union and any union ?
Mr. Conlon. Particularly, very antiunion.
Mr. Kennedy. Can you give us some examples as to how you
reached the conclusion they were antiunion ?
Mr. Conlon. Well, of course, previous to that, about 1 or 2 months
previous to any election, the supervisors would come around and take
the men into the back of the store individually and speak to them, and
explain the reason they didn't need a union, and why they didn't need
a union and things of that kind, in that general area, and they would
explain A. & P. was paying more without a contract than competitor
chains were with one.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you speak up a little louder. The company
brought the employees into private conferences and told them that
the union would do them no good?
Mr. Conlon. Right.
Mr. Kennedy. And they were enjoying all of the benefits they could
under the present arrangement?
Mr. (a-)NL()n. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And they spoke actively against any union, is that
right?
Mr. Conlon. They did.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you Icnow or were you aware of the fact they
were signing a contract with the INIeat Cutters ?
Mr. Conlon. Absolutely not.
Mr. Kennedy. When did you learn of that? Was it prior to or at
the time they signed it or afterward.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11265
Mr. CoNLON, I found out after they signed it.
Mr. Kennedy. Had j^ou known about it at all ?
Mr. CoNLON. Absolutely not.
Mr. ICennedy. How did you first learn that a contract had been
-ijrned?
^Mr. CoNLON. There was a letter, and we went to work one morning,
and there was, let us say, a mimeographed letter sent out by Mr.
Biefer telling us we were now members or we were now in the
Amalgamated Meat Cutters' Union, Local 400.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the reaction ?
Mr. CoNLON. There were lots of reaction, and shock, and anger,
and amazement, and dumbfoundedness, and complete amazement all
around. They were more or less pretty well taken back by the fact
that after such a short period of time, after the results of the previous
election, figuring there had been so many, and still they had 1,100
that had voted no union, and all of a sudden the company was throw-
ing their loyalty back at them. After talkmg it down for so long,
now they were pretty well put out by the fact that it was pushed at
them by the company.
Mr. Kennedy. You mean some 1,100 employees in the 1952 election
had voted against having any union?
Mr. CoNLON. Eight.
Mr. Kennedy. And now they found that the company, or they
felt that the company had betrayed them by signing a contract with
the union without informing them or allowing them to vote or have
any voice in it whatsoever ?
Mr. CoNLON. Absolutely.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they feel in fact that they had been betrayed
by the company ?
'Mr. CoNLON. Quite a few of them did feel that they had been
betrayed by the company, and especially the local workers. Of
course some of those 1,100 I think would have possibly voted our way
except for the talks.
Mi\ Kennedy. What about the individuals who had voted for a
union, local 474 ? "WTiat was your reaction ?
Mr. CoNLON, Well, of course, I figured it was a sellout job right
away, and they were trying to avoid taking Paddy Reape's union,
local 474 into the A. & P. and it seemed this was the lesser of two
evils to them.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the reaction to this new conti'act of the
butchers who already had a contract ?
Mr. CoNLON. The butcliers, their general reaction was one of being
sold out, too. They felt that they had lost the 40-hour week as a
result of tliis contract. That had been in all of the conversations at
the stores, it had been that they were going for a 40-hour week, even
if it meant going on strike.
Mr. Kennedy. They had had a 45-hour week, and they thought
that in this new contract they were going to get a 40-hour week?
Mr. CoNLON. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. So they felt that they had been sold out or betrayed
also?
Mr. CoNLON. Right.
Mr. Kennedy. So everybody was unhappy?
Mr. CoNLON. Everybody.
11266 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. The whole store was unhappy ?
Mr. CoNLON. That is correct.
The Chairman. In other words, they had given up their expecta-
tion of a 5-hour shorter week in order to get about 10,000 members ?
Mr. CoNLON. I don't think the butchers themselves did, but I think
that their leadership did.
The Chairman. I mean that had been imposed on them ?
Mr. CoNLON. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Xot tliat they did it voluntarily.
Mr. CoNLON. That is right.
The Chairman. But they had been caught in the trade or in the
arrangements whereby the union gained members but the men work-
ing gained no shorter hours?
Mr. CoNLON. Absolutely.
The Chairman. That is what they had been fighting for?
Mr. CoNLON. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, what did the company do after they notified
you you were all in the union and the union contract had been signed ?
Did they then attempt to get you to sign up in the union ?
Mr. CoNLON. Well, they started telling us we ought to sign the
application card, and we had roughly a period of about 30 days in
which to sign the card, and otherwise we would be forced to pay a
$65 initiation fee.
Mr. Kennedy. Did the management tell you that 3^011 would have
to pay $65 initiation fee if you didn't sign the cards?
Mr. CoNLON. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. So you would be out $65 unless you signed the
cards ?
Mr. CoNLON. Tliat is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And still people refused to sign cards ?
Mr. Conlon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. They felt that strongly about it?
Mr. CoNLON. Absolutely.
The Chairman. Did those that were just carried in, did they pay
the $65 initiation fee ?
Mr. CoNLON. No, sir.
The Chairman. In other words, they brought them in w^ithout
any initiation fee?
Mr. CoNLON. That is right.
The Chairman. But if you hesitated about paying them within
30 days, or without signing up, you would liaA^e to pay $65 ?
IVIr. CoNLON. Tliat is correct.
The Chairman. To get in the union ?
Mr. CoNLON. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. There was a little bit of pressure being applied,
wasn't there?
Mr. CoNLON. Quite a bit.
Mr. Kennedy. What were you doing ? Were you working against
the Meat Cutters?
Mr. CoNLON. Yes, I was. Naturally the first day they found out
about tliis contract, being I had been outspoken on ])ehalf of 474, they
came to me and asked me what they were going to do. We put in a
call to local 474, the CIO, to find out what kind of tactics we should
use.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 11267
Some of them were actually under the impression of walking off
the job or wildcat striking or something of that nature, but on advice
of 474 we didn't do that. But I Avould say they came to me and I
told them I would find out wliat the best procedure would be under
these conditions.
The only thing was that I followed them up when anybody would
come in to try to get them to sign the application cards, and I would
go around and explain to them why the}' shouldn't sign it in case
there was too much pressure to force them to sign it, because the $65
thing was botliering them a lot and they were afraid, and they told
me they couldn't pay $65, and it would be better to fall in line. But
I managed to keep them all from signing the cards.
Mr, Kennedy. You were successful in keeping them from signing
the cards ?
Mr. CoNLON. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did the company take any action against you then
personally ?
Mr. CoNLON. Well, it wasn't until December that they actually
showed any indication that they were going after me.
Mr. Kennedy. What did they do then to you ?
Mr. CoNLON. They transferred me from the West Side of New York
to Jerome Avenue and Fordham Road, and charged me double carfare
to get to and from work.
Mr. Kennedy. This was a difficult place for you to get to work ?
Mr. Conlon. It was a little harder, and a little less accessible to me.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever inquire as to why you had been trans-
ferred ?
Mr. Conlon. Well, I inquired of my supervisor at that time, and
I asked Mr. McNally why I was being transferred and he told me
that there was a man with more seniority in the Bronx who wanted
to work closer to home, and consequently I was the one chosen. But
there were quite a nimiber of men in the store that had less seniority
than me that should have gone in preference to me.
jNIr. Kennedy. Did you ever inquire of anyone else as to why you
had been transferred?
Mr. Conlon. Well, I had an idea of the reason I was transferred.
Mr. Kennedy. What was your idea ?
Mr. Conlon. My idea was that it was as a result of my union
activity, and not because of seniority, and so I went to local 400. I
just wanted to see what I could find out regarding it, and I went to
local 400 and I spoke to their business agent. Tiny Cardiello, and I
asked liim who transferred me over to the Bronx, whether it was the
company or the union.
He told me I was breaking their back in the stores on the West
Side, and I was hindering their progress in getting the men signed
up. and consequently I would get a chance to get my back broken,
and how did I like it, and I would liave my back broken more. I
asked him if the union put me there or did the company put me here,
and he said the union put me there.
Mr. Kennedy. So the union was the one who had you transferred ?
Mr. Conlon. They were the ones who had me transferred, accord-
ing to the business agent.
In the meanwhile, the secretary-treasurer, Joe Calone, had come out
and asked what I was doing there, and I explained I was up to find
11268 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD
out who got me transferred, and if it was the company, could the
union have me transferred back. So I found out. When I found
out the union did it, there was nothing that I could do about it except
go down to the Labor Board and press charges of discriminatory
action for my activity against them. So he turned around and said.
"Wlioever told you that the union put you over there?" and he asked
me who told me that, and I told him Tiny did, and he said Tiny was
only kidding me. I went down and I pressed charges, and I was
sustained.
Mr. Kennedy. The company was forced to put you back ?
Mr. CoNLON. Yes, sir ; they put me back.
Mr. Kennedy. When you were at the other place, did the company
harass you at all ?
Mr. CoNLON. Well, the only time I really ran into much harass-
ment was when we started with this deauthorization petition.
Mr. Kennedy. That was a petition to try to get rid of the union?
Mr. CoNLON. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. What steps did the company take against you then ?
Mr. CoNLON. Well, of course, we went around and we met a terriffic
amount of opposition when we went into the stores to get this petition
signed for the deauthorization election. Managers would follow us
around and try to chase us away from the clerks and tell us that they
were busy and they had no time, and on two occasions managers said
they were going to throw me out. I accepted their offer but they never
took me up on it.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they follow you around ?
Mr. CoNLON. Well they followed me around to try and hinder me.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they follow you when you went to the men's
room?
Mr. CoNLON. Wlien I was transferred over to the store in Jerome
Avenue, I was under constant supervision on the register and I was
being sent back and forth between the register and the floor, and when
I used to go to the bathroom they would come in behind me and ask
me if I was reading a newspaper, and it was kind of keeping close
tabs on me, on all of my moves, and checking my timecard for time
in and time out, and coffee breaks, and to see I didn't take any more
than 10 minutes I was supposed to take.
Mr. Kennedy. Did this ever happen to 3'ou before ?
Mr. CoNLON. No ; I was completely on my own.
Mr. Kennedy. Was there any question in your mind it was due to
your union activities that all of this attention was devoted to you?
Mr. Conlon. There was no question in my mind that it was all
due to my opposition to this union that they had brought in on top
of us,
Mr. Kennedy. You were active in the deauthorizations ?
Mr. CoNLON. Yes, sir ; I was.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you find that the other employees were fearful
of the company's attitude in the deauthorization certificates?
Mr. CoNLON. We ran into kind of a rough opposition there, because
being it wasn't a secret ballot, actually it Avasn't such that they had
everybody named on the card, and no vote was a vote for the union
to remain.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11269
In the particular area where I was an observer for this deauthori-
zation election, there was a car parked within a short distance of the
polUng place, meaning anybody approaching the polls would be rec-
ognized by the men. Some of them were even greeted by them, and
so naturally the mere fact that they would approach the barbershop
meant that thej' were going to vote against the union, and otherwise
there would be no reason to go, because no vote was a vote for the
union.
]Mr. Kennedy. Was the company actively against people voting in
the election?
Mr. CoNLON. Well, they were trying to get them to avoid going
there, and they told them there was no point in pushing it.
Mr. IvENNEDY. They were in favor of the Meat Cutters?
Mr. CoNLON. Yes, because they had opposed our petition, and they
had more or less — the store I was in was w^eak imionized and was
more in favor of 400, because they had run into a situation in the
store where the store was predominately Italian clerks, of Italian ex-
traction, and I was supposed to be of Irish extraction and their claim
was the only reason we wanted 474 was because Patty lieape was an
Irishman and we wanted an Irishman, and they wanted Prospo be-
cause he was Italian.
That was the kind of answer thej'^ were giving me. So I ran into
a brick wall as to trying to overcome their attitude toward it. It
was either indifferent, or "one union is as good as the other," and
"they w^ere all crooks, you have to pay the other, and it doesn't make
any difference who you give your money to."
So I was pretty well up against a stonewall and I couldn't break
much ice in that store.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any explanation as to why the com-
pany had this turnabout of being antiunion at one time, and sud-
denly becoming very prounion ?
Mr. CoNLON. Well, the only reason I could see
Mr. Kennedy. Let me change that, antiunion at one time, and pro-
meat cutters later on.
Mr. CoNLON. Well, it seemed apparent to me that to begin with,
when they used to talk to us about why we didn't want a union or
wdiy w^e shouldn't take the union, or why we should avoid the CIO,
was because there was a personal gripe there between Patty Keape
and Mr. Reynolds, that Patty Reape at one time said that he would
get his union into the A. &'P. sooner or later no matter how long
it took.
They said it was nothing but a personal fight, and there was no
reason why we should become involved in it, and it was one of those
grudge fights, more or less, and that Avas the reason that Reape was
so vehement about getting into the A. & P., and activities would be
along that line.
Mr. IvENNEDY. For what reason do you think that they changed
from being against a union to being for the Meat Cutters ?
Mr. CoNLON. Well, the only thing I could figure was that they
were ahead this way, ahead on the 40-hour week for one thing.
Mr. IvENNEDY. Do you know if they made any secret agreement
that the 45-hour week would continue for an extended period of
time?
11270 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. CoNLON. I didn't hear about that. That was only hearsay
that came later. I only heard that through other sources. But I
didn't know whether it was true or not. I only read that from other
sources.
Mr. Kennedy, Did you hear from other sources that that was the
reason that they brought the Meat Cutters in ?
Mr. CoNLON. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. That they had made this agreement between them-
selves ?
Mr. CoNLON. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. What happened to you after the deauthorization
€ertificate election? Did you remain in the emplovment of the A.
&P?
Mr. CoNLON. No, in May of 1953, 1 resigned.
Mr. Kennedy. Why?
Mr. CoNLON. Well, the pressure was getting a little too much, and
I saw we were slipping behind, besides which I could see that no
matter what happened we hadn't a chance because they were supposed
to be getting the support at that time. This was also in rumors, they
were supposed to be getting support of the Teamsters Union, and of
the Bakery Workers Union, so that if we opposed it they would go
against us any way, and they wouldn't honor our referendums, as
far as throwing this union off, and they wouldn't give us any as-
sistance.
Mr. Kennedy. So you finally resigned because of the pressure that
had been placed on you ?
Mr. Conlon. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. That is all.
The Chairman. Are there any questions?
Thank you sir. Call the next witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Donald Woisin.
The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall
give before this Senate Select Committee shall be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. WoisiN. I do.
TESTIMONY OF DONALD WOISIN
The Chairman. State your name and your place of residence and
your business or occupation.
Mr. WoisiN. Donald Woisin, and I live at 122 LaSalle Street,
New York City, and I am a New York City fireman.
The Chairman. Do you waiv^e counsel ?
Mr. WoisiN. I waive counsel.
Mr. Kennedy. The spelling of your name is W-o-i-s-i-n, and you
are in the fire department up in New York at the present time ?
Mr. WoisiN. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You used to work for the A. & P.
Mr. WoisiN. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You were a grocery clerk in tlie A. & P. in the Bronx
unit?
Mr. WoisiN. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And you started there in 194G ?
Mr. WoisiN. 1947, in February.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 11271
Mr. Kennedy. Now, vou were active, were you, for the union up
until 1952?
Mr. WoisiN. I
Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me, after 1952, you became active for a
union ?
Mr. Woisix. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Prior to that you had taken no interest in the union ?
Mr. WoisiN. That is riglit.
Mr. Kennedy. You had worked there but hadn't taken any interest
one way or the other •'
Mr. WoisiN. That is right.
Mr. KJENNEDY. In 1952, were you approached about participating
in union affairs?
Mr. WoisiN. Yes, by Mr. Cardiello.
Mr. Kennedy. Pie is a business representative of local 400 of the
Meat Cutters ?
Mr. WoisiN. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And he approached 3^ou about taking an interest in
union affairs?
Mr. WoisiN. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And working for the union ; is that right ?
Mr. WoisiN. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. What did he want you to do ?
Mr. WoisiN. He wanted me to get the cards signed, and he said
it would be a petition for an election.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he bring you up to meet the president of the
union ?
Mr. "WoisiN. He introduced me to Mr. Al Prospo.
Mr. Kennedy. He is president of the union.
Mr. WoisiN. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ivennedy. And he introduced you to him ?
Mr. WoisiN. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. What did they want you to do ?
Mr. WoisiN. They wanted me to get these cards signed, and in-
formed me it would be for an election in the union. At the time I
didn't know that you had to wait 12 months because we had already
had one election, and they said that we could get another election right
away, and so on that basis I went out and I got 15 cards signed, and
there Avas quite a bit of opposition.
Mr. Kennedy. You were going around and trying to get these
cards signed in order to get an election ?
Mr. WoisiN. That is riglit.
Mr. Kennedy. That is what was told to you ?
Mr. WoisiN. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And did you go around and tell people if they
signed the cards that tliev could get an election ?
Mr. WoisiN. That I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you go around to a number of different stores ?
Mr. WoisiN. Yes, sir ; I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Was there a good deal of opposition even to people
signing those cards ?
Mr. WoisiN. There was.
11272 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. IvENNEDY. But tliose people who signed tlie cards signed them
with the understanding that they were going to have an election in the
store ?
Mr. WoisiN. They did.
Mr. Kennedy. That was because of what you told them, is that
right?
Mr. WoisiN. That is right, and that is what I understood myself.
Mr. Kennedy. What happened then ?
Mr. WoisiN. Well
Mr. Kennedy. How many cards did you get signed ?
Mr. WoisiN. I got about 15 cards signed.
Mr. Kennedy. How many people did you approach ?
Mr. WoisiN. I figure I approached about 50 people.
Mr. Ejinnedy. You got 15 cards after approaching 50 people?
Mr. WoisiN. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You only got 15 names ?
Mr. WoisiN. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. That was over a period of several months?
Mr. WoisiN. Yes, sir.
(At this point the following members were present: Senators
McClellan and Church.)
Mr. Kennedy. And even those 15 signed with the understanding
that this was for an election ?
Mr. WoisiN. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Then were you requested after you brought these
cards in to get just the names and addresses of some of the employees?
Mr. WoisiN. Yes, sir. I got a phone call and they wanted these
cards up there, and then they said to go to the bookkeeper or the
timecards and take the names off the timecards and send them up a
list of the names of fellows that worked in the store that I was in.
Mr. Kennedy. Who told you to do that ?
Mr. WoisiN. Mr. Cardiello.
Mr. Kennedy. That would be just the names and addresses of the
individuals ?
Mr. WoisiN. That is right.
Mr, Kennedy. Not their signatures ?
Mr. WoisiN. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. That was after you delivered just these 15 ?
Mr. WoisiN. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Then they told you to go back and get the names
and addresses?
Mr. WoisiN. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Tell us what happened.
Mr. WoisiN. Mr. Cardiello came down to the store I was working
in, 344 Amsterdam, and picked up the names that I had gotten there,
the 20 names out of the store. That was the end of tliat until we re-
ceived notice that we were in tlie union fi-om the A. & P. I went and
called Mr. Cardiello up and asked him how come they signed a con-
tract. He said, "This is the way it was," and I said, ''You promised
an election," and he said, "Don't worry about it." So I went out and
talked to the men that I had gotten the cards signed and told them
I would do everything I could do to undo the wrong that was brought
up with them. That is why I joined up with Paddy Reape.
Mr. Kennedy. You felt you had misled these people ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11273
Mr. "WoisiN". That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Because you had been misled ?
Mr. WoisiN. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. You expected an election and the election never
occurred ?
Mr. WoisiN. That is right
Mr. Kennedy. You more or less just ended up in the union ?
Mr. WoisiN. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. The names and addresses that you took off of the
cards, do you know if they were taken off cards and transferred to
other cards and submitted as genuine cards ?
Mr. WoisiN. No, sir ; I never saw anything about that.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we will have testimony that he did
go out and get the names and addresses of these individuals and we
will have some more testimony on w^iat was done with those names
and addresses at a later time.
As far as you were concerned, the cards that you did receive were
obtained under misleading or fraudulent circumstances ?
Mr. WoisiN. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And you were an innocent participant, is that right ?
Mr. WoisiN. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. How many additional names did you turn in that
were not on signed cards ?
Mr. WoisiN. About 20.
The Chairman. 20?
Mr.WoisiN. Yes.
The Chairman. There were about 15 signed cards ?
Mr. WoisiN. That is correct.
The Chairman. Then you supplied about 20 names of other em-
ployees ?
Mr. WoisiN. That is right.
The Chairman. Where did you get those names ?
Mr. WoisiN. Off the timecards on the boards. Everybody's are
right there. Everybody can see them, customers and all.
The Chairman. Off of the timecards ?
Mr. WoisiN. That is right.
The Chairman. What did they say they wanted to do with those
names?
Mr. WoisiN. He didn't say anything. He just took them. I never
saw them or anything after that.
The Chairman. You don't know what he did with them ?
Mr. WoisiN. No, sir.
The Chairman. You don't know why he wanted them ?
Mr. AVoisiN. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the reaction of the people when they found
they were in the union ?
Mr. WoisiN. Quite put out. Toward me, they said I had done
wrong by them in telling them that there was going to be an election.
I tried to explain that I was more or less under false pretenses, too,
and I told them I was going to tr}- to help undo the wrong that was
done.
Mr. Kennedy. Then did vou work actively against the Meat
Cutters?
Mr. WoisiN. Yes, sir.
11274 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. What did you do ?
Mr. WoisiN. I went and I met this Tom Dempsey who told me I
could work through 474 to help them out, so I went down and met Mr.
Reape and I started in the campaign to help fight the contract that was
signed and to try to get this whole thing straightened out.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell the Butchers that you were going to
work against them ?
Mr. WoisiN. Yes, sir, I met tliem in the street and
Mr. Kennedy. You told them, because of what they had done to
you and to your people, you were going to work against them ?
Mr. WoisiN. Yes, I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Did 5^ou begin to try to get that union kicked out of
the unit ?
Mr. WoisiN. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did the company approach you to pay the dues, to
pay your dues to the Butchers ?
Mr. WoisiN. Not me, but other members they did.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they ever approach j^ou to sign a membership
card in the union ?
Mr. WoisiN. The manager of the store had told me to sign up, that
it would be wise to do so.
Mr. Kennedy. What do you mean wise to do so ?
Mr. WoisiN. Well, I don't know how he meant it, but it was best for
my own good, I guess, the fact that I was married and all like there,
if I stayed out, vre would have been out of a job, which eventually
I did end up with, out of a job.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you sign up ?
Mr. WoisiN. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you pay any dues ?
Mr. WoisiN. I signed up in the union when Mr. Reape told us it
would be wise to sign the card and pay the $2 initiation. But after
that I did not pay nothing else.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you pay the $2 ?
Mr.WoisiN. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you write anything on the card ?
Mr. WoisiN. "Under protest."
]Mr. Kennedy. You wrote "under protest" on the card ?
Mr. WoisiN. Yes, sir, we all signed it.
Mr. Kennedy. Did everybody write "under protest" ?
]Mr. WoisiN. Yes. We had a big campaign telling everybody when
they signed the cards to sign "under protest."
Mt. Kennedy. Were you subsequently discharged ?
Mr. WoisiN. I was. I was brought to a hearing with eight other
people by the Labor Department, and Ave were laid off.
Mr. Kennedy. That Avas because you refused
Ml'. WoiSTN. We refused to pay the dues.
Mr. Kennedy. And that was the end of it ?
Mr. WoLsiN. That Avas the end of that.
Mr. Kennedy. You never Avorked for A. & P. again ?
Mr, Woisin. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Just so we get it clarified, when you Avere having
these cards signed, Avhat you expected would be an election, and that
you could vote for any union, is that right?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 11275
]Mr. Woisix. Tliat is ri^lit. All the people, like the company, 474,
1.500. they would all be on the ballot and we could choose whichever
one we wanted, whether we wanted a union, or whether we wanted
the union we would like to ha^■e had.
Mr. Kennedy. This would be a complete ballot of all the jKirtic-
ipantti?
Mr. Woisix. That is right. Like you would vote in a general
election.
Mr. Kexxedy. And instead 3'ou ended u}) with the Meat Cutters?
Mr. Woisix. That is right. The contract was signed and there
was nothing we could do about it.
Mr. Kexxedy. Did you feel that you had been betrayed by this?
Mr. Woisix. Yes, sir, I was.
]Mr. Kennedy. Could we put this card in, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. I hand the witness a ])hotostatic copy of a card,
a form ; it is not filled out. I will ask you to examine this card and
state if you identify it, and, if so, state what it is.
(The document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. AVoisix. This is the card that I took around to have the mem-
bership sign under the conditions that we would get an election.
The CiLviRMAX'^. That is the kind of a card they signed thinking it
Mould get them an election?
]Mr. Woisix. That is right.
The Chaikmax. That card may be made exhibit Xo. 2.
(The document referred to was marked "'Exhibit Xo. '2'' for ref-
erence and will be found in the appendix on p. 11548.)
Mr. Kexxedy'. Would you read the card ?
]\Ir. WoisiN. It says :
In accordance with my legal rights guaranteed by the National and State
Labor Relations Act I hereby designate the joint chainstores organizing com-
mittee of Local 400 and 489 of the A. F. of L. as my agent for collective bar-
gaining.
Mr. Kennedy. What did you think that meant, or did you know
what it meant?
Mr. Woisix. I didn't know what it meant at the time. I found
out afterwards it was all over, that the}^ said this was supposed to
be a legal card to designate them to bargain with the A. & P.
The Chairmax. Is there anything further?
Mr. Kexxedy. That is all.
The Chairmax. Thank you very much.
The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock in the morning
and resume hearings in this room.
(Whereupon, at 4 : 05 p. m., the liearing was recessed, to reconvene
at 10 a. m. Friday, May 16, 1958. At the recess, the following mem-
bers were present : Senators ]McClellan and Church.)
INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD
FRIDAY, MAY 16, 1958
United States Senate,
Select CIdmmittee on Improper AcTI^^TIES
IN THE Labor or Management Field,
Washington, D. C.
Tlie select committee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to Senate Resolu-
tion 221, agreed to January 29, 1958, in the caucus room, Senate Office
Building, Senator John L, McClellan (chairman of the select com-
mittee) presiding.
Present : Senator Jolm L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator
Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat, North Carolina ; Senator Frank Church,
Democrat, Idaho.
Also present: Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel; Walter R. May,
investigator; George H. Martin, investigator; Jolin Cye Cheasty,
investigator ; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
(Members of the committee present at the convening of the session
were Senators McClellan and Church.)
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Douds.
The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall
give before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God %
Mr. DouDS. I do.
TESTIMONY OF CHARLES T. DOUDS
The Chairman. State your name, and your place of residence, and
your business or occupation.
Mr. DouDS. My name is Charles T. Douds, D-o-u-d-s. My resi-
dence is 598 Richland Terrace, Englewood, N, J. I am regional
director of the National Labor Relations Board for the 22d region, in
Newark, N. J.
The Chairman. How long have j^ou held that position, Mr. Douds?
Mr. Douds. Since last September.
The Chairman. Plow long have you been with the National Labor
Relations Board %
Mr. Douds. Since May 6, 1937.
The Chairman. In what capacity prior to your present position?
Mr. DouDS. Prior to m}'^ present position, I was, for 15 years, re-
gional director of the National Labor Relations Board for the second
region in New York City.
11277
11278 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman. You have been a regional director for about 16
years ?
Mr. DouDS. Well, before for 4 years in Pittsburgh.
The Chairman. About 20 years ?
Mr. DouDS. That is right.
The Chairman. Do you have counsel ?
Mr. DouDS. No, I do not.
The Chairman. You waive counsel. All right, I see some other
gentlemen accompanying you. Are they just advisers ?
Mr. DouDS. I have Mr. Benjamin XaumolT, the distinguished chief
examiner of the New York office of the National Labor Eelations
Board, and Mr. Clement Cull, an experienced field examiner from the
Newark office of the National Labor Relations Board.
The Chairman. I assume they will be coitsulting witli you as you
testify and if we find it necessary to have them testify they can be
sworn later.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Douds, I believe, has a prepared statement which
will not take too long, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. It was submitted within the rules ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
The Chairman. Do you have extra copies of it ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
The Chairman. You may proceed with your statement, Mr. Douds.
Mr. DouDS. My name is Charles T. Douds. I was born on a farm
in Indiana County in western Pennsylvania and lived the early part
of ]tiy life there.
I am a graduate of Pennsylvania State University and have a
graduate degree from Columbia University.
I am regional director for the 22d region of the National Labor
Relations Board which was established in September 1957, and in-
cludes the 12 northern counties in the State of New Jersey with an
office in the City of Newark.
From September 1942 until August 1957, I was regional director
for the second region of the board which, during that period, covered
eastern New York State, including the metropolitan area of New
York City, western Connecticut, and northern New Jersey.
During 1952 to 1954 certain cases about which I have been requested
by the committee to make a statement, were investigated by my staff
and acted upon by myself as regional director.
These cases involve the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., herein
referred to as A. & P., the Amalgamated jMeat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America, AFL, referred to as Meat Cutters,
local 1500 of the Retail Clerks International Association, AFL, re-
ferred to as Retail Clerks, and locals 262 and 474 of the Retail, Whole-
sale, and Department Store Union, CIO, referred to as Retail Whole-
sale, CIO.
It should be kept in mind tliat the employees we are concerned
with in these cases are only the employees in tlie grocery departments
of retail stores.
For some time prior to 1952, the employees in the meat departments
had been covered by contracts between the Meat Cutters Union and
A. & P.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11279
Altogether we are concerned here with 33 cases which include 26
unfair labor practice charges, 6 petitions for representation, and 1
petition to revoke a union shop contract provision.
These cases concern approximately 10,000 employees in over 400
stores serviced by 5 warehouses located in the Bronx, Brooklyn,
Garden City in Xew York State, and in Paterson and Newark, N. J.,
in the eastern division of A. & P.
In broad outline, the story of these cases is as follows :
On JVfarch 10, 1950, a petition was filed by Retail Wholesale, CIO,
for a unit of grocery and warehouse clerks in stores serviced by the
Bronx warehouse.
Retail Clerks intervened and an election was held on September 27,
1950. Neither union received a majority. The tally of ballots, first
Bronx election, showed the following results : Eligibles, 2,700 ; Retail
Wholesale, 506; Retail Clerks, 266; neither, 1,672; total valid ballots,
2,04-4 ; challenged ballots, 58.
Objections were filed by Retail Wliolesale alleging improper im-
position of a "no solicitation" rule by the company and sponsorship
of an antiunion petition by company supervisors.
After investigation, I issued a report on March 29, 1951, recom-
mending to the Board that the election be set aside. On December 7,
1951, tlie Board issued an order — based on my recommendation — set-
ting aside the election.
A second election was held on March 19, 1952, which neither union
won. The tally of ballots, second Bronx election, showed the follow-
ing: Eligible, 2,200; Retail ^\aiolesale, 772; Retail Clerks, 226;
neither, 1,133; valid votes, 2,131; challenged ballots, 2.
On October 11, 1951, a petition for an election was filed by the
Retail Clerks, AFL, covering the employees in the grocery depart-
ments of the stores serviced by the Brooklyn warehouse.
Local 474 of Retail Wholesale, CIO, intervened and only these two
unions were on the ballot in an election conducted on January 9, 1952.
Neither union received a majority in this election. The tally of bal-
lots, first Brooklyn election, showed the following: Approximately
eligible, 1,513 ; Retail Clerks, 262 ; Retail Wholesale, 40 ; neither union,
1,106; challenged ballots, 54. Retail Clerks filed objections to the
election alleging that certain conduct by the company had affected
the results of the election.
As regional director, I recommended that the objections be over-
ruled on the basis of the then existing Board policy in such mat-
ters—Z>e/?;^on Sleeping Garment (93 N. L. R. B. 329).
That policy provided that preelection conduct could not be used
as a basis for objections after the election where the objecting party
was aware of the conduct and made no protest before the election.
My recommendation was appealed by the Retail Clerks and in
December 1952 the Board changed its policy and found that the con-
duct complained of did affect the results of the election, set aside the
election, and ordered a new election (101 N. L. R. B. 1118).
In October 1952, while the objections to which I have just referred
were pending before the Board, A. & P. and the Meat Cutters entered
into a private agreement for a card check among the employees in
21243— 58— pt. 29 7
11280 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
the grocery departments of the A. & P. stores served by the Bronx,
Brooklyn, and Garden City warehouses.
The agreement provided that Attorney Joseph O'Grady, acting as
arbitrator, should check the membership cards of the Meat Cutters
against the A. & P. payrolls for the stores serviced by these ware-
houses. The results of the card check were as follows :
In the Bronx unit, 1,526 employees of a total of 2,562 were found
to have signed cards for the Meat Cutters. In the Brooklyn unit,
1,047 employees of a total of 1,687 had signed, and in the Garden City
unit, 1,071 of 1,463 had sig-ned Meat Cutters cards.
This card check was completed at 10 p. m. on October 10, 1952, and
a notarized report was handed to the parties that same night by
Mr. O'Grady.
The Board had nothing to do with this card check. Immediately
thereafter, on the following day, October 11, 1952, A. & P. and the
Butchers District Council of New York and New Jersey, affiliated
with the Meat Cutters and acting on behalf of its locals 342, 400, and
489, sig-ned contracts covering the stores serviced by the Bronx, Brook-
lyn, and Garden City warehouses.
It should be emphasized that at this time the Board had no infor-
mation whatever about either the card check or the execution of these
agreements. It should be noted that these contracts contained union
shop membership provisions requiring the employees to become mem-
bers of the Meat Cutters.
About a month after these contracts were signed, beginning on No-
vember 13, 1952, Retail Clerks, Eetail Wholesale filed charges against
A. & P. and the Meat Cutters alleging that the contracts agreed to on
October 11, 1952, were signed at a time when the locals of the Meat
Cutters did not represent an uncoerced majority of the emploj'ees and
that the contract was signed at a time when there was pending before
the Board a representation case covering the employees in the Brook-
lyn unit.
These charges also alleged that the employees were forced through
threats and intimidation by A. & P. supervisors to sign cards for locals
of the Meat Cutters.
Investigation of these cases was begun but was stopped by the with-
drawal of the charges to permit the Brooklyn election to be run again.
On November 24 and 25, another card check was conducted by
Attorney O'Grady covering the grocery department employees in the
retail stores served by the Newark and Paterson, N. J., warehouses.
Immediately after its completion on the 25, Mr. O'Grady submitted a
report to the parties as follows: In the Newark unit, 1,701 employees
of a total of 2,579 were signed and in the Paterson unit, 1,087 employees
signed out of a total of 1,762.
A few days later, on December 1, 1952, a contract covering the New
Jersey stores and containing similar provisions to that signed in New
York on October 11 was executed by the parties.
On February 19, 1953, 2 elections were conducted on the same day
in this series of cases. One was the second election in the ]-5rooklyn
unit which had been ordered by the Board on the basis of the objections
by the Retail Clerks.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE L\BOR FIELD
11281
In this election, local 1500 of the Retail Clerks received a majority
and was certified as the barfjaining agent for the employees in tlie
Brooklyn unit on March 2, 1953.
Tally of ballots, second Brooklyn election: Eligible, 1,4G2; Retail
Clerks', 987; Retail Wholesale, 125; neither, 190; valid votes, 1,302;
challenged, 70.
On the same day, February 19, an election was conducted among the
emplo3'ees in the Bronx unit in which they voted on a proposal to
remove from the contract between A. & P. and locals 400 and 489 of the
ISIeat Cutters the union shop provision contained in the contract signed
on October 11, 1952.
Here it should be noted that the Taft-Hartley Act requires that a
majority of all eligible voters approve a proposition to rescind a union
shop provision.
While the proposition did receive a majority of those who voted by
a vote of 979 to 172, it did not receive a majority of those eligible to vote
which total 2,334 in the Bronx unit. A majority of the unit necessary
was 1,168.
Since the proposition failed to carry, the Meat Cutters continued
to enforce their contract in the Bronx unit including the union shop
clause requiring membership in that organization.
Referring again to the Brooklyn unit, the Retail Clerks requested
that the companj^ meet with it for the purj)ose of bargaining. The
company, through its attorney, about March 9, refused to meet with
the Retail Clerks, contending that the Board's certificate was invalid.
On March 13, 1953, charges were filed against A. & P. by the Retail
Clerks, AFL, alleging refusal to bargain.
Eleven days later, on March 24, a complaint based on these charges
was issued against the company. About April 15, local 1500 of the
Retail Clerks called a strike against the employer in the Brooklyn unit.
On April 24, the strike was settled by an agreement of the" unions
involved under which local 1500, Retail Clerks, agreed to recognize the
contract of local 342 of the INIeat Cutters for the employees in the
Brooklyn unit for the remainder of the contract period until August
28, 1954. Thus, in effect. Retail Clerks abandoned its certification.
The charges filed by Retail Clerks, AFL, by Retail Wliolesale, CIO,
and by various individuals, alleged that the contracts signed between
Meat Cutters and A. & P. on October 11, 1952, for the Brooklyn and
Garden City units and on December 2, 1952, for the Newark and Pater-
son, N. J., units, were illegal. These charges were investigated and
on May 27, 1953, 3 additional comj)laints were issued against A. & P.
and the Meat Cutters.^
' See the following table:
Date of complaint
Case No.
Filed by-
Unit
Alleging
Mar. 24, 1953
May 27, 1953
Do
Do
2-CA-3918
2-CA-3071
2-CA-2930
2-CA-3035
Retail clerks
do-
Retail wholesale
Many individuals. __
BrookhTi .-
Garden City
New Jersey
Brooklyn
8 (a) (1), (5).
8 (a) (1), (2), (3).
8 (a) (1), (2). (3).
8 (a) (1), (2), (3).
11282 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
One of these complaints was based on charges filed by 960 individ-
ual A. & P. employees in the Brooklyn unit. All of these four com-
plaints were consolidated for hearing.
Thereafter, all the parties to the cases got together and worked out
among themselves a proposed settlement agreement to dispose of the
issues involved in the four complaints just referred to. The settle-
ment proposals provided that for a period of 30 days no force or
effect would be given to the union-shop contracts that had been signed
by A. & P. and the Meat Cutters in October.
During this 30-day escape period any employee who desired to
withdraw his membership from the Meat Cutters could do so by giving
written notice to A, & P. and the appropriate local of the Meat Cut-
ters. Under the proposed settlement, each employee was required to
send a registered letter to both A. & P. and the Meat Cutters local giv-
ing notice of his desire to terminate his membership. The proposed
settlement also provided that A. & P. and the Meat Cutters would
notify the employees that they would not unlawfully interfere with,
restrain, coerce, or discriminate against employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them under the Taft-Hartley Act. And
finally, the proposed settlement provided for withdrawal of the com-
plaints by the regional director and his approval of the withdrawal
of the charges. As regional director, I submitted a memorandum to
the General Counsel, George J. Bott, recommending that the pro-
posed settlement agreement not be approved.
Thereafter I was directed by the Office of General Counsel Bott
to accept the proposed settlement agreement. Notices setting forth
the terms of the settlement were posted in the retail stores serviced
by the warehouses in Brooklyn, Garden City, Newark, and Paterson,^
informing the employees of their rights under the settlement agree-
ment and they were assured that they would not be subject to restraint
or coercion if they exercised their right to withdraw from the Meat
Cutters.
The files reveal that 128 employees of approximately 6,300 in the
4 units concerned availed tliemselves of the escape privilege provided
b}'^ the settlement agreement and withdrew their membership from the
Meat Cutters.
Thereafter between January and April 1954, charges were filed
alleging that the company and the Meat Cutters restrained and
coerced a number of the 128 employes who had withdrawn under the
settlement agreement of the previous October. They also alleged
that 9 of these employees were discharged illegally by A. & P. On
investigation, 8 of these 9 cases were found to be without merit and
were dismissed. The ninth case was settled by the company when
the employee decided not to seek reinstatement and accepted a lump-
sum settlement for back pay lost as a result of her loss of employment
and thereupon withdrew her charge.^
On June 15, 1954, Retail Clerks filed petitions in three cases for
elections in the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Garden City units.* On Au-
gust 3, 1954, the petitioner (Retail Clerks) A. & P. and the INIeat Cut-
-It sliould 1)0 notod tliat tho Bronx unit was not Involved in the four complaints issued
against A. & P. and the Meat Cutters in March and May 1953.
^ 2-f'A-3r)40 ; l>-rr.-107.1 filed December 29, 1953, by Ann McKenna.
* a-IlC-6898, 6899, 6900.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN TPIE LABOR FIELD 11283
ters signed an agreement ^ for an election to be held in one unit con-
sisting of the employees in the grocery departments of the stores
serviced by the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Garden City warehouses.
This election was conducted on September 15, 1054, with the fol-
lowing results: Of about G,500 eligible voters, the Meat Cutters re-
ceived 2,409 votes, the Retail Clerks 1,942 votes, of a total of 4,482
ballots cast.
Retail Clerks filed objections to the election on 4 points, but investi-
gation revealed that only 1 of the 4 was supported by any evidence
whatever. It was found that a district supervisor of A. & P., having
10 stores under his supervision, among whose employees were 1G2
eligible voters, visited those stores on the morning of the election and
spoke to less than half of the eligible employees in small groups.
As regional director I concluded that the objections did not raise
a substantial issue with respect to conduct that would affect the results
of the election on the ground that since (>,500 employees w^ere con-
cerned and since no more than 80 employees were affected, in the entire
context of the election this activity' was not sufficient to set the election
aside.
I so recommended to the Boaixl in a report on objections issued
on December o. 1954. Local 1500 appealed my recommendation and
on February 15, 1955, the Board, in a s])lit decision of 2 to 1, found
merit to the objections and ordered a new election on the basis that
the statements made by the supervisor violated the Peerless Ph'wood
rule against electioneering speeches within 24 hours before an elec-
tion. Chairman Guy Farmer, in a dissenting opinion, agreed with my
view concerning the objections.*^
On March 13, 1955, the new^ election ordered by the Board was
held with the following results: Of 6,300 eligibles, the Meat Cutters
received 2,905 votes, the Retail Clerks 1,883. Since the Meat Cutters
received a clear majority, certification was issued to the Meat Cutters
on March 24, 1955, certifying them as the bargaining agent for the
emplo^'ees in the grocery departments of stores serviced by the Bronx,
Brooklyn, and Garden City warehouses.
The Chairmax. Do you have any further comments?
Mr. DoiDS. "Well, there are many comments that could be made,
Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. You have had quite a problem with these A. & P.
Stores ; haven't you ?
Mr. DouDS. Yes. That is right. Thei-e was a problem over a period
of about 4 years.
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. I would like to ask you a few questions to develop
some of the facts in your statement.
Now, just going back, local 1500's electiori in the Brooklyn unit was
on January 9, 1952 ?
Mr. DouDS. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Tlien there was an appeal from that election?
Mr. DouDS. January 19, 1 think.
Mr. Kennedy, It was January of 1952 ?
Mr. DoTJDS. Yes, sir.
'' stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election.
«111 N. L. R. B. 623 issued February 15, 1955.
11284 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. There was an appeal from that election?
Mr. DouDs. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And during the period of that appeal, on October
11, 1952, a contract was signed ?
Mr. DouDS. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Between the Meat Cutters and A. & P. ?
Mr. Douds. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. In your opinion, was the signing of that contract
legal or illegal ?
Mr. DouDS. The signing of that contract was in my opinion clearly
illegal.
Mr. Kennedy. On w^hat do you base that opinion ?
Mr. Douds. Well, my statement applies particularly to the Brook-
lyn unit, and I think would apply, or might also apply to some extent,
to the other units, since eventually they were consolidated into one
unit. The reason, the first reason, that that contract was illegal was
that there was in process a case before the Board to determine the
representative of these employees, and while that case was going on,
A. & P. and the Meat Cutters took it upon themselves to determine
that question. Under the Midwestern Piping decision of the Board,
this was a clear violation of the law.
Mr. Kennedy. The signing of the contract witli the ]Meat Cutters
at the time that this appeal was going on, is that riglit ?
Mr. Douds. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Was this a surprise to you, that the contract was
signed ?
Mr. Douds. Yes, absolutely. We knew nothing about it until some
time afterward.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any complaints from any of the
employees of A. & P. Co. ?
Mr. Douds. We did, quite a large number.
Mr. Kennedy. About the signing of the contract ?
Mr. Douds. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Had you known that these negotiations for the con-
tract were going on ?
Mr. Douds. We did not.
Mr. Kennedy. You knew nothing about it ?
Mr. DouDS. No.
Mr. Kennedy. What was your feeling when you were told tliat the
contract had been signed?
Mr. Douds. Well, my feeling was one of surprise and disapproval
of the action.
Mr. Kennedy. What were the reports that were made to you by the
employees of the A. & P. Co. ?
Mr. Douds. Well, the employees were naturally confused because
they knew that there was an election proceeding in process, and at
the same time they were being asked to pay initiation fees and dues
and to become members of the Moat Cutters who had not been on the
ballot in the election, and who had not shown any interest in the
election.
So the employees were calling our oflice to iind out whether or not
they should pay these initiation fees and dues.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 11285
Mr. Kennedy. Did iiny of them report that they had been coerced
into signing up witli tlie INIeat Cutters'^
Mr. DouDS. Well, later, when we made our investigation of the un-
fair labor practice cases, we discovered a considerable amount of evi-
dence of coercion of employees into membership and into signing cards
prior to the signing of the contract on October 11.
Mr. Kennedy. This was coercion on whose part ?
Mr. DouDS. Well, it was primarily on the part of the company
supervisors, of course.
Mr. Kennedy. You say that this coercion took place even prior
to the time the contract was signed ?
Mr. DouDS. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you mean that coercion was used by company
representatives to get people to sign these cards which would make
the Meat Cutters their bargaining representative ?
Mr. DouDS. That is correct. Our evidence indicated that there Avas
quite a considerable amount of coercion in connection with signing
these cards.
]\lr. Kennedy. As I understand, there was coercion after that to get
the people to start paying their dues into the union ?
Mr. DouDs. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy'. That would take place, would it, under the union
clause in the contract ?
Mr. DouDs. The union shop provision ; yes.
Mr. Kennedy. That the individual employee would have to pay his
dues and join the union, or otherwise he would lose his employment?
Mr. DouDS. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy'. Do you have any examples of some of the pressure
that was used by the comjiany on the employees that they should sign
these cards, making the Meat Cutters their bargaining representative?
Mr. DouDS. Yes. I have some excerpts from affidavits which were
taken by our men in their investigation of these cases. The first ones
have to do with the case filed — understand there were charges filed
shortly after the contract was signed in Xovember, but those charges
were withdraw^n in order to permit us to run the election in January.
Then later new charges were filed, and it was not until after the new
charges were filed that we made our full investigation.
I have here an affidavit from an employee, from which I will read an
excerpt. This is an employee in a store in Astoria, N. Y. I am quot-
ing from the affidavit.
I was out of the store when Cornelius, from 342 —
that is local 342 of the Meat Cutters —
came around to sign up employees. This was definitely in the first week of
October. But I came in the next day and the bookkeeper said to me "Sign this
card." I asked her "What is it?" She said, "This is for the union."
I said, "What union?" She said, "For the Meat Union, 342." I said. "I didn't
join the union." She said I have to fill it out because if I didn't, I would have to
pay a $.jO fine. So I went to the manager. I said "What in hell is going on here?
All these years you are against the union and all of a sudden you send us cards
saying to join the imion." Stuart, the manager, told me if I didn't want to pay
the $50 to fill out the card.
11286 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
The second one : This is an employee in a store in Brooklyn.
Some time in October 1952 somebody from local 342 asked me to sign an
application blank. Before I signed it, I asked the manager, Mr. Mann, who was
standing by, what happens if I didn't sign it. He said, "Do you want your job?"
I said, "Yes." "Then," he said, "sign it."
This is an employee in a store in Ozone Park, Long Island.
Some time in September 1952, the assistant manager, Gene Smith, told me that a
union was going to get in, and gave me a 342 card. He said that if I signed up
I wouldn't have to pay $50.
and I have more.
Mr. Kennedy. Which clearly shows that even prior to the signing
of the contract on October 11, the company was actively urging its
employees to join the Amalgamated Meat Cutters ?
Mr. DouDS. Yes. I think the evidence shows a widespread cam^
paign by the company along with local 342 to get cards signed, and
these were the cards that were checked in the card check.
Mr. Kennedy. As I understood one of the affidavits that you quoted
from there, there is a definite implication that if they didn't join the
union, they would be fired.
Mr. DouDS. That is right.
The Chairman. They said "What happened," and they said "Do
you want your job," and if he said "Yes," they said, "Well, sign that
card."
Mr. DouDS. Yes.
The Chairman. And that was management.
Mr. DouDS. Yes. That is what we call coercion.
The Chairman. I call it that, too.
Mr. Kennedy. Even if the contract had been legal on October 11,
this was prior to the time the union shop clause had come into effect;
isn't that right?
Mr. DouDS. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. This was prior to October 11 ?
Mr. DouDS. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. You say that this contract that was signed, then, on
October 11, 1952, was an illegal contract ?
Mr. DouDS. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. You had ruled against the appeal of local 1500.
What if your ruling had been sustained and the National Labor Rela-
tions Board down here had ruled that the cause of action of local 1500
was not a good cause of action ?
Would the contract then have been illegal ?
Mr. Douds. In my opinion, the contract would still have been
illegal, for the reason that the cards which were cliecked in the card
clieck wei'e — a very substantial proportion of them, I believe — obtained
through coercive methods.
The Chairman. At that point, may I inquire how you make a card
check ? What are you supposed to do, the man who checks the cards ?
Mr. Douds. He gets from the company a payroll list, giving the
names of the employees, and this list supposedly being a correct certi-
fied list of the employees on the payroll of the bargaining unit at that
time. Then the person who makes the card check takes the member-
ship cards and checks them one at a time against this payroll. If he
runs across any cards that are not signed properly, that for one reason
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11287
or another he feels are not an adequate indication of union membership
or a desire to join the union, he puts those cards aside, and does not
count them.
The CirAiR:MAN'. What precaution is taken to make certain that the
card was sii>ned by the employee^ If it is just a card count and not
a card check, that woukl open tlie way for terrific fraud : would it not ?
Mr. DouDS. AVell, I think it did' in this case. That is, I think
that
The CiiAiKMAX. Did you find in this case that a lot of cards Avere
signed by other than the employee himself ?
Mr. DouDS. I have no knowledge of that, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Well, was that kind of a check made to determine
that?
Mr. DouDS. So far as I know, and on the basis of our investigation,
I do not believe that any check was made to determine the validity
of these cards. Of course, in my view, a card that is signed under
coercion, that is, with a threat of loss of job or a threat of having to
pay $50 instead of $2 for an initiation fee, I do not believe is a legiti-
mate card signed b}^ tlie free will of the employee concerned.
The Chairmax. We agree about that. But how^ about a card not
even signed by the employee ? That is a flagrant fraud. I am trying
to determine whether in your agency in these card checks, before you
honor a union as a bargaining agent, where it is based on cards, signed
cards, those cards are checked for tlie validity of the signature of the
employee.
Mr. DouDs. You are speaking of our procedures now, Mr. Chair-
man ?
The Chairman'. Well, is this card check not made under your pro-
cedure (
]Mr. DouDS. We had nothing whatever to do with this card check.
The Chairmax. I see. But when you make a card check — do you
make card checks under your procedures ?
Mr. Doi'DS. Yes. When a union files a petition for an election, un-
der the rules the union must make a showing that 30 percent of the
employees have signed cards to that union.
The Chairmax. That is for an election 'i
Mr. DouDS. Yes ; just to get an election. If we have any indication
that these cards were not signed freely by the individual employee,
then we go back and investigate that matter.
The Chairmax. I^t me see, now. Does the National Labor Rela-
tions Board issue bargaining representation certificates on the basis of
a majority signing cards ?
Mr. DoFDS. We do not.
The Chairmax. You call an election when thev get beyond 30 per-
cent?
Mr. DouDs. Tliat is right.
The Chairmax. The card representation is obtained as between the
emploj'er and the union if he wishes to recognize a majority as having
expressed themselves by signing cards, and the Labor Relations Board
does not come into action in that sort of an arrangement ; is that
correct ?
(At this point. Senator Curtis entered the hearing room.)
Mr. DouDS. That is correct ; yes.
11288 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman. As I understand it, in other words, if they go out
and get 51 percent of the members to sign up, then the employer may
recognize tlie union?
JNIr. DouDS. He may ; yes.
The Chairman. He may.
Mr. DouDS. If there is no other union in the picture at that point.
The Chairman. If there is no other union in the picture. But in
this instance there was another union in tlie picture, two of them, in
fact, in a contest.
Mr. DouDS. That is correct.
The Chairman. But he could recognize a union if a majority of his
employees had indicated by signed cards that they wanted that partic-
ular union ?
Mr. DoiJDs. Yes ; he could do so.
The Chairman. And the authority of the NLRB would not come
into effect ?
Mr. DouDS. That is right.
The Chairman. It would not come into play at all.
But when they come with cards petitioning for an election, you
make a check as to the authenticity of the signature of the employee
as well as count against the number of employees ?
Mr. DouDS. We do not make a check on the authenticity of the
signature unless there is some reason to believe the signature is not
authentic, unless we have some reason to believe or unless some party
raises a question about it.
The Chairman. Well, it seems to me that that's a weakness then,
even in your own procedures, because the authenticity of the signa-
ture should be checked. Otherwise, you are open to the imposition
of fraud.
Mr. DouDS. That is correct, although in our experience, we usually
are able to detect fraud when it exists. As a matter of fact, in the
New York office of the NLRB we had a regular procedure for dealing
with any such fraud that we ran into.
(At this point. Senator Church withdrew from the hearing room.)
The Chairman. All I am concerned about here is that the working-
men and women are protected against instances of collusion between
management and some labor union leader where they can go through
the process of signing up a lot of cards and forging names and say-
ing "We have a majority, and on that basis we accepted the union
and, therefore, made the contract under those conditions."
I think that is a very clear issue here, as to whether the majority
of the employees ever wanted the Meat Cutters Union.
Obviously, at the time the contract was signed, from the best
information we have now, and from the testimony that is being un-
folded here, a majority of them did not want the Meat Cutters Union
at that time. Pai'ticularly that would be demonstrated if a number
of the cards upon which the action were taken, it develops, were
forgeries.
Mr. Kknnedy. The affidavits, the excerpts from the affidavits that
you read there, were mostly from the Brookl^ni unit. Did 30U get
complaints from other units other than Brooklyn?
Mr. Dorns. Yes ; we did.
Mr. Kennedy, (^ould you give us samples of the places where you
got them, Garden City, for instance, and the Bronx unit?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11 289
Mr. DouDS. This is from the investigation of the Garden City unit.
This is a female employee in the Elmont store in Hollis, Long Island.
In late September 1952 a man from 342 came into the store and went to the
acting ni.inager, Romaine. Then he took groups of 2 or 3 into the back of the
store. When he called me there were two other people with me.
He said that he wanted to sign us up for the union. I .said I would not sign
for the union. So he said would I sign a card asking for the right to hold an
election before the Labor Board. I said "Certainly," so I signed. A few days
later a young man from 342 came around and talked to quite a few employees,
taking some down to the cellar. The acting manager did not say anytliing.
As the man from 342 was leaving, he told me that he did not have to talk to
me, as he went by.
I said. "What for? I don't know you."
He said, "You are," giving her name, "and you have already signed a card
and you are in the union." I told him I signed the card just to have an elec-
tion. He said, "That doesn't matter. We have enough cards and you are in
the union."
This is an employee in a store in St. Albans, Long Island :
About October 19.52 I signed an application for membership card of local 342
of the Amalgamated Butchers. Some time in the morning of the day I signed
the 342 card, the store manager, Stibiel, told me to go into the back room
because a representative of local 342 was there and I should see him about
becoming a member of that organization. I went to the back room at once
and the individual there represented himself as being from local .342. I signed
the local 342 card presented to me in the back room of the store, because I
was of the opinion that an election would be held and I could vote for or
against local 342.
(At this point, Senator Ervin entered the hearing room.)
Mr. DoLTJs. One more from Garden City. This is an employee in
a store in Cambria Heights, Long Island:
Some time in early October, I think before the contract was signed, two dele-
gates from local 342 came in. The manager told us to go upstairs and sit in
with them. The delegates told us that they had a majority of the A. & P.
employees signed up, and if we didn't sign up with them it would co.st us .$40
or $.'')0. After the delegates left, I talked to Manager Burda, who said that if
we didn't sign up, we would not be able to work.
Is that enough from Garden City?
Mr. KJEXNEDY. Yes.
Mr. DouDS. Xow I will go over to New Jersey.
Mr. Kexxedt. Prior to doing that, the New Jersej- situation was
a little different and a little later, chronologically, wasn't it?
Mr. DouDs. Yes.
Mr. Kexxedt. On this situation here, this was a complete reversal
on the part of the company, was it not, as far as their position on
unions ?
Mr. DouDS. Yes. As a matter of fact, that is clearly illustrated in
the first affidavit I read, wlien tlie employee expressed his gi-eat sur-
prise and said to the manager, "Well, you have ahvaj's been against
unions. Why do you want me to sign up now?" — or words to that
effect.
Mr. Kexxedt. Based on this investigation and based wpon the
knowledge of the company's position towards unions prior to this, did
you consider this to be a fraud on tlie part of the company?
Mr. DouDS. Well, this certainl}-, under the National Labor Rela-
tions Act was illegal activity on the part of the company. It i.- impor-
tant, of course, that this was widespread activity. This was not just
in 1 or 2 stores.
11290 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. All this activity that you described as in your opinion
illef;al activity, was above and bevoncl the signing of the contract of
October 11?
Mr. DouDS. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. You started to get these complaints from tlie various
employees, and they came in from Brooklyn, Garden City, and the
Bronx?
JNIr. DouDs, That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And similar to the situation or the complaints that
you have read into the record already.
(At this point, Senator Mundt entered the hearing room.)
]\Ir. Kennedy. You found also that people were complaining about
the fact that after the contract was signed that they were then being
forced in, even more people were being forced into the union; did
you?
Mr. DouDs. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you have a couple of samples of that ?
Mr. DouDs. Yes ; I do. Just a moment.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. DouDS. This relates to a charge filed on March 20, 1953, by 960
individuals, and in which these individuals claimed that they were
coerced into the payment of initiation fees and dues.
Mr. Kennedy. Have you ever had such a large group of individual
employees who claimed coercion ?
Mr. DouDS. No ; not in my entire experience with the Board. Inci-
dentally, the first that I read related to the — the first affidavits yes,
related to that question of the payment of dues, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. So the first affidavit was after the October 11 date?
Mr. DouDS. Yes ; that first series.
Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question at this point?
Mr. Douds, I am sorry I came in late, and you may have covered
this in some of your previous testimony. But as you understand the
law and the regulations, it is possible for a union to lawfully be recog-
nized through the signing of cards and without an election?
Mr. Douds. Yes, that is correct ; it is possible.
Senator Curtis. How many employees are supposed to have signed
cards ?
Mr. Douds. A majority of those in the bargaining unit, and the
assumption would be that those cards expressed the free desires of the
employees concerned.
Senator Curtis. Yes; they must be bona fide as well as a free
choice ?
Mr. DouDs. Yes ; that is right.
Senator Courtis. How long have you been with the NLRB?
:Mr. Douds. Since May 6, 1937.
Senator Curtis. Have you found that the card system has resulted
in more trouble and more injustice to workers than where they have
gone ahead and held an election ?
Mr. DouDS. I think the election method of selecting a bargaining
representative is much to be preferred over that of merely accepting
the signed membership cards.
Senator Curtis. J^ecause they can be pressured and given mislead-
ing arguments, botli from management as well as organizers?
Mr. DouDS. Yes.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 11291
Senator Curtis. It is conceivably possible.
Ml-. DouDs. Yes. And quite often we have found employees will
sign cards just to get rid of the fellow who is giving them a sales
talk. Later they may vote against the union. We find that because
when we check the cards, we may hnd that the union has, say, 75 out
of 100. But then when we run the election, we lind, say, that only 55
employees voted for the miion. So it is obvious that 20 have signed
who either changed their minds or else didn't want the union at the
time they signed the card.
Senator Cuirns. When they petition for an election, the NLEB de-
termines the form of the ballot. Do you have anything to do with
the conduct of the election?
Mr. DouDS. We conduct the election under very strict safeguards.
Senator Curtis. In all instances ?
Mr. DouDs. That is correct.
Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Muxdt. On that point I would like to ask a question. Mr.
Douds, why do you suppose, is it in the law or is it an administrative
detail, that you do follow, on occasion, the card system of deciding
the unit available for contract?
Mr. DouDs. Senator Mundt, the Board does not certify on the basis
of a card check. There was a time when Ave did, under the Wagner
Act, but we do not do it under the Taft-Hartley Act. Where we
certify there must have been an election in which the employees vote,
a majority of the employees voted for the union.
Xow, I may have confused you a little bit when I said previously
that an employer could sign a contract legally based on a card check.
But that would be in a situation where we do not come into the
picture, where he merely voluntarily recognized the union.
Senator Mundt. Well, I misunderstood you and your answer to
Senator Curtis, because I couldn't just see how the NLRB could act
on the basis of these cards, because several groups have come to me
in disputes which so frequently occur in this labor-management field
who allege that the card system is a strict phony, because they say
no handwriting check is made, and they can demonstrate and prove,
if our committee will go to the trouble of hiring handwriting experts,
that the names on the cards were not signed by the men whose names
appear on the cards.
They say it is a strict phony, and I wondered if the NLRB in any
way participated in an arrangement of that kind, and what precau-
tions you took to prevent being imposed upon by a bunch of cards
not signed by the men and men whose names appear on the cards.
But you do not do that?
^Ir. 'Doit)s. We do not use them as a basis for certification. There
must be an election.
Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I have just one more question. Do
you think it would be unfair and an injustice to any of the parties if
the statute was changed so that before a union could be recognized
and enter into a binding contract, there would iiave to be an election?
Mr. Douns. I don't think it would be unfair. The only problem
that it might create from the standpoint of the employer Avould be if
it were a situation where he wanted to get this thing cleared up very
quickly. An election could be run quickly as a matter of fact. A
11292 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
consent election where the union and the company come in and agree
to an election, we can run it within 10 days or 2 weeks.
Senator Curtis. But it just seems to me that we would remove a
procedure that invites a lot of wrongdoing even though sometimes
they would be in a hurry and want to get it done quicker. It would
be the lesser of the two evils.
Mr, DouDS. I certainly think that is a matter that should be given
careful study by the Congress.
Senator Curtis. That is all.
The Chairman. At the time Senator Curtis began interrogating
you, you had referred to some petitions that had been signed by some
960 employees protesting an election, I believe, or protesting what ?
Mr. DouDS. That was 960 employees who signed a charge alleging
that they were being coerced into paying initiation fees and dues.
The Chairman. I hand you here a photostatic copy of what I be-
lieve to be the petitions to which you referred, and ask you to examine
them and state if you identify them.
(Documents were handed to the witness.)
Mr. DouDS. Mr. Chairman, these I have here are charge No. 2-CA,
3035. That is the NLRB designation. Attached to that are lists of
signatures giving names. First they printed names and then their
signatures, and then there are addresses in each instance. This
appears to be, and I believe it is an exact copy.
The Chairman. A photostatic copy ?
Mr. DouDS. Yes ; of the signatures in our files.
The Chairman. And of the petitions in your files ?
Mr. DouDS. That is correct.
The Chairman. Then, they may be made exhibit 3 for reference
only.
(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 3," for reference
and may be found in the files of the select committee.)
Mr. Kennedy. Now, during this period of time, in December
specifically of 1952 a new election was ordered in the Brooklyn unit?
Mr. DouDS. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. On orders from the National Labor Eelations Board
here in Washington?
Mr. DouDS. That is correct.
Mr. ICennedy. That election was held in March of 1953, is that
right?
Mr. DouDS. February, I think.
Mr. Ivennedy. Yes; in February of 1953 and Local 1500 won
quite handily, some 8 to 1, is that right? They won the election?
Mr. DouDS. Yes. Would you like the exact results of that election ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. DouDs. Of 1,462 eligible employees, and the Retail Clerks re-
ceived 987 votes, and the Retail Wliolesale received 125 votes, and for
neither union tliere were 190 votes, and there were TO challenged
votes.
Mr. ICennedy. Did that indicate to you that the Meat Cutters in
fact did not represent these employees?
Mr. DouDS. Yes; I think it is quite obvious when they had a chance
to express tlieir free choice, tluit they selected local 1500 of the Retail
Clerks rather than the Meat Cutters.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11293
JNIr. Kennedy. And this was only 4 months after the so-called card
count had been held ?
Mr. DouDS. Yes; the card count was in October, and this was in
February.
Mr. Kennedy. And the signing of the contract ?
Mr. DouDS. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now the 1500 was then certified as the bargaining
representative of the Board ?
Mr. Dol-ds. Yes ; on March 2, 1953.
Mr, Kennedy. But the A. & P. Co. refused to bargain with them?
Mr. DouDS. Yes ; on March 9, 1953.
Mr. Kennedy. What action did you take on that ?
Mr. DouDS. Charges were tiled with us on March 13, and on March
24, 11 days later, we issued a complaint of refusal to bargain against
the coni})any.
Mr. Keenedy. Now, during this period of time, had the Meat
Cutters also moved in and signed a contract with the A. & P. Co.
covering the New Jersey area '^
Mr. Douds. Yes; that occurred at the beginning of December in
1952.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that also done with a card count ?
Mr. DouDS. Yes, it was.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you get complaints from the New Jersey em-
ployees that they had been coerced into signing these cards ?
Mr. Douds. We did.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you have some examples from tlie New Jersey
miit ?
Mr. DouDS. You mean excerpts from affidavits ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes, please.
Mr. Douds. Yes. This is from an employee in Perth Amboy, N. J. :
When I signed the AJFL card, Mr. Lee, head of the produce department, gave
me the card and he told me that Mr. McFarland, the store manager, had given
them to him and told him to get them signed.
He told me that if I didn't sign it by December 1, I would have to pay a $50
initiation fee, and so I signed it and I didn't have to pay any fee.
When I signed the card, I gave it to Lee and I saw him give the cards from
our department, which had been signed, to Mr. McFarland ; that is, the manager.
When he gave McFarland the cards, McFarland said to him that Area Sui)er-
visor McManus would be well pleased that there had been no friction over getting
them signed.
Shortly before Christmas, Lee came to me and asked me to pay my union
dues, and I told him I didn't want to becauses I didn't think the union was
any good.
Later McFarland came to me and told me if I didn't pay the dues, I would
lose my job, and so then I paid McFarland $4 for dues.
Here is another from a store in New Jersey.
In a week or two. Store Manager Fred Botler gave me a card and asked me
to sign it or else. He meant I wouldn't be working for the company unless
I signed it.
Supervisor Lebaiun told me the same thing about the first week in December.
Just about every day in November Manager Botler kept bothering me to sign
the union card. He even shoved a card in front of my machine when I was
checking, and tried to get me to sign.
He did the same thing with everybody in the store. Everybody finally signed
up about December 1, which was the deadline or else we would have to pay $50.
The manager of the store, Thuman, has always acted like a good will agent
for the Amalgamated. He has often told me and others in groups that we should
pay and be sure to pay our dues because it is our duty.
11294 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. How would you describe this activity on the part
of the company toward these employees ?
Mr. DouDS. Well, I would say that the company was conducting
an organizing campaign to sign up the cards there, and that this, of
course, was assistance to the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and as such
was illegal activity.
Mr. Kennedy. And again was this a complete reversal of their
position that they had taken toward unions?
Mr. DouDS. Oh, yes.
Mr. Kennedy. From prior times ?
Mr. DouDS. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. So that they had done this in tlie Bronx, and Brook-
lyn, and Garden City, and then over in New Jersey during this period
of time?
Mr. Douds. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And during this time, the end of 1052 and then into
the months of 1953, did you receive a lot of telephone calls from the
employees of A, & P. Co. ?
Mr. Douds. Yes, we did. We received a great many calls, so many,
as a matter of fact, we had to issue special instructions to the staff
as to how to handle these calls.
Mr. Kennedy. Have you ever had anything like this before in
your experience?
Mr. Douds. No, I don't believe so, and I don't recall.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, you told us about the fact that the A. & P. Co.
refused then to bargain with local 1500 after they won the election,
and then you issued a complaint against the company at that time?
Mr. Douds. Yes, on March 24, 1953.
Mr. Kennedy. And then local 1500 struck the A. & P. stores?
Mr. Douds. That is correct, in April.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have difficulties, or the National Labor
Eelations Board, did they have difficulties with the A. & P. Co. in
their dealings with them then in trying to get this thing straightened
out?
Mr. Douds. We had considerable difficulty at various times in mak-
ing the investigation because after we received these affidavits, we
naturally wanted to interview the supervisors who were supposed to
have indulged in this activity, and we were not i^ermitted to inter-
view supervisors.
Mr, Kennedy. Was the company's policy that they wouldn't allow
you to interview the supervisors?
Mr. DouDS. Yes. I would say, however, that Lichtenstein, who was
representing the company, and with whom we dealt most of the time,
made, I think, sincere efforts to secure better cooperation from the
company, so that we could conduct a thorough investigation, but on
several occasions when Mr. Lichtenstein indicated to us that he would
try to enable us to interview the supervisors, later he called back and
he said that he was sorry, but that could not be do]ie.
Mr. Kennedy. Who was opposing you in these efforts to determine
what the facts were ?
Mr. DouDS. Well, we didn't know exactly, and we assumed it was
higher authorities in the company.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever discuss with anybody to find out what
it was, and who Avas responsible ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11295
Mr. DorDS. Well, as a matter of fact, Mr. Lichtenstein indicated on
various occasions that the company had decided not to go along with
his proposals to permit us to intervieAv certain employees whom we
wished to intervieAv.
Mr. Kexxedt. Tlien local 1500 struck the Brooklyn stores, and
then there was a settlement agreement that Mr. Kennedy spoke about
yesterday, upon the intervention of the Teamsters.
What was your attitude toward that agreement that was signed?
Mr. DouDS. Well, I would like to say first that in May we issued
3 additional complaints. We issued a complaint based on this charge
by the 960 employees to whom Ave have just referred, and then we
issued 2 complaints, 1 relating to Garden City, and 1 relating to
Jersey, and if I might, Mr. Kennedy, I would like to say something
about our promptness of action in these cases.
It has been said here that the Board was so slow in acting that the
parties had to take certain action themselves. Well, these charges,
you see, the 960 employee charge was filed in March, and in May we
issued a complaint based on that charge.
Now, that required a very widespread and difficult investigation,
particularly in view of the fact we were not receiving coooperation
from the company. I believe that we cannot be justly accused of not
acting promptly in this situation.
Mr. Kexnedy. Would you tell us what your attitude was toward
this settlement agreement that was then signed ?
Mr. DouDS. Well, I was opposed to the settlement agreement. In
August I submitted a memorandum to Washington.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the settlement agreement, and what were
you opposed to in the agreement ?
Mr. DouDS. Well, you see the parties got together and worked out
this proposed settlement agreement without any conference with the
members of mj' staff. Xormally when a settlement agreement is being
worked out, that is done with the field examiner, or the attorney who
is in charge of the case.
But in this instance, that was not true, and the parties got together
and worked out the settlement agreement, and their proposal was, and
you are dealing with the union shop contract, and their proposal was
that the contract be set aside for a period — wait a minute, that the
union shop provision of the contract be set aside for a period of 30
days, during which any employee who wished to withdraw from the
Meat Cutters could do so, and the way he was to do so was to write a
registered letter, return receipt requested, to the A. & P. Co., and an-
other registered letter, return receipt requested, to the Meat Cutters.
And 128 of them did so.
Mr. Kennedy. What was your objection to that, then ?
Mr. DouDs. Well, if I might quote just a couple of sentences from
my memorandum.
Mr. Ivennedy. This allowed Ihe employee who did not want to re-
main in and pay his dues to the Meat Cutters, to withdraw and not
pay his dues after writing registered letters to the union and to the
company that he wanted to get out ?
Mr. DouDS. That is correct, and he would not then be a member of
the Meat Cutters.
Mr. Kennedy. What was 3'our objection ?
21243— 58— pt. 29 S
11296 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr, DouDS. My objection was that this put the individual employee
on the spot, and this was not in accord with our usual method for han-
dling situations of this sort.
I would like, if I might, just to read a sentence or two from a request
for advice I submitted to Washington, directed to William O. Murdock,
associate general counsel, on August 7, 1953, relating to these four
cases on which we had issued complaints.
In this memorandum or request for advice, I state, and I quote :
I must disagree with my colleague, John Cuneo, in his recommendation that the
settlement proposal is a satisfactory one.
Mr. Cuneo is the chief law officer in New Jersey.
As I understand the settlement proposal, it is that the union secure provisions
to set aside for a period of 30 days. Parties also indicated they would post an
8-B-l notice.
One objection to this proposal is that the employee who does not wish to con-
tinue his membership in the Meat Cutters is put on a spot and required to take
the affirmative action of withdrawing from the union, whereas under our usual
type of settlement where the contract is set aside, this affirmative action by the
employees is not necessary.
(At this point, the following members were present: Senators
McClellan, Mundt, and Curtis. )
The Chairman. That really amounted, in effect, to an indirect
coercion against each member ?
Mr. DouDS. I think you could think it that way.
The Chairman. In other words, he did not have complete freedom
of choice. He may prefer to get out, but he realized that if he went
to that affirmative action of writing a registered letter, that, of course,
would come to the attention of his employers who wanted him in
the union.
Mr. DouDS. Yes. He was a marked man.
The Chairman. He was a marked man.
Mr. DouDS. That is why you opposed that procedure. I also sug-
gested an alternative procedure which was that the contract would
be set aside for a period of 60 days, during which all employees would
be free of membership in the Meat Cutters and thereafter if any that
wished to could join.
The Chairman. Let them take the affirmative action to affirm the
fact that the Meat Cutters was the union of their choice ?
Mr. DouDS. Yes.
The Chairman. I think your position was right. I certainly can-
not go along with the ruling that was made that these folks who had
been taken into the union against their will had to take affirmative
action of that nature, that, as you say, put them on the spot, made
them marked men, in order to get out.
I think that practice should be condemned.
Senator Mundt. Does the NLRB have a lot of cases like this ? If
so, what is the customary practice? Do they usually follow the pro-
cedure that they employed here of making the union member take an
affirmative action? Or do they usually follow the suggestion that
you made to vacate the whole contract and let those who wanted to
rejoin, rejoin?
Mr. DouDS. The customary practice is established by a case set up
in a company called the Eeznick Co., and we usually refer to it as
the Reznick remedy. What happens normally is that where there is
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11297
this kind of assistance by a company to a union, is that a contract is
set aside for (>() days, and thereafter the election is held and the em-
ployees can determine whether they want that union or not.
Senator Mundt. So the customary practice was the one that you
recommended ?
Mr. DouDS. Yes.
At this point I did not raise the question of an election in my memo-
randum. I just suggested the contract be set aside for a period of
60 days. That is something that could have been worked out later.
Senator IMi^ndt. Normally, if you set it aside, you have to have
action by somebody to reestablish it, either an election or rejoining.
Mr. DotTDs. Yes.
Senator Mundt. The customary procedure is to have another elec-
tion?
Mr. DouDS. That is correct.
Senator Muxdt. And that action can be initiated by the Board in
a case like this ?
Mr. DouDS. Well, normally one of the unions would initiate it or
the company could initiate it by filing a petition for an election.
Senator Mundt. We have a situation like this, where the company
and the union were apparently working together harmoniously, and
neither of them woulcl be likely to initiate it. So if the Board found
merit in the complaint of the other unions or the dissident groups,
union or not, this would have to be initiated by the Board.
Mr. DouDS. Well, the Board does not normally run an election un-
less somebody files a petition for an election, either a company or one
of the unions concerned.
The Chaiemax. Will the Senator yield ?
Senator Mundt. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. It seems to me that if you set the contract aside
for 60 days, that would force either the union or the company or both
to ask for an election. Otherwise, the contract would be canceled.
That is, if they made that condition, in setting it aside.
Senator Mundt. Yes, if they had an election.
The Chairman. They could handle it that way.
Senator Mundt. I was trying to determine who would initiate that,
and I thought it would be the Board.
Mr. DouDS. Mr. Naumoff just reminded me that at this point al-
though local 1500 retail clerks had been certified in March, they had,
for all practical purposes, abandoned that certification by recognizing
the contract on the settlement of the strike in Brooklyn. So there
really was no petition before us at this point.
Senator Mundt. Is that the incident referred to on page 7 of your
testimony, where you say "Thus, in effect, retail clerks abandoned the
certification" ?
Mr. DouDs. That is correct. Senator.
Senator Mundt. Do you have any background information as to
why the retail clerks at that point did abandon their certification?
It would seem to me they were winning their point. They had, as I
understand the sequence, filed a protest against the A. & P. The
Board had recognized the legitimacy of the protest, and you had
made a complaint against the company.
11298 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
The company had refused to concede. The Retail Clerks had called
a strike, and it looks to me as though they were kind of winning that
argument. Suddenly there comes this capitulation, and it sajs in
effect the Retail Clerks abandoned certification. 'WTiy did they do
that?
Mr. DouDS. I am afraid j-ou will have to ask the Retail Clerks that
question. I will have to say I think this was the only time in my
entire experience with the Board that I have seen a union take action
of this sort.
Senator Mundt. The only time what ?
Mr. DouDs. A union abandon a certification which it had won in
an election.
The Chairman. Senator, we had testimony on that yesterday after-
noon from the Retail Clerks.
Senator Mundt. Why was it ? I would like to know. It looks as
though they were at victory and then suddenly they stopped.
Tlie Chairman. I am sure we don't know all of the storj^, but they
got together and made some kind of a deal where at the end of this
contract all of these employees, again, were pawns, and would be
delivered over to the Clerks Union.
They made an agreement. Then somebody didn't keep it.
Senator Mundt. Very well. Thank you.
Mr. Kennedy. Then there were 128 employees who did take the
initiative and did write to the company and to the union ; is that right?
Mr. DouDS. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy, And said they wanted to withdraw from the union ?
IVIr. DouDS. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. 128 of them ?
Mr. DouDS. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. What was your explanation as to why there were not
more of them?
Mr. DouDs. Well, I think this was, you see, a pretty cumbersome
procedure in the first place; that is, for the ordinary grocery clerk
to sit down and write out two letters, even though he wanted to get
out of the union, and go to the post office and register them, and so
forth. That is one reason. Another reason is I think a lot of the
employees didn't want to put themselves on record at this point. Our
experience later indicated that to be the case.
Mr. Kennedy. There weren't any retaliatory measures taken against
these 128 by the company, was there?
Mr. DouDs. Tliere certainly was.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you mean the company took action against part
of the people that wrote in who said they wanted to get out of the
union ?
Mr. DouDS. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee about that?
Mr. DouDs. Well, charges later were filed by a considerable number
of <hese employees, these 128. Now, remember, when this settlement
was made, thei-e Avere notices posted in which the company stated it
would not restrain or coerce the employees. That would apply to
these 128 em])loyees. Then we began to get charges from these indi-
vidual employees, that they were being restrained and coerced. We
investigated those charges.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11299
Senator Mundt. As I understand it, they had to put a public notice
up in the stores that there would be no coercion.
Mr. DouDs. That is right.
Senator Mundt. And there would be no restrictions or restraints.
]Mr. DouDS. Yes.
Senator Mundt. Did that give the employee assurance against
coercion from both the company and the union, or from just the com-
pany or just the union ?
(At this point. Senator Ervin entered the hearing room.)
Mr. DouDS. Yes, the charges were tiled against both the company
and the union, and the notice would relate to both the union and the
company.
Senator Mundt. I am talking about the public assurance of good
faith and protecting the dignity of free choice of the clerk. These
notices that were published around the store saying "You are a free
citizen, you can vote by registered mail, you can go out if you want
to, and if you go out you will not be intimidated or coerced." By
whom ? By the company, the union, or by both ?
Mr. Douds. Well, the notice would indicate they would not be
coerced by either the company or the union.
Senator Mundt. It said both ?
Mr. DouDS. Both, yes.
Senator Mundt. So that if both parties acted in good faith, the
employee, then, did have a freedom of choice if he relied on the
pledge given him by the company and by the union ?
Mr. Dot:t)S. That is correct.
]Mr. Kennedy. You say that there were quite a number of com-
plaints from 128. What did you find on investigation of these com-
plaints?
Mr. Douds. Well, we
Mr. Kennedy. I see in your statement you say :
They also allege that nine of these employees were also discharged illegally
by A. & P. On investigation 8 of these 9 cases were found to be without merit
and were dismissed.
Mr. DouDs. That is true, but there were other cases in addition to
that, and we did not confine our investigation simply to the employees
who filed charges. The fact that this was going on disturbed us a
freat deal and we pushed our investigation to try to find out what
appened to as many of these employees as possible.
Mr. Kennedy. Will you tell us a little bit of what you found out ?
Mr. DouDS. We felt we had an obligation to protect these people,
since they were relying on an NLRB notice posted in the store. Well,
we ran into a considerable amount of difficulty in making this in-
vestigation, because by this time the company was giving us less and
less cooperation.
Field Examiner Geller conducted this investigation, and he was
finally able to get ahold of the names of 33 of these 128 employees,
which he investigated.
He discovered that of the 33, 29 had been talked to by either man-
agement, union or both, and pressured to get back into the union,
and in 16 of those cases there was really what you would characterize
11300 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
as coercion exercised on tliese employees. That is approximately half
of them.
Mr. Kennedy. By this time, the experience that you had had with
the A. & P. Co. and with the Meat Cutters was just a shocking situa-
tion ; was it not ?
Mr. DouDs. Yes; it certainly was. It is very miusual for our no-
tices not to be complied wdth strictly. These notices, in my opinion,
were, as Senator Mmidt has brought out, these notices were assurances
to the employees that they could stay out of the union, at least for
the length of period of this contract, and that they would not be
bothered about either paying dues or joining the union.
Mr. Kennedy. And you found in your investigation that they
had in fact been bothered to the point of coercion ?
Mr. DouDs. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you draw this to the attention of the company ?
Mr. DouDS. Yes. We had a number of conferences with the com-
pany concerning this matter, and I have excerpts from affidavits re-
lating to this matter.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you give us some of those ?
Mr. Douds. I will be glad to.
Senator Mundt. Could you give us a breakdown as you start? I
think this would be significant. You say of the 33, 16 had been mider
some kind of coercion.
Mr. Douds. That is correct.
Senator Mundt. And you used the phrase "from the company or the
union or both" ?
Mr. Douds. Yes.
Senator Mundt. Could you break the 16 down as to how many were
coerced by both, how many by the company, and how many by the
union ?
Mr. Douds. Well, by an analysis of all the affidavits, we could give
you that information. I don't have it right here. Senator ISImidt.
Senator Mundt. I think it would be pertinent, Mr. Chairman, if
he could do that, and submit it to the record.
The Chairman. You may submit your breakdown of it, and it will
go into the record at this point as part of your testimony.
Mr. Douds. Fine.
(The docmnent referred to follows :)
Thirty-three employees were interviewed of whom twenty-nine individuals
gave affidavits indicating coercive conduct.
Of this total there were 24 instances of coercive conduct by company super-
visors or managers and 5 instances of such conduct by union officials. In addi-
tion, there were 3 instances where a course of conduct occurred by both man-
agement and union officials at the same time.
Mr. Douds. First I will refer to a female employee of a store in
Brooklyn. She says:
I was worlving at an A. & P. store No. 472 in Astoria, about November 195.3.
At that time, I was an unwilling member of Local 342 of the Moat Cutters
Union. Since I then had tlie right to get out of the xuiion. I wrote letters to
the company and local 342 saying that I didn't want to belong any more. I
have not rejoined since or paid them any dues. About the end of 1952, the
company transferred me to a store on 42d Avenue. The manager. Mr. Mc-
Kenna, then spoke to me shortly after I came to his store about joining 342.
He asked me what I was going to do about the union.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 11301
This is after the posting, you understand. This is dated August 3,
1954, this affidavit:
I told him I would join the union when the new contract was signed if I
had to. He then asked me about my initiation fee. I told him I would pay
a dollar a week if it was $50. He then asked me what I would do if it was
$100. I told him I would do the same, then he said "Suppose it was $500
or $1,000." I told him I would see. He was trying to scare me into joining
right away. I asked him later and he told me that his supervisor, Mr. Scan-
Ion, asked him to speak to me. I am the head cashier and also help out in
the store when necessary.
Here is another, an employee in a store in Astoria, Long Island.
I have been employed by A. & P. Co. for more than 13 years. About April
3, 1954, 3 p. m., or at least before I went to supper, in the bookkeei>er's booth,
Thompson, the area supervisor, spoke to me. He said he wanted to talk to
me about the union. He said, "If you were still on Northern Boulevard, would
you still have signed that letter?"
That is a store.
I said, "I don't know, Mr. Thompson, I might have. But I have been in other
stores since then." I said, "Travel broadens people. Maybe I learned some-
thing." He told me, "If 342 won an election, they could charge you as much
as $50 to rejoin. Do you have that kind of money?" I said, "What I owe them
now and what I will owe them until they charge $50, I will have that much
saved." He said, "If it should work out that way 342 will win it and you
are taken back in the union, you will lose your seniority and go to the bottom
of the list. In the event of a layoff, it is the ones on the bottom who get laid
off first." He said that is the chance I will have to take. I said, "I did what
I did in signing that letter because I thought it was right."
That is the letter resigning.
"And I don't care to change my mind now." He said, "Well, don't you think
your job is worth a dollar a week to you?" I told him, "No, for the reason
I don't like where the dollar is going."
Here is a short one. The emplo3'ee saj's that it was said to him :
It would be better for me to send a letter saying I wanted to be represented
by local 342 ; that probably if I didn't write that letter, the company or the union
might get after me and I might lose my job or my pension.
There is much more along the same line.
The Chairman. The representatives of the company have suggested
that the Chair ask you two questions. I will propound the questions
to you at the request of the company unless there is objection on tlie
part of any member of the committee. I see nothing wrong with
them. Thev cculd go to clarify it.
Question "Xo. 1. Isn't it true that Mr. Bott, the XLRE General
Counsel, would not liave approved the 1953 settlement if, in his opin-
ion, the settlement did not remedy all of the allegations of unfair
labdi- prncrices contained in tlie com)>laint?
]Mr. DouDS. There is no doubt in my mind but that Mr. Bott, or
w])oever in his office overruled my memorandum to Washington, of
the opinion that that settlement was proper. But, you see, the parties
had gotten together and agreed on the settlement. Quite ofen, when
that happens, we accept a settlement.
But I was thinking more in terms of being out on the ground,
nearer to the grassroots, and naturally we in the office were tliinking
in terms of the welfare of tlie individual employee. That is the reason
we took the position.
The Chairman. And subsequent events have proven you were right
and Mr. Bott was wronsf?
11302 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. DouDs. Yes ; of course, that is a Monday-morning-quarterback
position.
The Chairmax. I know it is Monday morning, but the question was
asked. He may have been sincere in challenging it. But certainly
subsequent events have proved that your judgment was best in this
instance.
Mr. DouDS. Yes.
The CiiAiRMAX. You can be modest if you want to. I will make
the statement.
Mr. DouDS. As you have indicated, it is a matter of judgment on
which men of equal integrity could disagree.
The Chairman. The next question : Did not the escape clause mean
that any employee could, if he so notified the company and the union,
continue as an A. & P. employee without paying dues to tlie union ?
Mr. DouDS. In my opinion, that is exactly what it meant ; that he
did not have to pay dues to the union or be a member of the union
from that point on.
The Chairman. Was there anything in that escape clause to pro-
cect him from retaliation or reprisal ?
Mr. DouDS. Yes. As a part of the settlement. In these notices that
were posted, the employees were informed that they would not be re-
strained and coerced.
The Chairman. But you do find, later, they were coerced ?
Mr. DouDS. That is correct.
The Chairman. And reprisals against them by transferring them
to inconvenient places of work or other places of work that were incon-
vient to them, and so forth ?
Mr. DouDS. They were transferred, and there were others in addi-
tion to those that I mentioned in my statement, as I recall, who were
discharged and who were later taken back.
The Chairman. But they were taken back only after a complamt
was filed ?
Mr. DouDS. Yes ; after a charge was filed.
The Chairman. After remedial action was taken against the com-
pany or the union ?
Mr. DouDS. That is right.
The Chairman. Here is another one that has been submitted, also
from the company's representatives. Did your office have subpena
powers enabling it to speak to any A. & P. employee at will ?
Mr. DouDS. Yes; we did have subpena powers, although I don't
think that we would exercise the power of subpena in order to subpena
a company representative to defend the company's position.
The Chairman. In other words, if they wanted to defend their
position against the charges against them and the findings of your
board, it was their place to volunteer to come ?
Mr. DouDs. We felt they should come forward.
The Chairman. In other words, they had every right to appear ?
Mr. DouDS. Absolutely. As a matter of fact, we urged them.
The Chairman. You not only urged them, but you would have
welcomed them ?
Mr. DouDS. We certainly would.
The Chairman. It was their reluctance that they did not come ?
Mr. DouDS. That is correct.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11303
The Chairman, Or their decision not to come, when they had the
opportunity. Well, we sometimes do that here in this committee,
where we have the power of subpena, yes, but, where we have derog-
atory information against someone, we give them a chance, give them
a choice.
If they want to come in and explain it away, O. K. Otherwise, we
may conclude that the charges or the testimony we have against them
is true. When we subpena them, we have to put the Government to
expense. If they don't care to defend themselves to correct the record
if it is in error, there is no reason to put the Government to the expense
of doing it.
Mr. DouDS. That was our feeling.
The Chairman. Sir ?
Mr. DouDS. That was our feeling in the matter.
The Chairman. lean appreciate that.
Senator Ervin. I believe there is a rule of evidence to that effect,
that, if a man does not speak when he has an opportunity to speak, his
silence is tantamount to an admission as to the truth of the charge.
The Chairman. The Chair will make this observation. I have a
little engagement during the lunch hour that I must keep. I doubt
if we can get through with this witness if we go on another 10 or 15
minutes. I believe that other questions will be asked.
Senator Curtis. I have one question, Mr. Chairman. I cannot be
here this afternoon. I will limit it to one question.
The Chairman. Very well.
Senator Curtis. In your opinion, what was the economic incentive
for A. & P. to have such a close and favored working relation with
this one Meat Cutters Union, as against the other unions?
Mr. DouDS. Well, Senator, I would not like to venture an opinion
in that area. I think that, by your processes here, you can get that
information. But it is not directly available to me.
Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Very well. The committee will stand in recess
until 2 o'clock.
(T\niereupon, at 12 : 03 p. m., a recess was taken until 2 p. m. of the
same day. At this point, the following members were present: Sena-
tors McClellan, Ervin, Mundt, and Curtis.)
afternoon session
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
(Members of the committee present at the convening of the session
were : Senators McClellan and Church. )
The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy.
TESTIMONY OF CHARLES T. DOUDS— Eesiimed
Mr. Kennedy. We were talking about these 128 individuals. After
they sent these letters into the company and the union, and you had
these complaints from them that some of them had been mistreated,
then did you meet with the union to try to work this matter out ? Not
with the union, but did joii have meetings with the company to try to
work this matter out ?
11304 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. DouDS. No. Well, these cases were assigned to staff members
who investigated and carried on — completed their investigation.
However, at the same time, there was a demand for an overall election
that had been filed, and there was a question as to whether we would
proceed on these or go to an election.
Mr. Kennedy. Did the company, after these individuals sent let-
ters in stating that they wished to cease paying their dues to the union,
take active steps to try to get them to enroll back into the union ?
Mr. DouDS. Yes. The excerpts from affidavits that I read this
morning, I think, mentioned it.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they, also, in addition to that, write the enve-
lopes out for them ?
Mr. DouDS. Yes.
(At this point, Senator Ervin entered tlie hearing room.)
Mr. DouDS. There were envelopes addressed to the company and
the union available in the stores, the evidence shows, and form letters
were prepared to the company and the union, notifying them that
they were willing to renew their membership, which the employees
only had to sign and mail in.
Mr. Kennedy. They prepared the form whereby the individual
could come back in the union, and they prepared the envelopes to
send them in ?
Mr. DouDS. I assume they ])repared them. Our evidence indicates
that they were available in the stores.
Mr. Kennedy. This was to make it easy for the individuals who
had asked to withdraw from the union to get back in the union ?
Mr. DouDS. Yes; that is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, going along to another facet of this, there
were a number of employees in the Bronx unit that brought a de-
authorization or requested a deauthorization election; is that right?
Mr. Douds. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Was such an election held ?
Mr. Douds. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Over 900 of the employees in the Bronx unit that
requested this deauthorization election ?
Mr. DouDS. Yes ; I think that is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that a large number?
Mr. DouDS. Yes. I would say tliat is a very substantial number
to be signed to a petition.
Mr. Kennedy. Did the company cooperate with the employees who
were attempting to get rid of the union at that time ?
Mr. DouDS. No ; I would say they didn't.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you find, in your investigation that they made
it more difficult for them to vote?
Mr. Douds. Well, only in this sense: The com])any objected to
holding the election in the stores. Tliey objected to having voting
in the .stores, which we had done on some occasions ])reviously. I
would not want to draw any conclusions from that, Mr. Kennedy.
That just liappensto be the facts.
Mr. Kennedy. This was, once again, a dill'erent attitude than they
had taken before, was it not?
Mr. Douds. Yes. Previously, we had roving ballot boxes that
went from store to store, where booths were set up in the stores, and
the peo])le voted in the stores. But, in this election, except for a
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11305
few stores in nortliern Westchester County, we had central polling
places, and the employees went from the stores to the central polling
places in order to vote.
Mr. Kennedy. In this kind of election, eveiyone that does not vote
is a vote for the union ?
Mr. DouDS. Yes. You can interpret it that way, although there
were 172, I think, employees who voted and went to vote and voted
against.
Mr. Kennedy. I am just talking about the facts. The facts are
that everybody that does not vote is a vote for the union.
Mr. DouDS. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. And the second fact is that they made it more diffi-
cult for the employees to vote in this election, at least, compared to
other elections.
Mr. DouDs. I think that is a fair conclusion.
The Chairman. At least, up to the time that more than 50 percent
voted for decertihcation or deauthorization, whatever it is, up until
that time, certainly, an absentee is, in effect, a vote for the union.
Mr. DouDS. Well, my only objection to that conclusion is this : that
a man might go to vote and yet vote against the proposition, you see
Senator.
The Chairman. He might. But, since he didn't, the effect of it
is that it is counted for the union.
Mr. DouDs. The effect is that it prevents
The Chairman. The practical effect is up until you reach more
than 50 percent.
Mr. DouDS. Yes ; it helps prevent getting a majority to deauthorize
the union-shop provision.
The Chairman. That is right. So until those wanting deauthori-
zation get a majority, the one who stays away from the polls in effect
is casting his vote, though he may not intend it so, though he may if
he got there vote the other way, the effect of it is that he is casting
his vote by his absence. Tha is a kind of far-fetched term for it, but
by his absence he is aiding the company or the union that is in office
and has the bargaining contract.
Mr. DouDS. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have complaints about this election, also?
Mr, Douds. Yes, we had complaints about the eligibility list.
Mr. Kennedy. But they were not numerical enough to warrant
throwing the election out?
Mr. Douds, I think we found that there were 42 names on the list
of men who were, or employees who were not at that time, as a matter
of fact, eligible to vote. But this was not sufficient to affect the elec-
tion, even if all of those had been challenged. It would not have
affected the result of the election, so we didn't feel that any action
was required.
Mr. Kennedy. After that was finished there were some supporters
of local 4:74: fired. Did you make an investigation of that ?
Mr. Douds. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. "WHiat did you find on that ?
Mr. Douds. You refer to the men who were fired for nonpayment
of dues, Mr, Kennedy ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
11306 IMPROPER ACTR'ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. DouDS. We investigated that and we found that this was true.
That out of about 100 who had refused to pay dues that around 10
of the leaders had been discharged. This was handled by the com-
pany in an arbitration proceeding as I recall.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you find that the 10 individuals who were se-
lected were selected by the union to be fired ?
Mr. DouDS. Yes, The union requested that those 10 be discharged.
Mr. Kennedy. They were all supporters of the other imion?
Mr. DouDS. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And there was a settlement between at least 8 of
the 10 individuals and the company ?
Mr. DouDS. Yes. They were paid $500 each of back pay.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you able to establish who paid the money?
Mr. DouDS. No, I don't think at the time we had any knowledge
who paid the money. They withdrew their charges thereafter.
Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time, as you stated this mor-
ning, the company was still not cooperating with you in your efforts
to obtain the facts regarding all these matters ?
Mr. DouDS. Yes, particularly with respect to our investigation
of those of the 128 employees.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you have a memo there on a conference that
you had?
Mr. DouDS. Yes. I think you refer to the memorandum of August
18, 1954, of the conference with Mr. Gorman and Mr, Lichtenstein ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. DouDS. Would you like me to read it ?
Mr. Kennedy. I would like you to read the pertinent parts that
would help the committee.
Mr. DouDS. This was a memorandmn to the file on the A. & P.
case, 2-CA, 3759, of a conference in the office of the regional director
on August 17, 1954. The memorandum was drafted by Field Ex-
aminer" Geller. Those present at the conference were: For A. & P.,
Attorney Zorn, and Attorney Lichtenstein and Mr. French Eatcliffe,
industrial director for the eastern division.
For the National Labor Kelations Board, Douds, Mr. Jaffee, as-
sistant regional director; Attorney Cainard, Chief Field Examiner
Naumoff Kimmel; Field Examiners Weissman and Geller. I now
read from this memorandum —
The regional director advised the company representatives that prima facie
evidence uncovered in the investigation of some current A. & P. charges raised
serious questions as to the propriety of approving the consent agreement of the
company and two unions for an election.
Kimmel outlined in a general fashion the nature of the violations and in-
dicated that they might well constitute violations of an October 1953 settlement
agreement as well. The company attorneys were interested in knowing whether
the pattern reflected by the evidence presently available was 1 of isolated
instances or 1 that prevailed in all the company stores within the Brtxiklyu
union.
Kimmel indicated that the evidence to date indicated neither of the 2 but
was closer to an overall pattern than the 2 isolated instances. It was also
indicated that the escapees who numbered only 128 may not have l)eeu em-
ployed at all company stores and there was therefore no likelihood that the
pattern would extend to all stores.
Zorn stated that "there was something funny" about the handling of "this
whole A. & P. situation," and stated that the company had never got even
fair treatment from the Board and that some Board personnel seemed to see
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11307
violations every time the name of the company was mentioned. He also stated
emphatically that the company would fight us on the instant charges and that
it would consider refusing to make employees available to us for interview
on company time.
The regional director than advised Southern that the company received the
same treatment from us as did any other party, except for the fact that because
of the size and impact of the cases it may have received some priority handling
insofar as the rest of our workload permitted.
Then there are two iinrehited paragraphs, and then continuing:
There followed some dis^cussion as to the strength of the evidence before us
and the regional director indicated that projecting the evidence to the entire
group of 128 escapees would mean that at least 100 of them had been pressured
into surrendering their rights under the act and under the settlement agree-
ment. The company attorneys than stated that even if the company representa-
tives denied the allegations presently before us we would undoubtedly send
the cases to hearing anyhow and that they therefore saw no point in cooperating
further in the investigation.
Thereupon I asked whether this means — Mr. Geller — that the company
would not permit an interview of any of its employees on comi)any time or
property or of any of its managers or supervisors and Southern said that was
the company's position. Kimmel asked whether the company would make avail-
able a list of the 128 escapes but the company said it would not do so. There
followed some discussion about a possible remedy in which the company asked
us to propose a remedy and prefaced it by saying that it under no circumstances
would participate in any action using at this strategic time one union to the
detriment of the other.
The company asked whether we had fully considered the willingness of the
parties to proceed with the election and the regional director stated that we
had not as yet made any firm decision on our course of action and were planning
to meet immediately after this meeting with local 115 to obtain their position.
That is all.
Mr. Kennedy. What comment do you have on that memo?
Mr. DouDS. I think, Mr. Kennedy, I would rather let the memo
speak for itself.
(At this point, the following members were present : Senators Mc-
Clellan, Church, Ervin.)
Mr. Kennedy. Is there any indication in the statement of Mr. Zorn
that there was a feeling against the National Labor Relations Board ?
Mr. DouDs. No; I don't think there was any feeling. That is the
reason I said before we wanted to interview the supervisors to get
their version of the stories we were receiving through the employees.
Mr. Kennedy. What about the company ? Did they cooperate after
that time ? Did they make these people who had first-hand information
and knowledge on these cases available to the National Labor Relations
Board ?
Mr. Douds. No ; they did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you find there was a complete lack of cooperation
on the part of the company ?
Mr. DouDs. Yes. From this time on, as I recall, we had no coop-
eration in this investigation.
Mr. Kennedy. Subsequently, on the agreement of the union officials
involved and the company, there was an election; is that right?
Mr. Douds. That is right.
]\Ir. Kennedy. And that election was an overall election which was
won b}^ the Meat Cutters locals over local 1500 ?
Mr. Douds. Yes ; that is correct.
]\lr. Kennedy. And subsequently there was an unfair labor practice
charge in that election and a new election was held ?
11308 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. DouDs. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. And the Meat Cutters
Mr. DouDS. Excuse me. It is more correct to say that objections were
filed to that election.
Mr. Kennedy. And which were sustained. There was a new election
and the Meat Cutters won that election ?
Mr. DouDs. Yes ; that is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that the close of the case as far as you were
concerned ?
Mr. DouDS. Yes ; that winds it up.
Mr. Kennedy. You had another report there in April of 1953,
another memo, which I think would be of some interest to us — April
28, 1953. It is a memo written at the time which indicates the feeling,
at least on the part of some of the officials in the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, as to what was occurring in the company and the union.
Mr. DouDS. You refer to the memo by Phillip Ross.
This is dated April 28, 1953. It is a memorandum from Phil Ross,
to Assistant Regional Director James Jaffee.
Mr. Kennedy. I think the pertinent part is possibly the last
paragraph.
Mr. DouDS. Would you like me to read that ?
Mr. Ivennedy. Would you ?
Mr. Douds (reading) :
Investigation has disclosed a conspiratorial pattern of company assistance
bordering on domination in all units. This pattern is all of a piece, and the
factual situation is almost identical. In all units, extensive evidence is in the
files indicating that a stipulation was executed between the company and the
Amalgamated in which recognition was to be accorded to the union on the basis
of a card check conducted by Mr. O'Grady. In each case, the procurement of
the cards was, by and large, obtained several days before the card check by
extraordinary efforts on the part of company supervisors, ranging from intro-
ducing an Amalgamated representative to employees on company time and prop-
erty, to threats of discharge in the event that the cards were not signed.
The design is so clear and the company implications so marked that no pos-
sible inference exists other than an agi-eement by top management and the
Amalgamated covering all the units involved. All the cases are complementary
insofar as the 8A2 is concerned, and the evidence demonstrates their common
and mutual interdependence.
Mr. Kennedys Would you read the first sentence of that again,
please ?
Mr. Douds (reading) :
Investigation has disclosed a conspiratorial pattern of company assistance
bordering on domination in all units.
Mr, Kennedy. Would you concur in the investigation that you
made? Would you concur in the finding that there was a conspira-
torial pattern of company assistance in this matter?
Mr. Douds. Well, I don't recall now exactly wliat Mr. Ross had in
mind when he used those words, though I know at tliat time I dis-
cussed the situation with him.
Mr. Kennedy. I take it from the rest of the paragraph it appears,
at least, to concern the Amalgamated JMeat Cutters being brought in.
Mr. Douds. Yes. As I was gohig to go on to say, what you liad in
the stores was cooperation between the Amalgamated organizers and
the supervisors and managers, and that was evidence we had at that
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11309
time, and I presume that's Avhat JNIr. Ross meant by conspiratorial
pattern.
Mr. Kennedy. "Would you concur in that finding?
Mr. DouDS. Yes, I Avould.
Mr. Kennedy. I have just one other question.
Mr. Reynolds in his statement that Avas submitted to the committee
made a point of the fact that the company was forced to sign this
contract with the Amalgamated Meat Cutters, or otherwise the Meat
Cutters would have struck their stores, and that they had no alterna-
tive but to sign tlie contract.
Would you make a comment on that ?
Mr. DoiTDs. Well^—
INIr. Kennedy. Setting aside the fact that they went out and assisted,
beyond that what could the company have done?
Mr. DouDS. So far as the Brooklyn unit was concerned, there was
an election in process and the comj^any could have filed petitions for an
election in the other units. New Jersey, the Bronx, and Garden City.
And if in the face of this petition in which the company would have
stated there was a question of representation, there would have then
been a question of representation in all units, and if the union had
struck in the face of that, I believe that the company would have been
justified in recjuesting the Board to petition the United States district
court for an injunction under section 10 (j) of the act.
I am inclined to think that the General Counsel and the Board
would have looked favorably upon such a request. You see, the
union had made a demand here for union shop contract. If at that
time the union were a minority union, the union would have been
forcing the company into a violation of the law if they had insisted
that they sign a union-shop contract under those conditions.
There is one other thing that I would like to say and that is that
the company representatives could have come to our office and sat
down with us and discussed these problems, and we would have been
willing, of course, to extend every possible aid to them in working out
a program to meet the situation in which they then found themselves.
Mr. Kennedy, To the contrary, however, this whole contract and
the discussions that preceded the contract were all done in absolute
secrecy ?
Mr. DouDS. Yes. We knew notliing about the contract until much
later.
Mr. Kennedy. The second point, of course, is that you found on your
investigation that the employees had been coerced into signing these
cards and joining the union, even before the contract had been signed
on October 11.
Mr. DouDS. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. So those two points changed the situation anyway, is
that correct ?
Mr. DouDS. Yes.
Senator Church. TVTio was Mr. O'Grady ?
Mr. DouDS. ]Mr. O'Grady is a prominent attorney in New York City.
He is now, I believe, a member of the transit commission of New York
City, which controls the New York City transportation system.
Senator Chfrch. At that time was lie in private practice ?
Mr. DouDS. Yes.
11310 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. DouDS. I beg your pardon, Senator. At that time he was head
of the labor relations division of the city of New York government.
He was in private practice, as I understand.
Senator Church. And he was retained or he was asked by the com-
pany to make the card check ?
Mr, DouDS. By the company and the Meat Cutters Union, agreeing
on him to make the card check.
Senator Church. And that card check merely consisted of going
down through the cards and comparing the card signatures that were
to be found there with the list of the employees taken from the payroll ;
is that correct ?
Mr. DouDS. I think that is correct.
Mr. Kexxedy. Is it correct that Mr. O'Grady was working for the
city at that time ?
Mr. DouDS. I am not exactly certain. There seems to be a differ-
ence of opinion here on that point, it may have been that he was a
private practitioner at that point.
The Chairman. Is there anything further ?
If not, thank you very much, Mr. Douds.
Mr. DouDS. Thank you, Senator.
Tliere is one point I would like to clarify, and that is about the
subpena.
Mr. Kennedy. The subpenas were served for ]Mr. Douds.
The Chairman. All right. You appeared under subpena. Thank
you very much. You may be recalled.
Mr. DouDS. Thank you.
Tlie Chairman. Call the next witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Charles A. Schimmat.
The Chairman. You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give
before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Schimmat. I do.
TESTIMONY OF CHARLES A. SCHIMMAT, ACCOMPANIED BY
JEROME DOYLE, COUNSEL
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your
business or occupation.
Mr. Schimmat. My name is Charles A. Schimmat. I live at 2
Tudor City, New York City. I work for the Great Atlantic & Pacific
Tea Co. My title is the national director of warehousing.
The Chairman. You have counsel present, have you, Mr. Schimmat ?
Mr. Schimmat. Yes, I have, sir.
The Chairman. Counsel, please identify yourself for the record.
Mr. Doyle. Jerome Doyle, a member of the bar of New York and
the District of Columbia. My office address is 63 Wall Street, New
York,N.Y.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Proceed, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Plow long have you been with the A. & P. ?
Mr. Schimmat. 37 years.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any other responsibilities other than
control of the warehouses ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11311
Mr. ScHiMMAT. Yes ; I do.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you give us a little bit about that, briefly ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. In the industrial leasing, the engineering, standard-
ization of stores, and labor, advisory on labor.
Mr. Kennedy. What are your responsibilities, specifically, on labor ?
Is that on a national scale ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. Yes, it is on a national scale.
Mr. Kennedy. You are sort of an adviser ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. If they were in trouble they would call and ask me
for advice, and if there was a big crisis, I would go out and handle
the matter or try to.
Mr. Ivennedy. Each division or section has their own labor adviser?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. Yes; we have seven divisions and in each division
there is a divisional labor man and in each unit there is also a man
who handled the labor locally.
Mr. Kennedy. You are just called in when there is a major problem
when they need advice on sort of a national level, is that right?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. Yes.
(At this point, the following members of the committee were pres-
ent : Senators McClellan, Ervin, and Church.)
Mr. Kennedy. In 1952, did you receive a letter from the secretary-
treasurer of the Butchers and Meat Cutters, specifically a letter written
July 25, 1952 ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. Is that the same letter I was shown by Mr. May ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. ScHiMMAT. May I see it, please ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
The Chairman. I hand you what purports to be a copy of the letter
to which counsel has referred, and ask you to examine it and state
if you identify it.
(A document was handed to the witness. )
Mr. ScHiMMAT. Yes. I have seen this letter.
The Chairman. Do you wish to read it into the record, Mr. Counsel ?
Mr, Kennedy. Just an excerpt.
The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 4.
Mr. Kennedy. I will read it into the record.
The Chairman. Without being made an exliibit it may be read into
the record.
Mr. May. The letter is dated July 25, 1952.
Mr. Charles A. Schimmat : There is a matter which we consider of great im-
portance as affects our organization and the A. & P. Co. which we would like to
personally discuss with you.
We will not bring a large committee and we do not feel that our meeting
will take too much of our time. There are some things we have in mind which
we feel will be very advantageous to the A. & P. as well as to our organization.
It is worth talking over, I assure you.
In all probability our committee will not be larger than four including the
undersigned.
You will let me know if you are in agreement to meet with us and we can
then set a definite date for the conference as indicated herein.
With personal good wishes, I am very sincerely, secretary-treasuri>r.
The Chairman. Who is the secretary-treasurer who wrote the letter ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. Mr. Gorman, Patrick Gorman.
21243— 58— pt. 29 9
11312 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. He was secretary-treasurer of the international
union ; is that right ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you tlien make phms to meet with Mr. Gorman?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. My records show that I liad hmch with Mr. Gorman
and two other gentlemen on the 15t]i of August, if my memory serves
me correctly.
Mr. Kennedy. At that time did he tell you what he had in mind
which "we feel will be very advantageous to the A. & P. i\s well as
to our organization"?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. He wrote the letter about the advantages to the
tea company. My recollection is this: He advised me that he was
supporting Mr. Block, he and his international, to organize the groc-
ery clerks of the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Go., eastern division.
He was seeking my support.
Let me just elaborate on that a moment, ]ilease. Over the last 20
years labor men have contacted me for my support to organiz? people
in the tea company. 1 have had one answer constantly, "If you go
out and organize the people and you are elected their bargaining
agent, we will sign a contract with you,'* and that is the same reply
I gave Mr. Gorman and the other two gentlemen at that time.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you at that time what would be very
advantageous to you ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. No, sir, he did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he mention at all about
Mr. ScHiMMAT. He mentioned nothing at all about anything.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he mention at all at that time that it might be
possible to get you a 5-year contract ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. No, sir, he did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you aware at that time that the Butchers were
attempting to organize the stores ? Were you aware of it ?
Mr. ScHiaiMAT. Yes, I was aware of it.
Mr. Kennedy. How long had you been aware of it, just since the
letter of July 2a'?
Mr. ScniMMAT. Just let me put it this way, Mr. Kennedy. At all
times the Meat Gutters were active in our stores.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you aware that they were particularly active?
Mr. SciiiMMAT. No, sir; not at that particular time; no.
Mr. Kennedy. Then you met with him on August 15, as I under-
stand your recoi'ds shoAv, and on August 18 you met with Max Block;
is that right ?
Mr. SciiiivrMAT. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. What did you discnss with Max Block? Did you
discuss with him a 5-year contract?
Mr. SciiiMMAT. To the best of my recollection, this meeting with
Max Block was a followup on the meeting I had with the inter-
national.
Mr. Kennedy. If you told Mr. Gorman that if they were going to
oi-ganize they should go out and oriranize, wliv did vou then meet
with Max Block ;} (lays later?
Mr. S(Mii^[MAT. He asked for a meeting to talk with me.
Mr. Kennedy. You had already given them your answer?
Mr. S(MiiMAT'r. That is i-ight. Let me explain this, Mr. Kennedy.
My company had contiacts with Mr. Block's three union.s, and it is
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11313
my business to sit down and always talk with any labor leader who
Avoultl like to talk with me.
Mr. Kexnkdy. He didn't mention anything about a 5-year contract?
Mr. SciriMMAT. No, sir ; he did not.
^Ir. Kkxxedy. Then 1 think your vouchers show you meet on
August 29, September 9, September 15, and September 26 with Mr.
Block or other officials of the Butchers. Did you discuss during
those meetings tlie possibility of tlie Butchers giving tlie A. c^ P. a
5-year contract?
]Mr. SciiiMMAT. Xo, sir; 1 did not.
Mr. KEXNEuy. There was not any discussion at that time or during
those meetings of the fact that they might make it possible, Mr. Block
and the other officials of the Meat Cutters, to give the A. & P. a 5-year
contract ^
Ml". Sciii.M^rAT. Xo, sir.
Mr. Kexxedy. AVas there any discussion during those meetings of
a 45-hour week over a period of time?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. Xo, sir.
]\Ir. Kexxedy. Xone at all ^
Mr. SciiiMMAT. Xo, sir.
]Mr. Kexx^edy. Did you discuss the terms of the contract at all?
Mr. SciiiMMAT. Xo, sir.
Mr. Kexxedy. What were you having all these meetings about?
What were you discussing August 29, September 9, and Septembe»"
15?
Mr. Sc'iiiJiMAT. I was listening.
Mr. Kexxedy. And you didn't say anything?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. Yes. If I ever got a word in edgewise. The gist
of all these meetings I had were always about one thing, seeking our
assistance to organize the people in the eastern division.
Mr. Kexxedy. What were they saying to you in order to obtain
the assistance when they were doing the talking August 29, Septem-
ber 9, and these other times?
Mr. SrjiiiiJiAT. The best way I can answer that, Mr. Kennedy, is
this way : After going to a luncheon with Mr. l^lock for 2 houi-s it
is very difficult to know what he was talking about. He is a difficult
man to listen to.
Mr. Kexxedy. You would sav that was true of each one of these
days ?
Mr. SciiKAiMAT. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kexxedy. Xo talk at all during all this period of time about
getting a 5-year contract or a 45-hour week over a 5-year period of
time?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. Xo, sir.
Mr. Kexxedy. When did you first learn they were interested in
ottering a 5-year contract or would offer a 5-year contract?
Mr. SciiniMAT. Let me explain it this way: At the time that this
was going on, Mr. Ratclitfe
Mr. Kexxedy. Who is Mr. Ratclitfe?
Ml'. SriiniMAT. The lal)or relations man of the eastern division.
He was negotiating with Mr. Block for the Butchers' contract for
the. eastern division ; that is, the three Xew York units.
11314 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Doyle. Excuse me. I think it would clarify the record if it
was clear that at the time that we are discussing tliere already was
in existence a contract between the A. & P., eastern division, and
Block's butchers who were members of the Meat Cutters' Union as
distinguished from grocery clerks who later on were organized and
became members of the Meat Cutters' Union.
The contract that this witness is now referring to is the renewal of
a 2-year-old contract the A. & P. already had with Block's butchers.
Mr. Kennedy. Now to go back to my question, when did you first
learn about the fact that the Meat Cutters were willing to give the
A. & P. a 5-year contract?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. I never learned from the Butchers' officials that
they were willing to give a 45-hour contract. From the labor rela-
tions man of the eastern division, he led me to believe that he would
finally wind up a contract for the Butchers and his 3 units for 5
years he would be guaranteed 45 hours.
Mr. Kennedy. Let me understand that. You never discussed that
with the Amalgamated Meat Cutters' officials themselves ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. Because I did not negotiate the Meat Cutters'
contract.
Mr. Kennedy. I am sure you didn't negotiate it. I am not ques-
tioning that. I point out that you met during all this period of time
and you never had any discussion about this whatsoever ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. No, sir ; not about the Meat Cutters' contract ; no,
sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any discussion about the clerks'
contract ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You mean they never mentioned in these 2-hour
lunch periods you had the terms of the contract ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. Absolutely not.
Mr. Kennedy. I don't see how you can sit down and discuss the
terms of the contract and nobody ever mentioned it for four meetings
that you had.
Mr. SchimmXt. As I told you before, they didn't discuss any con-
tract. They came to seek my assistance to get the grocery clerks.
Mr. Kennedy. When they came to seek your assistance to get the
grocery clerks, they must have discussed what they were going to do
with the grocery clerks, what the contract was going to be.
Mr. ScHiMMAT. No, sir ; they did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Wliy you should assist them in getting the grocery
clerks — did they say you should help them get the grocery clerks?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. My experience with labor men is that they are
persistent until they organize your employees. This man is very
persistent.
Mr. Kennedy. Why did he say you should help and assist him in
getting the grocery clerks to sign ?
Mr. SciiiMMAT. I don't know. He made no proposition to me of
any kind.
Mr. Kennedy. He didn't mention anything to you at all ?
Mr. SciiiMMAT. No, sir ; he did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Ratcliffe tell you that the Butchers' Union
might be willing to give a 5-year contract and a 45-hour week ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11315
Mr, ScHiMMAT. Mr. Eatcliffe was negotiating three Butchers'
contracts.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you just answer the question. Did he indi-
cate to you ?
Mr. ScHiMniAT. I would like to explain it to you, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. O. K. Let me ask it again. Did he indicate to you
during this period of time that the Butchers would be willing to give
a 45-lijour week and a 5-year contract for your employees ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. Mr. Ratcliffe indicated to me while he was nego-
tiating the three Butchers' contracts, as he reported to me after every
meeting, that he was under the impression that when he finally wound
up the Butchers' contracts he would have a 5-year agreement for 45
hours, a Butchers' contract for butcliers.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Radcliffe ever have any discussions about
the clerks ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. The clerks first came in the picture from Mr, Rat-
cliffe when — let me see if I can put it correctly — Mr. Ratcliffe told me
one day that he was advised by Mr, Block that they were going to
demand the grocery clerks of the eastern division.
Mr. Kennedy. When was this ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. I would say in the latter part of September to the
best of my recollection.
Mr. Kennedy. That is the first time you heard they were going
to demand that?
jNIr. SciiiMMAT. Yes. That is the first time the demand was made,
and I heard that direct from Mr. Ratcliffe.
Mr. Ivennedy. "Wliat were you having the discussions about ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. The discussions were that he was seeking our as-
sistance to organize the grocery clerks.
Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you just say you learned that from
Mr. ScHiMJiAT. No ; he was seeking our assistance. We refused it
constantly. He had to go out and organize.
Mr. Kennedy. Why did he think that you would give your
assistance ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. He never indicated that to you ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. As I mentioned before, Mr. Kennedy, the labor men
are always out after organizing employees.
Mr. Kennedy. I am talking about this specific case. I don't want
to hear about your general relationships with labor men. I want to
hear about this particular case. What did he tell you as to why you
should want to assist him ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. He had no proposition to make of any kind. He
just wanted our assistance.
Mr. Kennedy. The first time that Mr. Ratcliffe — these were dis-
cussions you were holding with the Meat Cutters regarding the retail
clerks who were working in your stores, but Mr. Ratcliffe on the
other part was having discussions about the contract for the Butchers,
is that right ? He was not discussing the retail clerks up until the
end of September ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. The first time we ever negotiated for the grocery
clerks was on October 11, 1952, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. In answer to the question, did he ever have any dis-
cussions about what the terms — did he ever have any discussions about
11316 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
the fact that the retail clerks would be brought into the Butchers'
Union during this period up until the end of September ?
Mr. SciUMMAT. No. May I explain it this way: Mr. Block made
three attempts, and this I got directly from Mr. Katelitle. First he
suggested that we turn over the grocery clerks.
Mr. Kennedy. When was this?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. About the latter part of September. Then he de-
manded, and he was turned down.
Mr. Kennedy. When did he demand ?
Mr. SciiiMMAT. In that period. This is almost 6 years ago.
Mr. Kennedy. What was this, in October, then?
Mr. SciiiMMAT. No, some time in September. ]Maybe that first
statement I said the latter part of September might liave been the
middle of September, but some time in September this all developed,
Mr. Kennedy. At the end of September in these first meetings
when you were discussing this matter, did he indicate to Mr. Ratclitfe
that a 5-year contract and a 45-hour week would be a possibility?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. That Mr. Ratcliffe did not mention to me and I
don't think that was ever talked of. He did not recoguize
Mr. Kennedy. When did you first learn about that, Mr. Schimmat,
that tlie union was ottering a 5-year contract and a 45-hour week for
the clerks?
Mr. Schimmat. For the clerks ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Schimmat. I never heard that mentioned.
Mr. Kennedy. You never lieard that ?
Mr. Schimmat. No, sir ; not for the gi-ocery clerks.
Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask this: You never heard that tliey would
be willing to sign a contract for a 45-hour week and a 5-year contract ?
Mr. Schimmat. For what ?
Mr. Kennedy. For the employees of A. and P.
Mr. Schimmat. As I mentioned before, Mr. Kennedy, when ]Mr.
Ratcliffe was negotiating for the Butchers he was under the impres-
sion he would finally wind up the three contracts for the Butchers — -
let me make that clear now, for the Butchei*s — for 5 years, 45 hours,
with, of course, evei-y year to reopen tlie contract for wage negotia-
tions. He was under that impression until the last month. May I
step into that picture.
(At this point, the following members were present: Senators Mc-
Clellan, (^hurch, and Ervin.)
The CiiAiuMAN. ]\[r. Schimmat
Mr. Schimmat. After Mr. Block demanded the grocery clerks, he
got no res])onse from the Tea Co. Tliey turned him down. He then
throatene(i a strike.
The Chairman. May I ask you 1 or 2 questions here ?
Ml-. ScnuiMAT. Yes. sir.
The Chairman. This letter and your testimony is quite interest-
ing. You receive a letter from the secretary-treasurer, Mr. (lorman.
The letter is dated July 25, 1952, and lie starts out in the letter by
saying-
There is a niiitttn- which we consider of f^reat iinporlance as affects our organ-
ization and tlie A. & 1*. Ti-a Co.. wliich we wonhl lilie (o personally discnss with
you.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11317
Therefore, you luid meetings, iit least four, from August 29 to Sep-
tember 2(), in 4 weeks. I^et's follow along with them. lie then said
to you in the letter, and this is an inducement —
we will iKit bring a large conmiittee ;iiiil do not feel that our meeting will take
too nmch of your time.
Then he said —
Tliere are .some things we have in mind which we feel will be very advan-
tageous to the A. t& V. as well as to our organization. It is worth talking over,
I assure you.
Wliat tlid you liiul in those subsequent conversations, 1 each week,
the hour or -2 conferences, that they had in mind that woukl be of great
benefit to the A. c^ P.
Mr. ScHiMMAT. The only way 1 can answer this. Senator is this
way : AVhatever Mr. Gorman wrote was advantage to the Tea Co.
AA'hen he asked for my assistance to organize the grocery clerks, we
were not interested.
The C^HAiR:NrAN. What did they oifer you in these conversations
that confirmed, or that they thought would confirm, what they had
said to you in this letter, that it would be very advantageous to the
A.&P.?
The fact that you folks had resisted organization all the years was
known, I am sure. What was it they were going to ofi'er you there,
and what did they offer you, that they contended would be of some ad-
vantage or great advantage to the A. & P. ^
Mr. SciiiMMAT. They made no offer whatsoever.
The C^iiAimiAX. Do you mean you were brought into these conver-
sations, you sat and listened and they never did make any offer?
Mr. SciiiMMAT. That is right, sir.
The Chairman. Notwithstanding they had written assuring you it
was also of great advantage and worthwhile to talk it over, they never
mentioned anything at all ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. They made no offer whatsoever, sir.
The Chairman. They offered no inducement at all ^
Mr. ScHiMMAT. Xo, sir.
The Chairman. All they said was "Help us organize the A. & P.
clerks,'' that was all ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. This is with the international you are talking
about.
The Chairman. Didn't you get a little disgusted when they were
singing the same song over and over again ?
Mr. Doyle. I think the witness advised you that he only met with
the international who wrote that letter once. The other meetings he
had were with local officials in New York City,
The Chairm.vn. I am sure that's true, but it is the same union, is it
not?
Mr. Schimmat. Yes, sir ; affiliated.
The Chair:\ian, And were followups of your letter from Mr. Gor-
man ?
Mr. Schi:mmat. Yes.
The Chairman. All of this links together. You don't deny that.
When was it they said they wanted you to turn over the grocery
clerks ?
11318 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
You used that expression.
Mr. ScHiMMAT. I don't recall that.
The Chairman. You said it just a moment ago. I made a note of
it a moment ago when you said it and put it in the quotations.
Mr. ScHiMMAT. I don't remember saying that, Mr. Senator.
The Chairman. Well, I don't think I could be mistaken about it,
because you testified to it just a few moments ago, something about
turn over the grocery clerks. Did they ask you to turn over the grocery
clerks ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. They asked for our assistance in helping them or-
ganize the grocery clerks.
The Chairman. They didn't say they wanted you to turn over the
grocery clerks ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. No, sir.
The Chairman. I wondered how you were going to turn over some-
thing you did not have.
Mr. ScHiMMAT. You can't.
The Chairman. How could you turn them over ?
Mr. Schimmat. I don't know how to turn them over.
The Chairman. Do you know how they were turned over ?
Mr. Schimmat. No, sir, I don't.
The Chairman. You don't know about the card signing and the
efforts of the union officials to get them to sign the cards, or I mean
the company representatives to get them to sign the cards.
You claim you know nothing about it ?
Mr. Schimmat. 'No, sir. I don't work in the field, sir.
Senator Ervin. Let me ask a question. You got this letter from the
international secretary in which he said he wanted to talk to you
about something that would be of great advantage to the A. & P.
Tea Co. ?
Mr. Schimmat. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And you agreed to meet him ?
Mr. Schimmat. I did meet with him, sir.
Senator Ervin. He never mentioned anything to the advantage of
the Tea Co. and you did not have enough curiosity to even ask him
what he referred to in his letter that would be of advantage to the
A. & P. Tea Co.?
Mr. Schimmat. That is right.
Senator Ervin. All I have to say is if the cat had no more curiosity
than that, it would still be alive.
The Chairman. Proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. So the first time that there was any discussion ac-
tually about terms of contract for the clerks was the end of September,
on the part of the Meat Cutters ?
Mr. Schimmat. Would you mind repeating that, please?
Mr. Kennedy. The first time that there were discussions about the
contract or the clerks becoming members of the Meat Cutters was the
end of September of 1952, except the general discussions that they had
with you ?
Mr. Doyle. Excuse me, Mr. Kennedy. The reason the witness,
I think, asked you to repeat your question was the first question had
to do with the terms of the contract with the clerks. I think the
second question was a little bit different than the first one.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11319
]\Ir. Kennedy. You tell me. What happened at the end of Sep-
tember 1952 ? Wliat happened then ?
Mr, SciiiMMAT. In reference to what ?
Mr. Kennedy, As far as the clerks were concerned. Something
occurred. You were describing something that occurred in the
end
Mr. ScHiMMAT. Yes; I was describing the demands made by Mr.
Block on the eastern division.
Mr. Kennedy. At that time was there any discussion of the fact
that the Meat Cutters would be willing to give A. & P. a 45-hour week
and a 5-year contract for the clerks ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. There was no discussion with me.
Mr. Ivennedy. Did the other officials of the company report that to
you ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. Again I repeat the only discusion about a 5-year
contract and 45 hours I received from Eatcliffe and it referred to the
Butchers.
Mr. Kennedy. And no one else ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. The Butchers' contract. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. No one else ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. That is right.
Mr. Ivennedy. You were the one that was really participating
actively in the negotiations or discussions ; were you not ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. No, sir ; I was not.
Mr. Kennedy. You participated to the point of having 4 or 5 meet-
ings. If anybody would know, you would know,
Mr, ScHiMMAT, I said before, Mr. Kennedy, I was not negotiating
any contract,
Mr. Kennedy, I am not saying you were negotiating any contract.
Mr. ScHiMiiAT. I was not discussing any clerks' contract or any
Butchers' contract,
Mr. Kennedy. I am not saying even that you were discussing a
contract. But you were discussing the clerks' coming in the Butchers.
Mr. ScHiMMAT. I wasn't discussing the clerks' coming in the
Butchers.
Mr. Kennedy. They were discussing it with you.
Mr. ScHiMMAT. They were asking for the company's help to help
organize the clerks.
Mr. Kennedy. Then you were discussing the subject.
Mr. ScHiMMAT. They were discussing it.
Mr. Kennedy. You were sitting there, eating lunch, and I assume
you heard what they were saying. That is the point I am making.
All I am saying is that these discussions that you were sitting through
and evidently trying not to listen to, were held with you and you were
the individual.
Mr. ScHiMMAT. I was there.
Mr. Kj:nnedy. There was a memorandum within 10 days after you
had the first meeting with Mr. Gorman, dated August 25, to Mr.
Zorn — and Mr. Zorn was whom at that time ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. Pardon me ?
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Zorn held what position at that time ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. Mr. Zorn was retained by the company as legal
counsel, eastern division.
11320 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. And there was a Mr. Block who worked for him at
that time, no rehition to the Louis Block or Max Block ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. I can't testify to that.
Mr. Kennedy. Let me read you the first para<)^raph of a memo-
randum, and I point out the date to you, of August 25, 1952. This
is a legal memorandum and says —
Facts. There have been XLRB elections involving the Bronx and Brooklyn
Clerks within the past 12 mouths. No union has received a majority of votes
and consequently no certification has issued. There is a possibility that the
A. F. of L. Amalgamated Meat Cutters Union, hereafter called A. F. of L., which
was not a party to the above-mentioned elections,
and this is the important part,
may undertake an organizational campaign without company opposition. This
campaign may result in a strike threat, and a consequent recognition of the
union by the company on the basis of a card check. The fruition of the fore-
going events would be in the form of a,
and this I would like to point out again,
of a 5-year contract, with yearly wage reopening provisions.
At least this is a memorandum that was written 10 days after your
meeting with Mr. Gorman. Mr. Gorman got in touch witli you spe-
cifically. He wrote you this letter. This memorandum was written.
These are the facts that were evidently at issue or in question at that
time. Then after that you had these 3 or 4 meetings with the Meat
Cutters.
Do you still say that you knew nothing about the fact that the Meat
Cutters were offering a 5-year contract ^
Mr, ScHiMMAT. What is that memorandum^ I have never heard
of that memorandum. I have never seen it. AA'^hat is it i Who is
the author of it ?
Mr. Kennedy. I told you who the author was. It was Mr. Block,
who Avorked for Mr. Zorn, Mr. Lester Block who worked for Mr.
Zorn.
Mr. ScHiMMAT. I know nothing about that.
Mr. Kennedy. These are the Meat Cutters, the secretary-treas-
urer
Mr. Doyle. Mr. Kennedy, excuse me. I think in fairness to this
witness it should be indicated on the record that this is an internal
memorandum of a law firm in New York City. There is no indica-
tion that I have ever been able to find out, nor do I think your investi-
gators have, that any copy of this was ever sent to either this witness
or any other officials of the A. & P. I also would like to say at this
time, and I am sure you will agree with me, that the cooperation of
the Atlantic & l*acilic Tea Co. to your connnittee is certainly epito-
mized and crystallized by tiie fact that no court in the land would ever
force this company to reveal that memorandum inuler attoi-ney-client
privilege. But because we wanted to cooperate wholeheartedly, our
company waived its privilege and permitted you and your investiga-
tors to read the memorandum.
The only point I think in fairness to the witness is we all know
he never saw it before.
The Chairman. Did you ever see it ?
Mr. SciiiMMAT. No, sir ; 1 did not.
The Chairman. Did you pass that information on to the law lirm ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. No, sir.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11321
The Chairman. Did you liave conferences Avith the law Finn ahout
it?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. No, sir.
Tlie CiiAiiniAx. To whom did you report after you had your meet-
ing with Mr. Gorman in response to that letter ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. I reported to nobody, sir.
The Chairman. You reported to no one ?
Mr. SciiiMMAT. That is rio;ht.
The Chairman. To whom did you report after these other four
meetin«2:s, August 26, August 2!), Se])tember 16 and September 26^
Mr. ScHiMMAT. I re[)orted to no one.
The Chairman. Xo one knew what you were doing, none of your
supervisors^
^Ir. ScHi-^iMAT. There is nothing new about a request coming from
the union for our support to organize the unorganized?
The Chaholan. So you did not report that to your superiors?
Mr. ScHiMM AT. Xo, sir ; because that has been a steady diet with the
Tea Co. in this division, always seeking our help.
The Chairjian. This wasn't a continuous thing. This was unusual
for the Meat Cutters" Union to come in and want to organize your
clerks. That was new, wasn't it? They had not been on the ballot.
They had not participated in any previous
Mr. Schimmat. Xo; but they had been in in other sections of the
country for our assistance. "We turned them down on the same basis
we did liere.
The Chairman. As the attorney said, they have been very coopera-
tive. 1 announced that in tlie beginning of the liearings. I com-
mended Mr. Reynolds, I believe it was, who testified first. But this
information has been developed here. Do you have anyone in your
company that knows about this memorandum that can explain it?
AVe will be very glad to hear them, how they got the information upon
which, to premise the memorandum.
Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, I think solely because of the change
v\hich happens every day in the week, a change in the order of the
witnesses, I believe your counsel would have put the witness that works
for the company, Mr. Ratclifl'e, on the stand ahead of Mr. Schimmat,
and it is Mr. Ratclilfe who, as the labor relations adviser or man in
charge of labor relations for the company, who was told by Mr. Block
what Mr. Block wanted, who then, in behalf of the company, went to
outside counsel and outlined to outside counsel what the union was
up to.
On the basis of the hypothetical set of facts that Mr. Ratcliffe gave
to Mr. Zorn, ]Mr. Zorn in turn called in one of his young lawyers and
said "This is what might happen. Would you please look up the law
and see what the legal consequences are?"
Mr. Ratcliffe is here. I think your committee will have ample op-
portunity to examine him in full. We have made him availaljle to the
investigators of your conmiittee on several occasions. We will be
liappy to have him come down any time you want him, ]Mr. Chair-
man.
The Chairman. All right. Since you have raised the question
about the information in the memorandum, I wanted you to know-
that the connnittee would be more than willing to be fair to you to
11322 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
permit an explanation of how that information was developed and
what was done about it, and what the source of it was.
Mr, Doyle. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we have no choice in
the order of witnesses that your committee calls.
The Chairman. I am sure we don't always put them on in the best
order.
I have seen many smart lawyers try lawsuits and make some errors.
Mr. Kennedy. There is no implication here, is there, Mr. Chair-
man?
The Chairman. Proceed.
Mr. Doyle. I am sure your counsel is a lot smarter than the counsel
sitting hers alongside Mr. Schimmat, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, I don't want to get into an argument with you.
The Chairman. Proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. You state, therefore, you had no information what-
soever of the possible terms of contracts that the Meat Cutters were
going to offer to the A. & P. Co. regarding the clerks ?
Mr. Schimmat. That is ri^ht.
(At this point, the following members of the committee were pres-
ent : Senators McClellan, Church, and Ervin.)
Mr. I^JENNEDY. One of the meetings, as I understand, took place on
September 2, 1952, that you had with the representatives of the Meat
Cutters.
I draw your attention to a conference that you had, according to
your records, which indicates a meeting of Schimmat and Ratcliffe,
in regard to a problem in respect to Meat Cutters :
Union's demands for organizational contract for all New York A. & P. em-
ployees, including clerks, including questions of possible contract terms and pro-
visions with respect to possible recognition and possible subsequent NLRB
proceedings.
Mr. Doyle. Mr. Kennedy, am I correct in understanding that is an
entry in the log of Mr. Zorn ?
Mr. Kennedy. That is correct.
Mr. Doyle. This would indicate a meeting by Mr. Schimmat, Mr.
Ratcliffe, and Mr. Zorn ?
Mr. Kennedy. That is correct.
Mr. Doyle. This is a minute or an item from Mr. Zorn what we call
timesheet ?
Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. Do you remember having any dis-
cussions with Mr. Zorn ?
Mr. Schimmati\ No, sir, I don't.
Mr. Kennedy. If all these things were going on and you were the
representative for labor relations tor the national A. & F. they were
not kee|^3ing you advised evidently, is that right?
Mr. S( himmat. Of what.
Mr. Kennedy. Of what was going on.
Mr. Schimmat. They were keeping me advised of the contract nego-
tiations for the Butchers, yes.
Mr. Kennedy. But as far as the clerks, they were not telling you
what the conditions were in the situation.
Mr. Schimmat. As I mentioned before, in September the request
was made for the grocerv clerks to Mr. Ratcliffe and then a demand
was made on Mr. Ratcliffe and then the threat of a strike.
«
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11323
Mr. Kennedy. According to the records here it would indicate that
those discussions regarding the terms of the contract and these other
matters on the clerks came up a good deal of time before that, maybe
5 or 6 weeks before that. You were not advised about it i
Mr. ScHiMMAT. No, sir, I was not.
Mr. IvENNEDY. You didn't know anything about it ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. Not any discussions on any grocery clerks, no.
Mr. Kennedy. When did you first learn that the union would be
willing^to give a 5-year contract to the Clerks ?
Mr.BcHiMMAT. Well, that goes — after it
Mr. Kennedy. That is not too tough.
Mr. ScHiiviMAT. I have to put it this way: On October 11 I nego-
tiated a grocery clerks' contract after the caid count. It was for 22
months.
Mr. Kennedy. That was October 11 ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. October 11.
Mr. Ivennedy. That was after the day after the card count was
finished ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. Yes.
Mr. Ivennedy. The card count was finished October 10 and you came
to negotiate the Grocery Clerks' contract on October 11?
Mr. ScHiMMATT. I was asked to come in and help and I did nego-
tiate.
Mr. Kennedy. When did you hear there was to be a card count ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. About the 7th or 8th of Octoljer wlien I was on my
vacation.
Mr. Kennedy. You made a reservation to come back from your
vacation ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. That is right.
Mr. I^NNEDY. On October 7 ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. On October 11.
Mr. Kennedy. You made a reservation initially on October 7?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. I made a reservation on October 7 and flew back
on the 11th. I made the reservation on the 7th for the 11th.
Mr. Kennedy. Had you known at the time you made the reserva-
tion that there would be a card count?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. It was not assured then that they would agree to a
card count.
Mr. Kennedy. You had some information that they would?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. In any conversation witli the officers they thought
they possibly would agree to it.
Mr. Kennedy. Now we are up to October 11 ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You say you were conducting the negotiations on
the contract. Was it then that you learned that the butchers would
give you a 5-year contract?
Ml'. ScHiMMAT. On October 11 I leai-ned that we were not even
going to get a 5-year contract on the butchers. It developed when we
finished negotiating the contract that day. It wound up to be a 22-
month contract.
Mr. Kennedy. Certainly you foresaw that you could not have a
5-year contract for the butchers and not also for the clerks, did you
not ? That would be obvious.
11324 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. SciiiMMAT. As we nefyotiuted the clerks' contract after we com-
pleted the butchers' contract, they both wound up as 22-nionth con-
tracts.
Mr, Kexnedy. So there was not any discussion about a 5-year
contract ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. Yes. I was after the 5-year contract constantly
for the butchers. I was led to believe that we were going to have a
5-year contract for the butchere.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you expect a 5-year contract for the clerks
then ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. Not if I could not get it for the butchers; no, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. If you got it for the butchers, didn't you expect
you would also get it for the clerks ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. So then you expected a 5-year contract.
Mr. ScHiMMAT. I didn't get nothing but a 22-nionth contract.
Mr. Kennedy. You didn't get it, but didn't you expect it for both
at that time ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. Let me put it this way : I negotiated the butchers'
contract. I stepped into the picture. I was led to believe I was going
to have a 5-year contract with a wage-reopener contract each year
for 5 yeai-s to protect the 45 hours. Instead of that, I wound up
with a 22-month contract.
Mr. Kennedy. You expected to have that both for the butchers
and for the clerks, did you not 'i
Mr. ScHiMMAT. I expected it for the butchers and then I negotiated
the gi'ocery clerks and it wound up 22 months.
Mr. Kennedy. You knew if you got it for the butchers you would
have to get it for the clerks with the same union?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. You knew if you expected it for the butchers, and
you expected it for the butchers prior to October 11, you knew if
the card count was successful and the Meat Cutters won the card count
you would also expect to have a 5-year contract for the clerks, did vou
not ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. Yes. But it didn't work out that way.
Mr. Kennedy. I know. We will go step by step. But you expected
you were going to get a 5-year contract for both, did you not ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. On October 11, 1 expected to get, or prior to October
11, I was led to l)elieve I Avas going to have a 5-year contract for the
butchers. That is all that was l)eing negotiated for.
Mr. Kennedy. That is right. As yet they had not signed up the
clerks. But if they w^ere successful for the clerks you were also going
to get a 5-year contract for the clerks. That is basic, Mr. Schinnnat.
You were going to get it for the butchers, and you Avere also going
to get it for the clerks.
Mr. ScHiMMAT. There was not any mention of any contract
Mr. Kennedy. You knew, as someone who had some ex])erience
with labor relations, you were also going to get it for the clerks; isn't
that correct?
Mr. ScHiiMMAT. If the clerks were organized and under contract
when we were negotiating a contract, I would expect to get a 5-year
contract for the clerks if 1 had it for the butchers.
Mr. Kennedy. All ri<rht.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11325
Mr. ScHniMAT. The first contract I negotiated was tlie butchers
and that was for '22 niontlis, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any agreement when you conducted
those negotiations, when the contract was signed for 22 months, that
the contract would in fact last for 5 years?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. No, sir.
The Chairman. 1 lumd you a phototastic copy of the letter in the
nature of an agreement dated October 11, 1952, addressed to the Great
Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., and directed to the attention of Mr. C. A.
Schinnnat. I wish you would examine this photostatic copy and state
if you recognize it.
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. ScHiMMAT. This was shown to me b}- the investigators for the
connnittee. I never saw this until the time the investigators showed
it to me.
The Chairman. What is the date of it ?
Mr. SciiiMMAT. October 11.
Mr. Doyle. October 11, 1952. It is unexecuted, unsigned.
The Chairman. You have seen it before, so I will let it be made
exhibit Xo. 4. 1 think we can establish it later.
(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit Xo. 4," for reference
and may be found in the tiles of the select committee.)
The Chairman. I want to ask you 1 or 2 questions about it. It
seems to be dated October 11, the day you negotiated the two con-
tracts; is that correct ^
Mr. Sciii:mmat. That is right.
The Chairman. You are familiar Avith it since you have seen it
before.
Mr. ScHiMMAT. The investigators showed it to me for the first time.
The Chairman. It starts off :
On October 11, 19.12, labor eonti'acts were signed between the Great Atlantic
& Pacific Tea Co., eastern division, and the Butchers' District Council of New
York and New .Jersey on behalf of locals ;>42, 400, and 4S0. affiliated with the
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butchers Workmen of Xiu'th America, affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor and by each of said lo:-al unions for
the following bargaining groups.
Among others it mentions the grocery department employees in
certain stores and areas. Then it says :
This letter supplements such contracts and constitutes an agreement by the
union, party of those contracts, that each of said contracts shall continue in
full force and effect until the 2Sth day of August l!>r>7, but that either party
may reipiest the reoi)ening of each of said contracts solely for revision of iiourly
or weekly wages only as contained in the wage scliedule of those contracts, on
the 2Sth day of August l!)r»4 and on the 2Sth day of August 19.">."> and on the
2<Sth day of August 19.")6, by notice to the other party in writing, not less tlian
60 days prior to the date of any .such reopening.
Subject to any amendments resulting from the application of sucli wage
reopenings the agreement shall automatically be renewed year to year after
the 2Sth day of August 10.")7, unless at least (>0 days prior to the 2Sth day of
August l!l.~)7, the expiration dates of the agreement or any renewal thereof
notice in writing by registered mail is given by either party to the other of a
desire to make changes therein or to terminate the contract.
It is further agreed that this agreement shall also be applicable to {]:•:' labor
c(mtracts when consummated that are currently under negotiations for certain
employee groujts in stores located in Newark, ,Ierse.y Cit.v, and Paterson, X. J.
You negotiated the contracts for both the liutchers and for the
clerks on October 11 ?
11326 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. ScHiMMAT. Yes, sir.
The Chairman". You consummated those contracts that day ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. That is right.
The Chairman. What is your explanation that this letter was writ-
ten separately, constituting an agreement on that same day whereby
you actually were getting a 5-year contract instead of a 2-year
contract ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. That letter, as I saw it, is not executed. There are
no signatures on it.
The Chairman. There is nothing on this.
Mr. ScHiMMAT. That is right.
The Chairman. Do you say that this did not become a part of the
agreement ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. Yes, sir, I do say that. It is not part of tlie
agreement.
The Chairman. You say it did not become a part of the agreement ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. It did not become part of an agreement.
The Chairman. Can you explain why such a letter would have
been written at all ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. I have no explanation of it.
The Chairman. You never heard of it ?
Mr. Schimmat. I never heard of it or saw it until your investigators
showed it.
The Chairman. In your contracts did you get a 45-hour week ?
Mr. Schimmat. I got a 45-hour week for 22 months.
The Chairman. And this you say you never heard of as an exten-
sion or secret agreement to extend those contracts for 5 years instead
of 22 months ?
Mr. Schimmat. That is right.
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel.
(At this point, the following members were present : Senatoi-s
McClellan and Church and Ervin.)
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel.
Mr. Doyle. We have — Mr. Chairman ?
Mr. Chairman ?
We have suggested to your committee stalf and counsel that prob-
ably this letter, which apparently came from the files of the miion, was
brought to this meeting by the attorneys for the union, kept in their
briefcases, and they never had to use it.
The Chairman. We will develop all the facts, Mr. Counsel. You
can appreciate tliere are some little strange coincidences in here, at
least that such a letter was written on the same day the other contracts
were made. I don't know what someone was doing out there, just
idling their fingers on a typewriter or dictating such a letter which
would have no significance whatsoever. Let's proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Schimmat, did you make any kind of a secret
agreement with any of the union officials?
Mr. Doyle. As of wliat time, Mr. Kennedy ?
Mr. Kennedy. Well, during this period of time, October 11, or sub-
sequently, on the question of the 45-hour week ?
Mr. Schimmat. I would like to explain that question this way.
Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question.
Mr. Schimmat. I would like to give you the details on it.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11327
Mr. Kennedy, You can give the details. Answer the question. Did
you make a secret agreement with any of the union officials regarding
a 45-hour week over a 5-year period ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. After I negotiated it
Mr. Kennedy. Would you answer the question "yes" or "no" and
then explain it?
JNIr. Doyle. With all due respect to you, Mr. Kennedy, I would sug-
gest in the interest of clarity and completeness and fairness that this
is one of these questions that a witness really should not be called upon
to answ^er "yes,'' because the word "secret" is an adjective which char-
acterizes some sort of arrangement, and I think if Mr. Schimmat is
permitted to give the circumstances that you are interested in, then
you and the committee can give it w^iatever
Mr. Kennedy. If you have an objection
The Chairman. Let the Chair suggest that if he can't answer "yes,"
he can answer "no," and then qualify it either way.
Mi\ Doyle. I think the best answer is "yes" with an explanation.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Doyle, you are not testifying.
Mr. Doyle. I realize that. I am trying my best to keep quiet, but
I don't like to have a witness forced to say "yes" or "no" when he
wants to give an explanation with his answer.
The Chairman. Let the Chair say to you, so we will not have this
all day long, when you are asked a question which can be answered
"yes " or "no," you are expected to answer it that way, and the Chair
will give you ample time to make your explanation. We are not try-
ing to hold you down to a "yes" or "no," but that is a "yes" or "no"
question, with such qualifications as you wish to make under oath.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you make a secret agreement with union officials
regarding a 45-hour week over a 5-year period ?
Mr. Schimmat. Not for a 5-year period ; no, sir.
^Ir. Kennedy. Did you make a secret agreement with union officials
for a 45-hour week to extend to 1957 ?
Mr. Schimmat. Yes, I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Now do you want to give an explanation?
Mr. Schimmat. I would like to. After completing the contract on
October 11, some time between October 11 and November — I don't
quite remember the date — I was advised by Mr. Ratcliffe that Mr. Block
had approached him to change the contract, particularly the welfare
clause. In the contract we negotiated on October 11, we had a wel-
fare clause where the money was turned over to the union, and they
were to take full responsibility for the W' elf are.
Mr. Ratcliffe informed me of the difficulty Mr. Block was having
with his membership. Later on Mr. Block called me and asked for my
assistance to get that changed. I agreed to change it, providing he
would give me a letter or a supplement with this change, guaranteeing
me a 45-hour week until 1957.
He refused to include it in the supplement, but he did agree to furnish
me with a letter, and on this letter I insisted I wanted the interna-
tional's name on it, Mr. Gorman's
Consequently, before I turned over the supplement of the change in
the welfare clause, I received a letter from Mr. Block.
Mr. Kennedy. The supplement to the contract that was made public,
made available to the employees ?
21243—58 — pt. 29 10
11328 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. SciiiMMAT. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. The agreement that you signed with Mr. Gorman
and Mr. Block, was that made public to the employees ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. No, sir ; it was not made public, for this reason
Mr. Kennedy. AYliy weren't the employees notified that you had
made such an agreement ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. I was asked by Mr. Block to keep it quiet, not to
publicize it, and I agreed to do it and I kept my word.
The Chairman. That is one of the problems we have. It is one of
those practices that this committee has discovered in the course of its
investigations that contracts are made between management and he
labor leaders, and the contents kept from the members whose welfare is
involved in such contracts.
This is a matter of considerable interest to the committee. I per-
sonally feel, and I imagine most other members of the committee feel,
that the secret contracts between a labor leader and management are
detrimental to the welfare of the union members. At least, their
welfare is involved. Maybe their wages, their livelihood or working
conditions, or some other factor that is of interest to them and a fleets
their welfare is involved.
Personally, I think, and I think most Members of Congress would
share this view, that the members themselves are entitled to know what
kind of a contract they have, know its terms, be familiar with it, and I
think further be given an opportunity to approve or disapprove.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
]\[r. ScHiMMAT. May I say this, Mr. Chairman : I feel it is the
responsibility of the union to notify the rank and file on these things.
The Chairman. Well, I am not so sure that all of the responsibility
rests on you. I think management has a responsibility to its employees,
too. But I don't think management has any right to enter into collu-
sion or secret agreement with union leaders and then say ''Well, it is
not our fault. If they have that kind of an officer, that is their
responsibility."
I think management owes a duty, in fact, I don't see hoAv you can
justify it. To me, I don't know any milder word than "'reprehensible"
for management and labor leaders to get out and enter into these
secret agreements, because when it is a secret, it is })ound to be of some
advantage to one or the other or both that they don't want the men who
work and pay the dues, who work for them, who are their employees,
to know about it.
I can't rationalize it.
There is no justification for it at all.
Mr. Kennedy. We have the added point, Mr. Schimmat, where,
according to the previous witness, the employees were coerced into
signing these cards and into joining the union.
They are brought into the union, many of them against their will.
No. 2, then there is a contract signed about which they know nothing
of the terms. Of course, it makes it most difficult if not impossible for
them.
The (^HAiRMAN. Senator Ervin ?
Senator Ervin. You entered into a secivt agreement with the unioi\
officials wlio were sui)posed to be agents of your eni})l()vees. from youi*
company, and at his request you agreed that you would suppress the
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11329
knowledge of wliat you had a<;reed to from the people who were pri-
marily interested in it ; is that not true ?
(At this point, Senator McCIellan withdrew from the hearino; room.)
Mr. SciiiMMAT, I made this sort of an a<j;reement, Mr. Senator, Mr.
Block wanted the welfare chang'ed. It is my position, it is my job, to
make the best contract I possibly can in neo^otiations. Here I gave
him the welfare agreement, we took it back on the company bases, paid
the additional premium. I negotiated with him, and 1 got a protection
on the 4r)-hour week for ;>'> months.
Senator Ervix. And you got agreement from the agent of the rank
and lile employeesof y( ur com{)any ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervix. Which would be binding on them for 5 years ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. Binding on them for 3;^> months.
Senator Ervix. You were going to assist Mr. Block in keeping them
ignorant of that fact, and leading them to believe that they were only
bonnd for 2-2 months ; is that not so ?
Mr. ScuiMMAT. It is not my job to notify the employees what is in
the contract.
Senator Ervin. It is not your job to enter into a conspiracy with
the agent of the rank and lile of your company who are the principals
in the contract, depriving them of rights and keeping something con-
cealed either, is it?
Isn't that exactly what you were doing? Here you have entered
into a contract, and made it public, didn't you, that you made a con-
tract for these people for 2^ months only, is not that right ?
Mr. SciiiMMAT. That is right.
Senator P]rvix\ You put that in writing and exhibited it under the
glare of the noonday sun where they could all read it and under-
stand it ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. That is right.
Senator Ervix'^. Then you made an additional contract that instead
of them being bound and having their rights sold away for 22 months
only, they were bound for 5 years, and you agreed with their faith-
less agent, who was willing to sell them down the river to that extent
that you would assist him in suppressing knowledge of that fact from
those who were primarily concerned, didn't you?
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. SciiiMMAT. Well, Senator, he wanted something from my com-
pany after the contract was negotiated, which cost my company
money. As a negotiator, I told liim 1 would go along with him if
he protected my company until 11)57 on a 4r)-hour week. Those were
labor neirotiations. He wanted it kept quiet. I agreed to it and I
did.
Senator Ervix. In other words, you agreed witli him that it was
all right, since your company got such a big advantage out of it, it
was all right for him to conceal, and that you would assist him in con-
cealing it, the knowledge of the 5-year agreement from the very per-
sons who were to be bound by the 5-year agreement?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. May I point out to you that the international name
was also on that document with Max Block's name on it.
Senator Ervix. That does not change it. You tell me that your
conscience would approve conduct like tliat ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. Yes, sir.
11330 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Ervin". And you thought it was all right for the people
who were working for your company, the people who were making
profits for your company, to be sold down the river by their own agent
and for you, as an officer of your company, to assist in concealing
from those people, those employees making the profits of your com-
pany, the fact that they had been sold down the river by the man
that was supposed to be their agent and representative ?
Mr. ScHiMMA r. Senator, those are members of the Meat Cutters
Union, and they look to their representative for their representation,
not to us, when an agreement is made.
Senator Ervix. Do you make it a practice to conceal from your
employees the terms of the contracts which you have made with other
people affecting them ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. It has been our practice that the union notify the
union members of what is in the contract.
(At this point, Senator McClellan entered the hearing room.)
Senator Ervin. The A. & P. Tea Co., do they have the policy under
which they refuse to give to their own employees the terms of the
contract regulating the work of their own employees, your company ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. I didn't follow that at all.
Senator Ervin. To make it plain, this contract that you made in-
cluding the secret 5 -year clause was a contract under which the em-
ployees of the A. & P. Tea Co. were to labor for the A. & P. Tea Co.,
wasn't it ?
In other words, you were assisting in concealing from your em-
ployees the terms of the contract between the A. & P. Tea Co. and your
employees, were you not ?
' (The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. ScHiMMAT. It is up to the labor leader to notify the member-
ship of what is in the contract. It is not the j ob of the employer.
Senator Ervin. Then you tell me it is not the job of an employer of
labor to let the employee, his employees, know what the terms of the
contract are between the employer and those employees ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. That is right. When the union is involved, the
union takes care of that.
Senator Ervin. And you are not concerned at all about it ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. No, sir.
Senator Ervin. You will assist, you think it is all right, all right
for the A. & P. Tea Co., acting through you, to conceal from the prin-
cipals to the contract the infidelity of their agent ? You think that is
all right and that is perfectly in harmony with your conscience, isn't it ?
Mr. ScHiMMAT. That is what we did in this case.
Senator Ervin. Yes, sir ; you sure did.
Senator Church. You would think then when representatives of
the labor union ask you to keep certain terms of the contract concealed,
that since it is their responsibility to expose the terms of this con-
tract, you can enter into such an agreement and your hands are not
soiled by doing it ; is that right ?
Mr. SciiiMMAT. In this case, that is exactly what I did.
Senator Church. I know it is exactly what you did. I am asking
you if you think it is right and good, more or less, to do that sort of
thing.
Mr, ScHiMMAT. I did not see anything wrong with it, sir.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 11331
Senator Church. Do you see any tiling wrong in it now ?
Mr. SCHIMMAT. No.
Senator Church. You don't ?
Mr. ScHIMMAT. No.
Senator Church, Well, I do.
Mr. Doyle. That is what makes
Senator Church. It seems to me that there is a very real public
interest wherever you have bargaining agents representing the em-
ployees, bargaining with the employers that may employ hundreds
and hundreds or thousands of people, and for contracts that deal with
the bread and butter of these thousands of emploj^ees, it is very much
in the public interest to proceed according to the axiom that such
agTeements should also be arrived at openly, according to the old
Wilsonian idea, open covenants, openly arrived at. I think there is
very definitely a moral responsibility that extends not only to the
employee organization but also to the employer, to make clear to the
people who are affected — people in this case who, by virtue of this
contract, had to pay dues to this union — as to what the terms of this
contract are.
And if they did not pay dues, they got fired by management, and
management entered into an agreement whereby the employees did not
know what the terms of this contract between the employer and the
bargaining agent for the employees was. I think there is a real ele-
ment of morality involved here, and if the law does not presently re-
quire that such agreements be made openly and be made known to all
the people and parties affected, then I think it is certainly an area
into which this Congress ought to look, in the full protection of the
public interest. I think this has been a shocking expose that we have
had this past couple of days.
Mr. Chairman, I might point out that that not only involves a secret
contract that was entered into that affected thousands of employees,
but it also involves much evidence that the bargaining agent with
whom management made this agreement was never the bargaining
agent that employees wanted in the first place.
The Chairman. Is there anything further ?
(Present at this time are: Senators McClellan, Church, and Ervin).
Mr. Kennedy. I would point out in connection with this, according
to the sworn evidence and testimony before the committee the A. & P.
Co. coerced the employees into the union. No. 2, according to the
testimony before our committee the contract that was signed was il-
legal. No. 3, according to the testimony before our committee the
A. & P. Co. then coerced people into the miion.
First they coerced them into signing the cards and then they
coerced them into the union to pay dues, and fourth and fhially they
made a secret agi'eement with tliis union. It adds up to one of the
worst situations that we have had before the committee as far as the
involvement of management is concerned.
Mr. Doyle. I don't know whether that was a question, Mr. Ken-
nedy. I gather it is not.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Schimmat is sworn. If he wants to make a
comment on my statement, why shouldn't he be allowed to make a
conunent ?
Mr. Doyle. On behalf of the company as their attorney, appearing
at these hearings, I simply say we don't agree with your summary.
11332 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
We respectfully object to it. We will be glad to put a company
lawyer who advised this company at the time they entered into the
contract as to his opinions as to its legality, as to whether or not
the employees Avere coerced. We do not agree with your conclusion
that employees were coerced and to the extent that this contract is
fraudulent. I don't think Mr. Schimmat should be called on to pass
any comment on it because his knowledge on this entire thing is lim-
ited as you and your staff realize.
The Chairman. Mr. Schimmat is not asked to pass on any legal
question. We are asking him to comment on the conclusion of the
committee.
Mr. Kennedy. Based on tiie testimony.
Senator Ervin. I was asking about his conduct. To me it is shock-
ing for a company like the A. & P. Tea Co., which has business all
through the United States — and which has enjoyed my respect — it is
one of the most astounding thin^-s to come out of these hearings and
there are many astounding hearings to come out, to have a man tell
me that a company supposedly as reputable as the A. & P. Co., that
they entered into a secret agreement, binding upon i)eople who had
no knowledge of the agreement, and not only that but they fraudu-
lently assisted in concealing that knowledge from the people uj)on
whom the agreement was to be binding. That is all.
Mr. Kenxedy. What happened to that letter that you received?
That was signed by Patrick Gorman and Max Block; is that right?
Mr. Schimmat. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. What happened ?
Mr. Schimmat. When the new contract was negotiated, after the
one I negotiated on October 11, 1 destroyed it.
Mr. Kennedy. It was not necessary after that ?
Mr. Schimmat. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you inform the other officials of the A. ifc P.
Co.?
Mr. Schimmat. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Tliat you kept to yourself?
Mr. Schimmat. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Was there a study made by the A. & P. Co. as to
wdiat the savings would be over having a 4r)-hour week instead of a
40-hour week company ?
Mr. Schimmat. I would assume so but I am not acquainted with it.
Mr. Kennedy. We have a negotiating meeting. May 23, 1955, a
memorandum written by L. S. Van Linten, personnel manager,
Paterson, N. J., unit, and he states that a 4()-lionr reduction gave
quite a jolt. It would cost actually $12 million a year and the ad-
justment would be in next year. According to his iigures it wouKl
be a $12 million a year. 1 would liave to predicate a question on that.
Are yo\i familiar witli that memorandum?
Mr. Schimmat. No, sir; I am not.
Mr. Kennedy. Then there is another memorandum dated
Mr. ScHi.MMAT. That is certainly a wild guess, Mr. Kennedy. You
say $12 million a year.
Mr. Kennedy. This is not our figures. This is somebody from the
A.&P.Co.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11333
Mr. ScHiMMAT. I haven't any idea.
Mr. DoYLK. This is a personnel manager in Xewark, X. J., or Pat-
erson, N. J., I am sure Mr. Kennedy you have much moi-e conservative
figures.
Mr. Kennedy. I am going through all the hgures we have from
A. & P. records themselves.
The Chairman. This is L. S. Van Linten. Who is he ?
Mr Doyle. He is personnel manager at one of the divisions in New
Jersey.
Mr. Kennedy. See if you are familiar with this. This is a memo-
randum dated Ajiril G, 1955, negotiations on April 5 at the Commo-
dore Hotel, live unit policy connnittees, unit officials and company
negotiating committee. This is a memorandum by Van Linten in
which, quoting Mr. Katcliii'e, he states :
He put the cost of about .$7 per ixrscjn per week for a 4()-hour work week.
We hgured that to be approximately $23,660,000 for 5 years, in-
cluding the butcliers. As 1 understand the later figures that you
have, Mr. Doyle ; isn't it correct ?
Mr. Doyle. Nineteen hundred and fifty-seven when the company
was about to go to the -lO-hour week an accurate study was made and
I think the annual figure was something over $2 million a year. Then
they went into the 40-hour week and they found out it cost them little
or nothing.
]\lr. Kennedy. Anyway from the records it would indicate it
ranges an3-v»here from $2 million a year to $12 million a year,
according to the A. & P. itself. That is a considerable amount of
money no matter which way you take it.
The Chairman. Is there anything further ?
Mr. Doyle. May I ask one question, Mr. Chairman, or would you
prefer that I write it and hand it to you ^
The Chairman. Yon may address your question to the Chair. I
won't reqinre you to write it.
Mr. Doi^LE. Mr. Chairman, I would like you to ask this witness
w^hat it would have cost the A. & P.'s eastern division if the Meat
Cutters Union struck on October 13, 1952. That is, how much it
"would liave cost that company per week?
The Chairman. All right. You have heard the question? The
Chair will not repeat it. Do you have any idea wdiat it would cost
if the Meat Cutters struck ?
Mr. Schimmat. Yes. In Mr. Reynolds' statement he mentions
the sum of $750,000 per week for every week we would be down.
The Chairman. We have that threat all the time in dealing with
labor unions.
Mr. Schimmat. That is right.
The Chairman. All right. Call the next witness,
( Witness excused. )
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Patrick Gorman.
The Chairman. Mr. Gorman, come around ])lease, sir.
You will be sworn ?
You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and noth-
ing but the truth, so help you God ^
Mr. Gorman. I do.
11334 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
TESTIMONY OF PATRICK E. GORMAN
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your
business or occupation ?
Mr. Gorman. The name is Patrick Emmett Gorman. I am secre-
tary-treasurer of the International Union of the Amalgamated Meat
Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America. My business resi-
dence is 2800 Sheridan Road, Chicago. My home residence is 240
Luberg Road, Louisville, Ky.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir. Do your waive counsel ?
Mr. Gorman. I do, sir.
The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been international secretary-
treasurer ?
Mr. Gorman. Since 1942.
Mr. Kennedy. How large is your union at the present time ?
Mr. Gorman. We paid on our membership last month to the AFD-
CIO over $357,000.
Mr. Kennedy. In 1952 you wrote a letter to Mr. Schimmat?
Mr. Gorman. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Are you familiar with that ?
Mr. Gorman. I was in the back when the Senator read it.
The Chairman. I pass the letter to you so you may identify it. I
believe it has been read into the record but I hand you the copy for
your identification. The witness identifies the letter. All right, Mr.
Kennedy, proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee why it was that you
wished to have this special meeting. "There are some things in mind
which we feel will be very advantageous to the A. & P. as well as to
our own organization." What is it that you wanted to discuss with
Mr. Schimmat ?
Mr. Gorman. That was not one proposition, Mr. Kennedy. That
was several propositions.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss at that time the bringing of the
clerks into the Meat Cutters ?
Mr. Gorman. We did, sir. On the strength that it is better to have
peace in the country if we can arrange it by not stopping the workers
from organizing.
Mr. Kennedy. Was one of the factors that you offered him ul-
timately that you were going to give A. & P. a 5-year contract?
Mr. Gorman. No. I don't believe at that time contract negotia-
tions were even in the mind.
Mr. Kennedy. I am talking about later on. You say you did not
discuss it at the first meeting. Later on was it finally arranged that
they would not oppose you in return for a 5-year contract ?
Mr. Gorman. That was never discussed.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they state at that time that they would turn over
the employees in New Jereey to you ?
Mr. Gorman. No. They never stated they would turn over any-
thing to us. They merely stated, you go out and get them the hard
way or words to that effect.
Mr. Kennedy. They never indicated they would help you at aU?
Mr. Gorman. No.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11335
Mr. Kennedy. "Why did they finally assist you in your organiza-
tional drive?
Mr. Gorman. I don't know that they did.
Mr. KJENNEDY. Did you discuss at that time about granting the
A. & P. Co. a 5-year contract?
Mr. Gorman. Never.
Mr. KJENNEDY. You never discussed that ?
Mr. Gorman. Never.
Mr. I^NNEDY. What was it that was going to be advantageous
to the A. & P. Co. ?
Mr. Gorman. There would be something advantageous on three of
the propositions that we were talking about. The first of those that
we were in New York for the purpose of organizing the 10,000 un-
organized people that were employed by the chain.
We had a well-organized progi'am that was staffed by our New
York district council with approximately 5,000 members. Naturally
we don't want strikes, we don't look for strikes. The A. & P. is not
inclined to just receive you with open arms so I talked with them
about the idea of not opposing our organizations. I had the feeling
that if there would be opposition there would be possibly a strike. If
the strike occurred there would be unemployment, it would cost the
international union considerable money, it would cost the people a lot
of wages, and I asked Mr. Schimmat to at least not oppose us. He
was not inclined to go along with us because he assumed the same
general A. & P. attitude.
Mr. Kennedy. How were you finally able to talk him into not
opposing you ? Why did they agree not to oppose you ?
Sir. GoR3iAN. We only asked them not to oppose us.
Mr. KJENNEDY. Wliy did they finally agree not to oppose you ?
Mr. Gorman. I wouldn't Imow. I was not in New York a single
time during that campaign. I addressed none of the meetings that
they called. I might have been in New York on other business but
took no part in that campaimi to organize those people.
Mr. Ejinnedy. Who took part? Who handled that campaign?
Mr. Gorman. That was handled by Mr. Max Block.
The Chairman. The Chair presents to you a photostatic copy of a
letter dated October 16, 1952, written on the stationery of your inter-
national union and appears to be signed by Mr. Earle W. Jimmerson
as president and Patrick Gorman as secretaiy -treasurer of that inter-
national union. Will you examine the letter and state if you identify
it?
(Document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. Gorman. I recognize that letter. Senator.
The Chairihan. Thank you. It may be made exhibit 5 and we will
read excerpts from it into the record.
Mr. Kj:nnedy. It is addressed to the international executive board,
dear sirs and brothers, signed by Jimerson and Gorman. I have
some questions I want to ask you about it.
Dkar Sirs and Beotheks : We are happy to announce that one of the most
magnificent organizing jobs accomplished by our international union in the past
decade was realized in New York and New Jersey this week. The Atlantic &
Pacific Tea Co. signed a contract with our various unions in New York and
New Jersey which will add 10,000 new members to our organization within the
next few weeks.
11336 IMPROPER activitif:3 in the labor field
Could you exj)lain to tlie conmiittee how you wrote that letter re-
garding- the successful campaign that you had in New Jei-sey on
October 16, 1952, when you didn't sign the employees of New Jersey
up until December 1, 1952?
Mr. Gorman. Could I make mention in that letter that there is
a specific statement in which I explained to the executive board that
I did go to see Mr. Schimmat and I did not get any encouragement
from Mr. Schinnnat at all.
Mr. Kennedy. That was on your first meeting. N(jw I want to
find out AThat you mean by putting in the letter that you had '^•igned
up the New Jersey employees in this letter of October 10, 1952. when
tne contract was not signed for New Jersey employees until Decem-
ber 1,1952?
Mr. (torman. I did not sign anyone, Mr. Kennedy. I tliink it was
Mr. Block. All the information was furnished to us by the com-
mittee that was handling that campai<rn in New York.
(At this point, the following members were present: Senators Mc-
Clellan, Church, and Ervin.)
Mr. Kennedy. Explain that to us.
We are happy to announce that one of the most magnificent organizing jobs
accomplished l\v our international union in the past decade was realized in New
York and New Jersey this week. The Atlantic & Pacifie Tea Co. signed a contract
with our various unions in New York and New Jersey, which will add 10,000
new members to our organization within the next few weeks.
Mr. Gorman. I can't explain it, Mr. Kennedy, except that the or-
ganizing drive was a success. There must have been some conferences,
and as a result of that those conferences — —
Mr. Kennedy. But the organization drive in New Jersey had not
started.
Mr. Gorman. As I recall, Mr. May brought that to my attention.
That might have been a mistake so far as New Jersey was concerned,
Mr. Kennedy, What we are looking into is the fact that these people
in New Jersey were coerced into the union after the contract was
signed on October 11, that the same procedure was followed for them
as had been followed for the people in New York, and they were all
forced into the union.
I am asking a question of you whether this was part of a deal.
You were giving them the 5-year contract and they, in turn, were
going to turn over the employees in New York and in New Jersey,
Mr. Gorman. I can't say, Mr. Kennedy, that anyone was forced into
the Tuiion, because I was not there.
Mr. Kennedy, You mentioned New Jersey. It is not just a slip of
the typewriter. You mention New Jersey twice in here, first sentence
and second sentence of the letter.
Mr. Gorman, That Avould be infornuition furnished us by the people
handling the campaign.
On the basis of that information, we notified the international
executive board.
Mr. Kennedy. The contract had not been signed then. You wrote
this letter 0 or 7 weeks before the contract was signed for New Jersey.
Can you explain this letter at all ?
Mr. Gorman. What is on the second page? May I see it again?
The Chairman. Let me read the whole letter. Instead of making
the letter an exhibit, it may be pi'inted in the record at this point.
IMPROPER ACTiviTir;s IX thb: labor field 11337
TlIK IXTEKNATIOXAL KXKCITIVK BoAKU.
DuvR Sius AXi) Drothers : Wo art' haiii'.v to annoum-e that one of the most iiiaK-
iiifieent organizing johs ac-couii)lishe(l l).v our international union in the past
decade was realized in New York and New Jersey this weeli. The Atlantic &
Pacific Tea Co. signed a contract with our various unions in New York and New
Jersey which will add 10,000 new members to our organization within the next
few weeks.
Several months ago, at considerable expense, we started a campaign to organize
the A. & P. stores in New Jersey. While some progress was made, it was not
sutticient, however, to lead to optimism on our part that the campaign would
completely succeed.
Each of the board members is aware that we made the trip to New York
and conferred with officials of the A. & P. regarding this matter.
The company was not too anxious to look favorably upon the whole project.
(Jur good New York coworker. Brother ^Nlax Block, of loc.il 842. plunged into the
task of making the drive successful. In this. Brother Block worked closely
with Vice President Belsky. With the aid of Brother Block, there was almost an
immediate ele<'trir)cation to the campaign. This resulted, as indicated herein,
in the signing of the contract with the A. & P. on Monday of this week. All
retail clerks as well as meatcutters are covered by the contract. Brother
Block, we are informed, has already enrolled 3,000 for his local union. The
agreement i)rovides for a strictly union shop.
Icebox njen, $92.50 per week: journeymen, .$82.50 per week. Starting rate for
female workers, ,$45; starting rate of male workers, $48; a $10-pei"-year progres-
sive increase until the top grocery salary is reached, which is $76 i>er week ; 45-
hour week to be worked in live 0-hour days, without staggering. On work
before 8 a. m. or after 0 j). m., time ;jnd one-half. Employees are now paying
$5 per month for health and welfare insurance.
This will be increased to $10 per month, with the company paying the full
cost. It would be best to keep this confidential for the present, at least it would
until the full numerical strength which the agreement will provide has been
safely enrolled at our various local unions in the area.
Kindest personal regards, we remain
Fraternally yours,
Harold W. Jimerson,
President.
Patrick E. Gorman,
Secret (rnj-Trcasurcr.
Pass this to Mr. Gorman, please, so that he may refresh his recol-
lection.
( Tlie document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. Gorman, I heard you read it, Senator. I heard the letter very
plainly.
The Chairman. All right. Return it.
Proceed, Mr. Counsel.
Mr. Kennedy. I would like to have you identify this telegram,
which was sent on the same day, which it appears you had sent.
The Chairman. I hand you a copy of the telegram and ask you if
you can identify it.
(The document was handed to the witness.)
The (^HAiRMAN. Do you identify the telegram?
Mr, Gorman. I do.
The Chairman. I will read it into the record. The telegram is
to Mr, Max Block, 90-01 Sutphin Boulevard, Jamaica Long Island,
N.Y.:
Because of the slowness or organizational work as per our telephone conver-
sation yesterday, I do not believe that we should announce to our membership
the magnificent job you accomplished on the A. & P. until the December issue.
AVe could lay ourselves wide open, I am informed, for intervention. Believe
you should, as (piickly as [)ossible. throw all of your help to the Jersey side in
an effort to enroll tpiickly the (J.OOO mend)ers there we shall be entitled to under
the agreement. Will send you a copy of letter that we are addressing to the
international executive board concerning this well-done job.
11338 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
There has been a marking on there in pencil or pen since. It says,
"Will send you a copy," and it indicates a copy was sent on October
16, 1952. What is the date of this wire?
I can't tell the date of it. When did you send that wire?
Mr. Gorman. I wouldn't know, Mr. Senator, if it isn't marked
on there.
The Chairman. Apparently it is not dated. I thought they al-
ways dated wires.
Mr. Gorman. We do, we do.
The Chairman. Did you send the wire?
Mr. Gorman. I imagine that that wire speaks for itself.
Mr. Kennedy. If it speaks for itself, tell me what it means when
it says:
Believe you should, as quickly as possible, throw all of your help to the
Jersey side in an effort to enroll quickly the 6,000 members there we shall be
entitled to under the agreement.
Mr. Gorman. Let me see the telegram again.
Mr. Kennedy. That, with the letter of October 16, 1953, indicates
that there was something going on.
(The document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. Gorman. I think as far as publication, there was no publica-
tion until December, but that that refers to publication of the exist-
ing agreement in the official journal of our organization, the Butclier
Workman; the telegram itself states that that would be inadvisable
because of the fact that there were 6,000 to organize in Jersey under
the terms of the contract.
The Chairman. Does that mean, Mr. Gorman, that you made a
contract for them before they were organized?
Mr. Gorman. Well, now I made no contract at all.
The Chairman. I am talking about the contract that was made for
them before they were organized.
Mr. Gorman. I would not say that at all.
The Chairman. You have yet to organize them and enroll them.
Mr. Gorman. Will you let me go further. Senator ?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Gorman. There is something in here about intervention, to lay
ourselves wide open for intervention.
The Chairman. You didn't want an injunction suit, did you?
Mr. Gorman. No, I think you should understand at that time the
AFL and the CIO were not one union. That in New York there
was a powerful organization and in New Jersey a powerful organi-
zation that was competing against us by the name of the Wliolesale
and Retail Employees Union. If we announced that 6,000 were still
unorganized, I am positive this refers to the possibility of the Whole-
sale and Retail Employees' intervening in that situation and causing
conflict, which would not be good for the industry at all.
Senator Ervin. What you were afraid of was that the CIO might
file a petition asking for an election, you might be thrown an election,
and the employees might have chosen the CIO union instead of yours.
Isn't that what you are talking about ?
Mr, Gorman. I wouldn't know it. I wouldn't Imow it except on
information conveyed. It has been a long time ago.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11339
Senator Er\^n. You do know if they had been in the process of
organizing on the cards, that the CIO unions could come in and
petition for an election, and in that event, the employees could have
chosen between your union and the CIO union, or could have chosen
against both of them, couldn't they ?
Mr. Gorman, They can intervene at any time, even now.
Senator ER^^N. So what you did was, you made a contract for these
employees with the A. & P. Co. before these employees knew that
the contract was made, and then you sent out later to get them signed
up, and you did not want to make the contract public for fear that
they might not sign up, knowing that the terms of the employment
were already fixed by the previous contract.
Mr. Gorman. Wouldn't that be tactful, Senator? If we are in an
organization campaign, we want them all. We don't want something
that will lose four or five thousand.
Senator Ervin. And you don't want to allow them the risk of
choosing some other union, which in a free America they should be
allowed to do, not being organized, under a contract not being made
on their part, but being made on the part of management with your
union officers, who had no authority up to that time over these
unorganized workers.
Mr. Gorman. We would do the same thing tomorrow, Senator.
If we are engaged in a campaign to organize any particular applicant,
we do our best, use your best tactics and put our best foot forward to
accomplish that.
Senator Ervin. You keep your best foot out of view, don't you?
In other words, you believe in working in secrecy as far as possible.
When was it you had your first conversation with Mr. Schimmat?
Mr. Gorman. Senator, believe me when I say from 5 years ago
this is the first time I have laid eyes on Mr. Schimmat since that time.
Senator Ervin. When was it ?
Mr. Gorman. I believe the date is there. Mr. Kennedy knows it.
Mr. Kennedy. August 15.
Senator Ervin. And you were worried about these folks that did
not get signed up until along about November or December ?
Mr. Gorman. I didn't talk with Mr. Schimmat about getting them
signed up. I talked to him about leaving his hands off.
Senator Ervin. August 15, you had your conversation with Mr.
Schimmat. Is it not significant that a few days later — namely, on
August 25, 1952 — one of the officers of A. & P. Tea Co. wrote his
lawyer asking for advice, and he says "There is a possibility." First,
let's see if you and I understand the word "possibility." That is
something that can happen in the future, isn't it ?
Mr. Gorman. That is right.
Senator Ervin. He says :
There is a possibility that the American Federation of Labor Amalgamated
Meat Cutters Union may undertake an organizational campaign without com-
pany opposition.
Mr, Gorman. Well, that is his statement.
Senator ER^^N. Yes, but this is the statement that was made by the
officers of the A. & P. Tea Co. after you had had your conference
just a few days after you have had the conference with Mr. Schimmat.
Mr. Gorman. Senator, may I repeat again that the A. & P. Tea
11340 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Co., for 'M) years, opposed our oroanization, and is not friendly to it
now, unless we orjranize their people thoroughly. They make no
agi'eement with us to "five people before they are organized.
Senator P^rvix. l^ut don't you think it is rather sijxniticant, though,
that you have a talk with Mr. Schimniat, and you admit that you
went there to talk to get his assistance in organizing the employees
of the A. & P. Tea Co., didn't you ?
Mr. (lORMAN. Not to get his assistance, but not to have his inter-
ference. When he interferes, he is bad.
Senator P^rvin. Listen. Just a few days after that, the A. & P.
Tea Co. write to their lawyer and they tell their lawyer that there
is a possibility that the American Federation of Labor Amalgamated
Meat Cutters, there is a possibility, that they may undertake an
organizational campaign without company opposition.
Xow, you tell us that there just wasn't any agreement reached by
you and Mr. Schimmat that they were to have an organizational
drive there in behalf of your union without company opposition ?
Mr. Gorman. No. We admit — I admit that we talked to him
about the drive that was going to be made. But even months later,
when I wrote to the executive board, we didn't get any satisfaction
that we were going to have any people thrown into our lap. The
company does not operate that way.
Senator Ervin. But just about 10 days after your conversation,
you went there for the purpose of getting them not to oppose your
organization.
Air. (torman. AVell, if my conversation with him, Senator, was lielp-
ful, I am glad for that.
Senator Ervin. Yes. It is not a mere coincidence that 10 days
later they go to get the advice of their lawyers as to how they are
going to fare Avitli the National Labor Relations Board, and in the
event they do the j^ossibility comes about that you are going to have
an organizational drive for your union without company opposition.
That is what you were there talking to them about: weren't you?
Mr. Gorman. We wanted it without his opposition, Senator;
yes, sir.
(At this ]Kunt, members of the committee present: Senators Mc-
Clellan, (^hiirch,and Ervin.)
Senator Ervin. Just list even a little further about what they were
asking about the legal advice right after your conversation.
This campaign may result in a strike threat and a constant recognition of tlie
union by the company on the basis of a card check.
Did you talk to Mr. Schinnnat that you could work the thing out
to bring this ])ossibility about? That your union could threaten to
strike and then they could recognize you by a card check where you
wouldn't be bothered ?
Mr. (toriman. No.
Senator Ervin. No discussion like that.
Ml". Gorman. No discussion whatever like that.
Senator Ervin. That is about what happened: isn't it?
Mr. Gorman. If it happened, that one little talk that I had didn't
doit.
Senator Ervin. Didn't you have an organization drive without
company opposition?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11341
Mr. GoRMAx. Witliout company opposition?
Senator Ervin. Yes.
Mr. Gorman. No. Tliat campaign cost us about $3(),00(), Senator.
Senator Ervin. Yon tell this committee in tlie face of all the testi-
mony that has been otl'ered iiere that the coni{)any did not — or rather
ottered any opposition toyour orf;aiiizin<r?
Mr. (tokmax. As a matter of fact. Senator, the cami)ai<in cost more
than $8(),()0(). "Where companies he][) you alonjj: you don't si)end that
money.
Mr. Kennkdy. This would be the end of Septembei- and the tirst
11 days of October, They mijjht have spent some money prior to
that time.
Senator Ervin. How much money did you spend betAveen the time
you had the conversation with Mr. Schimmat on the loth day of
August 11)5:2 and the time vou signed the first contract on the 12th of
October ll)r)-2?
Mr. Gorman. I don't know. I would have to go to the file.
Senator Ervin. Y"ou don't tell me j'ou spent $3U,0U0 in organiza-
tionl work between August 10 and October 12, 1952, just 2 months
later?
Mr. Gorman. That campaign went on, Senator, for about a year.
Senator Ervin. Just wait a minute, I am talking about after you
went u}) tliere and told him you wanted to organize without com-
pany opposition. Are you telling me you spent $;W,000 between the
time you talked to Mr. Schimmat on August 15, 1952, and the time
the contract was signed less than 2 months later?
Mr. (torman. Xo, I don't say that. I don't say that at all.
Senator Ervin. Listen a little more. As a matter of fact, didn't
the company recognize your union on the basis of a card check?
Mr. Gorman. That is what was reported to us.
Senator P]rvin. In connection with it didn't you and Mr. Schimmat
agree that the com})any was not going to oppose organization, that
you were going to threaten a strike and then in order to justify a
surrender and a reversal of their previous opposition of past years,
that when you threatened to strike they were going to agree to avert
a strike and the terms you would represent their employees would be
on the basis of a card check i
Mr. Gor:man. Mr. Senator, I say to you that at no time, any time
during the campaign to organize those people, any telephone calls,
letters, telegrams, any conceivable power of connnunication di<l 1 have
one word with Mr. Schinnnat concerning a card check.
Senator P^RviN. Never i'
Mr. (torman. Never, never, never.
Senator Ervin. Did any of 3'^our subordinates or assistants have
such conversation with him ?
Mr. Gorman. I don't know.
Senator Ervin. Don't you know that the way you were recognized
as the bargaining agent of these employees who still were not signed up
was on the basis of a card check ^
Mr. Gorman. I know that.
Senator Ervin. Yes.
Mr. Gorman. The thing I am trying to point out, I know there was
a card check
11342 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Ervin. Somebody in your union had conversations with of-
ficers of the A. & P. Tea Co. about the card check ; didn't they ?
Mr. Gorman. I know that we had the card check there. We know
that. But I don't know at all that the company helped to get that
card check.
Senator Ervin. You don't know that they did not ?
Mr. Gorman. No.
Senator Ervin. There was conversation about a card check, wasn't
there, because you had a card check ?
Mr. Gorman. Not between Mr. Schimmat and me.
Senator Ervin. Between some of the representatives of your union
and the company ?
Mr. Gorman. I never had any talk with anybody in the company
concerning a card check.
Senator Ervin. Listen to my question. Don't you draw the infer-
ence that there was a conversation between representatives of your
union and the company about a card check ?
Mr. Gorman. I don't know. I haven't a crystal ball. I can't see
those things, Senator.
Senator Ervin. I would think
Mr. Gorman. There was a count-of-card check and, on the face
of that card check, I understand there was some understanding be-
tween the company and the people involved. But, as to whether they
were obtained legally or illegally as far as NLRB procedures is con-
cerned, I don't know.
Senator Ervin. Are you saying that the understanding was be-
tween the company and the people that signed the cards ?
Mr. Gorman. I think that is legal. If the company has a right to
recognize a card check
Senator Ervin. Is that what you are trying to infer; that the
agreement about the card check was not between the union and the
company but between the company and the employees of the company ?
Mr. Gorman. Where you have so many cards, Senator, that repre-
sents the union. That is a thousand members. You could not bring
a thousand people down to the office of the NLRB. You have to bring
the cards authorizing them. You have to bring the cards.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Gorman, I have asked you a very simple ques-
tion about five times, and thus far you have not answered it. I am
going to ask it to you again. Did you intend to impl}'^ by your state-
ment that the only activity which resulted or, rather, the onl}^ under-
standing that resulted in the card check was an understanding reached
by the A. & P. Tea Co. and the employees of the A. & P. Tea Co. ?
Mr. Gorman. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And the union had nothing to do with it?
Mr. Gorman. No ; the union had a lot to do with it.
Senator Ervin. That is what I am trying to get you to say.
Mr. Gorman. The union did have a lot to do with it.
Senator Ervin. And tlie union and the company were both con-
cerned, weren't they ?
Mr. Gorman. They had a legal right to be concerned.
Senator Ervin. You tell me that a company has a right to take cards
out and get their employees to sign up these cards to join a union ?
Mr. Gorman. I didn't say that. I wouldn't admit that, and I
don't know it.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11343
Senator Ervix. That is tlie reason I am a loss to understand wlij'
you went out of your way a while ago to imply that the understanding
was between the company and the people concerned about the card
check.
Mr. Gorman. Our people had to go out, as I understand it, go into
the stores, get these people to sign for bargaining rights, which is
legal under the XLRB. After they have so many, if the company rec-
ognizes those cards as being legitimate, they have a right to give some
sort of agreement to the organization.
Senator Ervin. Here we have this letter that is written by the offi-
cer of the company to his lawyer for legal advice, which he says is
a possibility that your union will undertake an organizational cam-
paign without their opposition; that it might result in a strike threat,
and the strike threat might result in the company recognizing the
union on the basis of a card check; all that came to pass, didn't it?
^Ir. Gorman. You are reading a letter that I never heard of. Sen-
ator, before, and you seem to want to attribute to me that I had
knowledge when I did not.
Senator Ervix. No; I am just pointing out the fact that this man
wrote a letter in which he assumed after a conversation with you,
one of the officers of the union, wrote a letter in which he assumed
the role of a prophet and he says there might be an organizational
drive by your union without company opposition ; that there might be
a. strike threat, and then the company might give recognition to the
union on the basis of a card check rather than an election.
Then he says, if these things come to pass, the fruition of foregoing-
events would be in the form of a 5-year contract with a yearly wage-
reopening position. Doesn't it strike you that it is rather signifi-
cant that, after you talked to Mr. Schimmat, an officer of the A. & P.
Tea Co. wrote a letter in which he was good enough prophet to fore-
tell exactly what did happen in this connection, even down to the
secret 5-year agreement about the contract?
Doesn't that strike you as rather strange coincidence to happen all
by accident and without any prearrangement between you and Mr.
Schimmat ?
]Mr. Gorman. I say again, and I repeat again, that I had no ar-
rangement with Mr. Schimmat or any other single person connected
with the A. & P. by any such thing as a contract on a card check that
was not legal or any other kind of a card check.
Senator Ervin. Everything that this lawyer was saying was a
possibility that might come to pass in the future, and it did come to
pass.
]Mr. Gorman. If you pardon me for taking the time, there was a
captain in Chicago that asked me would I try — a lieutenant
Senator Ervin. You are going off. You are supposed to answer
my question, first.
Mr. (rORMAN. I waut to (ret back to tlie one tiling
Senator Ervin. Instead of telling your anecdote — and then tell
your anecdote. I say isn't it rather strange
Mr. Gorman. You Avant me to say things that I can't say. I can't
say them, truthfully.
Senator Ervin. You can truthfully say that if you didn't have
any conversation, and no conversation was had by the union officials
21243— 58— pt. 20 11
11344 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
with the A. & P. Tea Co. to where there was a possibility that there
was going to be an organizational drive without company opposition
and there was a possibility that, pursuant to a strike threat, the com-
pany would capitulate and agi'ee to recognize the union on the basis
of a card check, and that the fruition of these possible events would be
that the company was to get a 5-year contract binding their employees,
represented by a union which had not signed them up — don't you
think it is a rather strange thing that the lawyer was such a great
prophet of all this coming about ?
Mr. Gorman. It may sound strange to you, Senator. As far as I
am concerned. I knew nothing about the contents of that letter;
talked nothing of the contents of that letter with Mr, Schimmat or
any other A. & P. official. That is all I can say.
Senator Ervin. And you never discussed any of these matters ?
Mr. Gorman. Never.
Senator Ervin. Except about the one that you wanted a recognition
without company opposition ?
Mr. Gorman. I didn't say that, either, Senator. I said my purpose
was threefold or fourfold, to Mr. Schimmat, and one of the things
was to tell him that we were going to try to put that campaign over
and not to oppose us.
Senator Ervin. It is strange to see what the lawyers, when asked
the question as to what might happen if all these things occurred
and how the CIO union might come into the picture — don't you see
any relationship between that and the fact that you wired and told
them to keep this matter quiet until December ?
Mr. Gorman. I would do that again, Senator. I would do that
again, rather than jeopardize our position of getting all of these
people.
Mr. Kennedy. I would like to say, in connection with the point of
Senator Ervin, here you have this telegram — first, you have the letter
saying you have the New Jersey people signing up 6 weeks prior
to the time you have them signed up, and you have a telegram here :
Believe you should as quickly as possible throw all of your help to the Jersey
side in an effort to enroll quickly the 6,000 members there we shall be entitled to
under the agreement.
What agreement are you talking about ?
Mr. Gorman. That must have been the agreement negotiated in
New York.
Mr. Kennedy. That was the agreement that the company was going
to turn over the New Jersey employees to the meatcuttters ?
Mr. Gorman. Turn them over ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Gorman. I don't know anything about that.
Mr. Kennedy. Don't tell me that ; you say it in your telegram. You
say it in your letter.
Mr. Gorman. The agreement must have been signed.
Mr. Kennedy. Tlie agreement that you had was that the employees
in New Jersey were going to be turned over to the meat cutters ?
Mr. Gorman. Turned over.
Mr. Kennedy. Yes. That is what, in fact, happened?
Mr. Gorman. Who said they were going to be turned over?
IMPROPER ACTmTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11345
Mr. Kennedy. You say this. You say, "We are entitled to them
under the agreement."
Mr. Gorman. That is to go out and get them.
Mr. Kennedy. You don't have to have an agreement to try to or-
ganize. Since when has a labor union needed an agreement to go out
and organize ? You know that is not correct, Mr. Gorman.
Mr. Gorman. All I know, the information was passed on to me,
and that was the basis of that telegram.
Mr. Kennedy. The information was passed on to you that the em-
ployees in the New Jersey area were going to be turned over to your
union ; isn't that right ?
Mr. Gorman. The best contracts are with us in the country.
Mr. Kennedy. I am not saying it is not the best contract. I say you
knew that these employees were going to be turned over to the Meat
Cutters. You knew it, obviously, from the letter you sent and the-
telegram ?
Mr. Gorman. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. What about the fact you were also aware of the fact
that you were given a 45-hour week for a 5-year period ?
Mr. Gorman. I don't know anything about that.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you deny the fa^t that you signed an agreement
with Mr. Block extending the 45-hour Aveek for the extra 33 months ?
Mr. Gorman. I don't deny a thing that I can't remember.
Mr, Kennedy. Have you signed any secret agreement?
Mr. Gorman. Let me explain to you. I have to go back to Mr. May.
AMien Mr. May come into our office
Mr. Kennedy. You don't have to go back anyplace, Mr. Gorman.
Mr. Gorman. It must be in the record here somewhere.
Mr. Kennedy. Your memory before the committee is just an incred-
ible situation.
Mr. Gorman. Shouldn't the statement I made to you be in the rec-
ord ? Mr. May came to my office and got out a letter, and we placed all
the facilities of our office at his disposal so he could look for any letter.
He came up with a letter supposed to be. or was, on the letterhead of,
I think, local 342.
Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. That is exhibit No. 4.
Mr, Gorman. After he did that, after he got that letter, he come into
my office, very courteous, and said, "Mr. Gorman, will you come in and
look at this letter?" I looked at that letter. He said, "Do you i-ecog-
nize it?" I didn't then. Senator — I mean Mr. Kennedy — and I don't
now recognize that letter.
(At this point, the following members were present: Senators Mc-
Clellan and Ervin.)
Mr. Kennedy. We have had testimony
Mr. Gorman. But I said to Mr, May — he said, "Mr, Schimmat said
that you signed that letter," and I told him that, "If Mr. Schimmat
said that I signed that letter, Mr. Schimmat is a man of honor, and I
will take his word that I signed it."
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Schimmat has testified before the committee that
you signed the agreement extending the 45-hour week for an extra
33-month period. Did you sign that letter ?
Mr. Gorman. I said that, if Mr. Schimmat said it. I don't recollect
it, even now, but I will take what Mr, Schimmat said ; that I did sign
it. I will take liis word for it.
11346 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. That is rather an important matter. Do you sign
many things like that?
Mr. Gorman. I sign hundreds of letters every day. You see, for
instance, before I left
Mr. Kennedy. On terms of contracts, do you sign many agreements
such as that, extending terms of contracts ?
Mr. Gorman. Yes; there are supplemental agreements. I mean
sometimes agreements are modified through the life of the contract.
(At this point. Senator Church entered the hearing room.)
Mr. Kennedy. Do you make sure that those agreements are made
known to the employees ?
Mr. Gorman. Well, they should be made known to employees.
Mr. Kennedy. I draw your attention in that connection to the testi-
mony of ]Mr. Keape, who testified that he received an agreement from
you, prior to the time he brought his union into the Meat Cutters, that
you would take steps to get a 40-hour week for the A. & P. employees ;
that he tried to make efforts when the contract came up for renewal
to get that 40-hour week, and he could not get Mr. Block to agree to it.
So, then, because he had gotten this promise from you, he said that he
Avent out to see you, and he relates his conversation on page 41. He
said :
I said, "You made a promise and I am here to demand my ponnd of flesh."
Those are the exact words I used. I said, "Tliere have been rumors that a
5-year contract was signed, and I don't know wliether or not tliat is so." I
said, "Mr. Gorman, do you l^now anything about a .^)-year contract being signed
with A. & P.?" Mr. Gorman's answer to me was, "Well, if Max Block made a
promise to A. & P., I guess he would live up to it."
Did you inquire after that to find out if such a promise had been
made ?
Mr. Gorman. Yes ; I did.
Mr. Kennedy. What did you find out?
Mr. Gorman. That there was no such agreement.
Mr. Kennedy. When?
Mr. Gorman. That was 2 or 3 times. As late as yesterday.
Mr. Kennedy. When did you inquire yesterday ?
Mr. Gorman. It was months ago.
Mr. Kennedy. I asked you yesterday if you had ever inquired, and
you said you never had inquired.
Mr. Gorman. Here is wliat I said to you yesterday
JNIr. Kennedy. Mr. Gorman, you told me yesterday you never in-
<iuired. I asked you about the conversation with Mr. Reape, and you
said, "I never bothered to look into it."
Mr. Gorman. Well, let's agree, then, that probably before yesterday
I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Let's get it straight. Did you or didn't you ?
Mr. Gorman. I probably did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Then yesterday was the first time that you inquired ^
Mr. GoRiMAN. Let's have it on the record that way.
Mr. Kennedy. Why didn't you try to find out at that time^
Mr. Gorman. You asked me a question about Keape. Can I get
lliat into the record ?
Mr. Kennedy. All I asked you was about the conversation that you
had with ]Mr. Reai)e about the 45-hour week.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11347
Mr. Gorman. I don't recall Mr. Reape ever saying that I came down
for my pound of flesh. Mr. Reape is not that type of a fellow. If
he did it, he said it jokingly. On the 4()-liour week, the international
union in New York was not in a very good position, because at that
time fully 80 percent of tlie entire country in the retail trade was on
the 45-hour week.
Even the big Pittsburgh local union, as I recall, did not have the
40-hour week in 1942, Even now, there are approximately from 8
to 10 percent of the people in the retail trade that does not have the
40-hour week. They are still on the 45- or 48-hour week.
Mr. Kennedy. Safeway Stores had it at that time.
Mr. Gorman. SafeAvay was the only one, and they only had 1,500
employees out of approximately 25,000 or maybe 35,000 people in the
retail stores.
Mr. Kennedy. Of course. No. 1, besides the merits of the matter is
the fact that the agreement had been made with Mr. Reape, and he
came out and tried to get you to live up to it, and you dismissed him
at that time. The second thing is that the secret agreement had been
signed by you, secretary-treasurer of the international union, which
was never made known to the employees of the union. I would think
that that violates all the principles of trade unionism.
Mr. Gorman. No, I clon't think you can attribute that entirely to
the secretary-treasurer.
Mr. Kennedy. You and Mr. Block.
Mr. Gorman. If I did sign it, and I don't recall it, I admit signing
it because Mr. Schimmat says I signed it.
Mr. Kennedy. xVll right,
Mr. Gorman. If I did sign it, it went back to the organization and
it was strictly local negotiations.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Reape came out 2 years later or a year and a half
later and said, ''What about this ?"
You didn't repudiate it at that time.
Mr. Gorman. Pat Reape was constantly, and he had a justifiable
complaint, and that was that his own position was not too good so
long as his own little 1,500 people was getting the 40-hour week and
the bulk, the other thousands upon thousands were not getting the
40-hour Aveek.
I could not have made a promise, I could not have made a promise,
a definite promise, to Pat Reape that we would guarantee to get the
40-hour week for him. That is an impossible thing, because that is
a negotiable thing. You have to negotiate for 40-hour weeks. I
could not have promised. But I was alwaj's sympathetic toward Pat
Reape that we might eventually get the 40-hour week. ]May I read
just one thing to you, Mr. Kennedy ?
Mr. Kennedy. I would just like to say that that does not answer
this question at all, Mr. Gorman.
Mr. Gorman. What is tlie question?
Mr. IvENNEDY. The point is the signing of a secret agreement for
the 45-hour week extending over a 5-year period of time, that Mr.
Reape comes to j'ou, draws this to your attention, and you don't say
'"Well, on the merits, I don't think we can go for a 40-hour week.'^
You don't handle it in that way at all, but you just dismiss the whole
matter. You have been a part of signing a secret agreement.
11348 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Gorman. I think it is probable that we might have, if not on
that occasion, talked about the improbability of getting a 40-hour
week, because these people were new people. They were not organ-
ized. They were not trained,
Mr. Kennedy : That is not the way to handle it at all, Mr. Gorman.
Maybe it was justified, but that is not the way to handle it.
These people were entitled to know what the terms of the contract
were, and you participated in keepmg it secret. I have a few other
matters.
The Chairman. Let me ask the witness a question. In this original
letter that you wrote, in which you pointed out that you had some-
thing very advantageous both to the A. & P. Co. and to your union,
at that time you did not have a bargaming contract.
You did not have authority to represent the A. & P. employees
in makmg the bargaining contract. It seems on the face of the evi-
dence here that what actually happened, and what you had in mind
and what subsequently transpired, was that if A. & P. would quit
its opposition to the union and help you, and that is what the other
witness — what is his name? — testified that you wanted at the time,
that you wanted him to help you organize the A. & P. clerk em-
ployees, that if they would help you organize them, by reason of
that you would get about 10,000 new members, and in turn you would
assure them of a 4.5-hour week for 5 years, and thus save them any-
where from $2 million to about $14 million a year. Such an arrange-
ment obviously was most advantageous to both you and to the com-
pany, and yet not advantageous to the employees.
That seems to be what the two moving considerations were that
evidently motivated the transactions as they were negotiated and
consummated.
That is the way it appears on the face of it.
Mr. Gorman. I can only say to you again. Senator, that at no time
in my conversation, and I have had only one conversation in 5 years
and have not seen him since that time, did I say anytliing to him
about a 45 -hour week. I did not.
The Chairman. All right. Let's accept that,
Mr. Gorman. Nor did I ever say to him "We want you to put your
people into our organization." We did try to induce him not to oppose
our organization.
The Chairman. We will accept that as a fact now for the purpose
of further proceeding. But immediately according to your wire here,
and your report to the executive board, Mr. Block moved in.
Mr. Gorman. Mr. Block was in from the beginning, sir.
The Chairman. All right. But he was not in that conversation, the
jfirst conversation you had with Mr. Schimmat. He was not present
in that first conversation, was he ?
Mr. Gorman. I don't think he was. I am not sure.
The Chairman. All right. But immediately he moved in, and that
is the way the deal turned out. Ten days later a letter is being writ-
ten in which they are inquiring about the legal possibilities and so
forth of such an arrangement from their attorney. Obviously, on
the face of it, unless somebody can come in here with an explanation,
I don't see how we can draw any other conclusion except that there
was collusion for the interest and advantage of your union in organiz-
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11349
ing-, so that it would get 10,000 members, and so that the A. & P. Tea
Co. would get a 45-hour week for 5 years.
That is the way it appears on the face of it. It is sustained. I
mean by the testimony now before us.
Senator Church. Mr. Gorman, what are the dues of your union ?
Mr. GoR^iAN. The dues to our international office is $1.40 a month
per member, Senator.
Senator Church. How much does a member have to pay all told?
What are the dues that he pays to the local ?
Mr. Gorman. That is established by the local unions.
Senator Church. Do you know in this case how much the total
dues were ?
Mr. Gorman. In those days ?
Senator Church. In those days.
Mr. Gorman. I don't know what the dues are now. Senator. I
don't know what they are now.
The Chairman. The testimony was that they were $4.
Mr. Gorman. At that time ?
Senator Church. Total dues of $4 a year ?
The Chairman. No. Four dollars a month.
Senator Church. Four dollars a month ?
Mr. Gorman. A month ; yes.
Senator Church. And of that amount, the international receives
$1.40; is that right?
Mr. Gorman. That is right.
Senator Church. So the addition of 10,000 members would be
$14,000 a month to the international ; is that correct ?
Mr. Gorman. I think you should know. Senator, that some portion
of those dues are frozen. For instance, 15 cents of it goes into the
death fund which cannot be touched for any purpose.
In this case, 15 cents goes into the retirement fund which cannot
be touched for any purpose, and 10 cents goes into the strike fund
which cannot be touched except for the purpose of keeping people in
good when they are on strike. And there is $1 for the general running
expense of the International Union.
Senator Church. Taking into consideration as you quite properly
point out that certain portions of this money are earmarked under
your arrangement, $1 of the amount or $10,000 a month would have
come in for general operations of the International as a result of
acquiring 10,000 new members ; is that correct ?
Mr. Gorman. That is correct.
Senator Church. With respect to the supplemental agreement that
we have had testimony on as having been secretly arranged for between
the Meat Cutters' Union and the A. & P. Co., did I understand you to
say that you did not know that this agreement was going to be kept
secret from the employees ?
Mr. Gorman. So far as I am concerned, Mr. Schimmat never had
any agreement with me. Again, he never made any mention to me.
When I was in the back, I heard him say that some mention was made
by another person that it be kept secret. But Mr. Schimmat never
heard that from me, never did, and no one else ever heard it from me.
(At this point Senator McClellan withdrew from the hearing room.)
11350 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Church. Did you know in fact that the agreement was
going to be kept secret ?
Mr. Gorman. I did not, Senator.
Senator Church. You did not ?
Mr. Gorman. No.
Senator Church. How do you feel about a practice of entering into
an agreement with an employer that affects 10, 1, or 1,000 employees —
the number really doesn't matter — how do you feel about an agree-
ment that is entered into between the union and the employer that is
kept from the employees ?
Mr. Gorman. Well, it isn't the best practice.
Senator Church. It is not even a decent practice ; is it ? Would you
call it even a decent practice? Would you say that it accords with
sound and healthy unionism in this country, to enter into such
agreements ?
Mr. Gorman. There may be some cases in which an agreement of
that kind might be substantiated. There could be, maybe, a half
dozen cases. For instance, you might substantiate that — "Well, I
am a little, small, chainstore. I am competing against the A. & P.
All right. I am going to go along with the darn thing, but maybe
when the A. & P. hears that I sign up, they work that way — maybe
when they hear that I have signed your contract, too, they may give 3,
4 or 5 hours less on the week. I don't know that they will do it, but
a little fellow like me ought to have some protection."
O. K., we will go along with it.
"Will you give me a little side?"
That could happen in the interests of the smaller fellow. We have
an interest in the small fellow, too, the fellow who runs one store, not
the big chain like the A. & P., but not to put him out of business,
either.
Senator Church. These contracts that are entered into, you are the
bargaining agent for these employees, are you not ?
Mr. Gorman, The local union involved.
Senator Church. You represent the interests of the emploj-ee ?
Mr. Gorman. That is right.
Senator Church. So your primary fiduciary relationship runs to
the employees and not to any other party ?
Mr. Gorman. That is right.
Senator Church. As a matter of fact, if it would begin to run to
another party other than the employees, it would be very difficult for
you to represent the best interests of the employees, wouldn't it, be-
cause you would be working for two different competing interests?
Mr. Gorman. It has always been hard for us to organize. There
has always been one interest. Tlie primary interest is with the
workers.
Senator Church. That is right. Your interest and responsibility
runs to the employees, the employees for whom you bargain, and no
one else ?
Mr. Gorman. That is right.
Senator Chttrch. Isn't it always in the interest of the employees
you represent that they know what the terms are of the contract that
affects their employment ?
Mr. Gorman. This is the first case I heard of that they did not know
it, if tliis is true that they did not know it, and I assume that it is.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11351
(At this point, the followino- members of tlie committee were pres-
ent : Senators Ervin jind Church. )
Senator Church. So witli respect to the facts of this case you woukl
feel tliat it was highly improper to keej) the terms of this supple-
mental agreement secret and not reveal them to the employees?
;Mr. Gorman. I^et me put it this way: 1 think it would have been
much better had everyone been told about it.
(At this point, Senator McClellan entered the hearing room.)
Senator Church, I agree with yon there.
Senator Ervin. AVon't you go further than that. Wouldn't you
say that decency and a proper regard for humanity required that the
employees be advised of the terms of such an agreement as was made
with Mr. Schimmat, the secret agreement ?
Mr. Gorman. Decency is a misunderstood word. I will go along
with you on the other.
Senator Ervin. Don't you think that the fairest, simplest, minimum
requirements of ethics required that ?
Mr. Gorman. Yes.
Senator Ervin. In other words, here you have 10,000 people that
are paying almost half a million dollars altogether in union dues a year
and here is a negotiating agent who is supposed to represent them,
who enters into a secret contract extending the terms of their employ-
ment from 22 months to 60 months and requests the representative of
management to join him in fraudulently concealing that knowledge
from all of the people who are paying those union dues?
Mr. Gorman. You say that they pay $10,000 a month or such as
that to the international union ?
Senator Ervin. I didn't say "International." I said all union dues.
The evidence is that they w^ere paying something like $4.50 a month.
That is almost $50 a year. Ten thousand people paying $50 a year
are paying $500,000 a year.
Mr. Gorman. They are getting the best wages in the country.
Senator Ervin. You go off on a tangent. I never asked you that.
I was asking you about whether you didn't think that w^as a repre-
hensible thing for the negotiating officer to do, to make a secret
contract, and then to get management to enter into an agreement
with him to fraudulently suppress knowledge of the fact that the
terms of the employment of these people were being extended from
22 months to 60 months without their knowledge or consent, whereas
they w'ere paying almost half a million dollars a year into the union
treasury.
Mr. Gorman. "We could pay that back to them in the same amount
of time. We have obligations to those people not only as members.
Senator Ervin. You have one obligation which ought to be your
primary obligation and that is to tell them under what terms you are
agreeing for them to work under.
Mr. Gorman. If they have trouble with their companies tomorrow
we have to pay them, we have to see that they are not in want. We
could spend a half million dollars in a strike as we have done on more
than one occasion, half a million dollars on one strike. That is their
money. It belongs to them.
If they are in trouble, we give it back to them.
Senator Ervin. They are also entitled to know the terms of their
employment.
11352 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Gorman. I would agree with you. You can't point to one
single case. This is the first time in 61 years in our organization that
a case has come up ; the first time.
Senator Ervin. What have you done about it since you found out
about it ?
Mr. Gorman. I didn't hear about it until today.
Senator Eratln. You never heard about it until today.
Mr. Gorman. I heard rumors about it. I was anxious to hear what
Mr. Schimmat had to say.
Senator Era^n. When did you hear rumors that the negotiating
representative of the union had recjuested the officials of the A. & P.
Tea Co. to join him in suppressing information about this secret
agreement ? When did you first hear the rumors about it ?
Mr. Gorman. At the time when Pat Keape came and asked me if
there was a secret agreement on it.
Senator Ervin. When was that?
Mr. Gorman. I believe that is in the record. I don't recall it. It
must be in 1955 or 1956.
Senator Ervin. About 3 years ago you heard rumors to that effect
and you didn't stop to investigate the rumoi-s ?
Mr. Gorman. How would you prove it ?
Senator Ervin. I would find out. I would call in the man wha
negotiated the contract and ask him about it and then I would go to
Mr. Schimmat and see what he had to say about it.
Mr. Gorman. I have not seen my signature yet on any agreements
Senator Ervin. You told us you didn't know whether you signed it.
Mr. Gorman. I am only aware I signed it because if Mr. Schimmat
said I signed it, I will take his word for it. Mr. Schimmat has not
shown me my signature. No one else has shown me my signature.
Yet if he said it, I will stay with him, yes, I signed it.
Senator Ervin. The truth of it is that your signature has been
destroyed ?
Mr. Gorman. I didn't destroy it. Senator.
Senator Ervin. You still have not answered my question. Why
didn't you investigate the rumors to see what a bargaining repre-
sentative of your union, one of the locals, had been so faithless to his
trust to the employees that your union represents as to agree to sup-
press from them knowledge of the fact that the contract had been ex-
tended from 22 months to 60 months ? Why didn't you investigate to
see whether there was any basis for those rumors ?
Mr. Gorman. Well, it wasn't done. It just wasn't done.
Senator Ervin. Don't you think it ought not to have been done?
Mr. Gorman. Let us agree that maybe it should have been done.
But I think the end justifies the means. Everything they dreamed
for they have gotten, the 40-hour week
Mr. Kennedy. The reason you didn't investigate is because you
signed and knew about it?
Mr. Gorman. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. You knew about this agieement extending it for
5 years?
Mr. Gorman. Knew about the agreement?
Mr. Kennedy. You signed the agreement?
IMPROPER ACTmTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11353
Mr. G(«MA>r. I know but as I said yesterday to you, Mr. Kennedy,
T still don't remember sibling that agreement. But if he said I
signed it, I did.
Mr. Kennedy. That is why you didnt investigate it. You signed
it so there was not an}' reason to investigate it. Isn't that right?
Mr. Gorman. No, I wouldn't say that. In the absence of my mem-
ory of signing that thing, I don't recall it, I don't remember signing
it. I stood by that position. I still do. If Mr. Kennedy said I did
sign it, I will take his word for it.
Mr. Kennedy. The point is that when Pat Reape came out he told
you that there Avas a rumor around that there was such a secret agree-
ment. He came out and brought this to this man's attention. I say
that the logical thing to do under those circumstances, if he didn't
have any firsthand information and knowledge, would be to call up
Max I^lock and ask him about it.
Mi\ Gorman. Let us agree, Mr. Kennedy, we should.
Mr. Kennedy. The reason you didn't do it is because you knew
about it and because you signed it ?
Mr. Gorman. You insist that I did know about it. If I did, I had
no recollection of signing it.
Mr. Kennedy. I say the logical thing to do for the ordinary human
being would be to call up and find out about it, if somebody came all
the way from New York to Chicago and complained about a secret
agreement. The testimony before the committee is that you signed
this agreement. I say the logical thing to do, if you didn't know
anything about it, would be to call.
If you knew everything about it, it wouldn't be necessary to call.
That would point, obviously, to the fact you did know about it. You
knew it was a secret agreement, Mr. Gorman. Won't you admit to
that?
Mr. Gorman, I won't admit I knew I signed that agreement. I
onh' admit now that I signed it because Mr. Schimmat said it.
Mr. Kennedy. Don't you agree you signed it and you knew it was
secret ?
Mr. Gorman. I don't remember now I signed it. I will only say
I will take Mr. Schimmat's word that I signed it.
Mr. Kennedy. Have you arranged for the international to have
any financial transactions with Mr. Block?
Mr. Gorman. Except donations for the campaign.
Mr. Ivennedy. Whose campaign ?
Mr. Gorman. The campaign to organize the A. & P. stores.
Mr. Kennedy. Other than that you have had none ?
Mr. Gorman. Wlien the campaign was over, if you talk about
financial transactions, when that campaign was over, and those people
were members of our organization, they need expansion in their
offices, and they borrowed from the international union some $10,000
for new equipment.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they pay that back ?
Mr. Gorman. We are asking them, inasmuch as they didn't pay it
back, to extend the note. We will give them an extension on the note
if they pay the interest. All we want is the interest on the not«.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know how that $10,000 was used?
11354 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
jNIr. Gorman. No. It was for the purpose of remodeling cand build-
mg their office, new equipment, et cetera. It is a reliable local union
iind if they want it for other purposes, maybe an expansion of any-
thing that might be in the organizational field, it is a legitimate
organization, and they can pay their debts, and we expect interest
on the note in accordance with the terms of the agreement under
Avhich it was loaned.
Mr. Kennedy. You mean the union of Mr. Block is a reliable
union ?
Mr. Gorman. Yes ; it is.
Mr. Kennedy. Are you familiar with the testimony of Mr. Louis
Marcus, of N"ew York, in the trial of George Scalise regarding the
granting of this charter to the Blocks?
Mr. Gorman. I never heard of Mr. Marcus at all.
Mr. Kennedy. He was an attorney and he testified in this trial of
George Scalise. Have you heard of George Scalise ?
Mr. Gorman. I don't know him. I know him by sight only. I
never spoke a word to him in my life.
Mr. Kennedy, He spent a good deal of time in jail, did he not,
according to the newspapers?
Mr. Gorman. According to the newspapers, he evidently did.
Mr. Kennedy. For extortion and other matters. He was asked
a. question at that time :
Did you have any further contact with any other union at the instigation or
direction of Scalise?
Answer. I did. Therefore, I believe it was In the same year, 1934, Mr.
Scalise aslied me to come to see him at liis office at 1 Hansom Place, which
I did. He told me he would like to get a Butchers and nonkosher Butchers in
the Borough of Brooklyn. At that time I represented the Butchers' Union in
New York, and I told him I could get a charter for nonkosher butchers in
Brooklyn px*oviding I know who is going to be in this union, because I told him
that the Butchers organization would not have anyone but butchers in the
organization. He mentioned the names of Max and Louis Block, both of whom
I knew to be butchers, and I said "That is very good ; I mil get you the proper
applications, and you fill them out and I will do all I can to get you this charter."
I asked him who, if anybody, was going to finance the proposition because I told
him that the Butchers' International would not advance any finances for organ-
ization and he said, "Augie and myself."
Then he was asked the question,
Augie and myself?
Answer. That is right.
Was that the same man you referred to as Augie Pizzano?
Answer. I believe so.
Do you know who Augie Pizzano is ?
Mr, Gorman. I never heard of him.
IVIr, Kennedy. He has been arrested 12 times and spent a long time
in i a i 1 . You never heard of h i m ?
Mr, Gorman. I never heard of him,
Mr, Kennedy. A very notorious gangster. Did you laiow there had
been tliat testimony regarding the Blocks and how they got into the
union ?
Mr, Gorman. What you read to me there is so far from the truth it
is laughable because I ha]:)pen to know that situation.
Mr, Kennedy, Would you explain how they got their charter?
Mr, Gorman. I mean that testimony just doesn't make sense.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11355
Mr. IvENNEDY. You exphiiii it.
Mr. Gorman. In New York— when we were going fairly well in
other parts of the country in oi-ganizing the peoj)le in packing })lants
witliin our jurisdiction— "in New York we had a woefully weak organ-
ization. As I recall we had about three local unions Avith only a few
hundred members in them.
We tried to organize and bosses, iiguratively speaking, beat your
brains out. You could not get to first base with them. We had a vice
president there by the name of John Walsh and he met the Blocks.
Pie told them, "If you are as good organizers as you think you are, go
ahead and organize this town and take in any money tliat you want to
as long as they are in our ])articular industry."" It was John Walsh
wlu3 got the charters for the lilocks and not anyone else.
Mr. Kennedy. Who financed the Blocks ^
Mr. Gorman. Without looking at the records, I presume there was^
some money given to the Blocks. I am not sure of that.
Mr. Kennedy. The point of this was that George Scalise financed
the Blocks, and Augie Pizzano
Mr. Gorman. If he did, we didn't know it.
Mr. Kennedy. Have you had any iinancial transactions other than
the $10,UU0 with the Bkjcks or any company they have had an interest
in i
Mr. Gorman. Xo.
Mr. Kennedy. Have you arranged for the international to have a
financial transaction with the Blocks or any company in which they
had an interest?
^Ir. Gorman. I don't know whether they are owners or not. They
were interested at least, one of them, and in an institution up in Con-
necticut.
Mr. Kennedy. What is the institutions called ?
Mr. Gorman. It is a country club with a golf course on it. Deercrest.
Mr. Kennedy. Deercrest Country Club ?
Mr. Gorman. That's right.
Mr. Kennedy. That is in Stanford, Conn.?
Mr. Gorman. I would not know the point in Connecticut. It is in
Connecticut. I liave never seen it or have been there.
]\Ir. Kennedy. Did you arrange for the international to loan $25,000
to the Deercrest Country Club ?
Mr. Gorman. Yes, I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to Max or Louis Block in connection
witii that '(
Mr. Gorman. Only Max. I did not talk to Louie at all,
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever discuss that loan of $25,000 with yai«"
international executive board ?
Mr. Gorman. Yes, it was approved.
Mr. Kennedy. When was it approved ?
Mr.^ Gorman. As I recall, your man yesterday in Chicago found it.
I don't know the date. But prior to the purchase of the stock.
Mr, Kennedy. We can find no mention of it in your international
executive board minutes.
Mr. Gorman. While I am looking at that, or waiting for this, I
tliink it should be in the record concerning tliat Deercrest Club, Mr.
Kennedy, that when Max Block talked to us about it he had a pro-
11356 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
spectus concerning it, and we wouldn't buy, although it looked to be a
pretty good thing from an investment viewpoint. We wouldn't buy.
We wanted additional surety over and above what they offered in the
bonds and stocks that they were offering.
On the suggestion of our legal adviser and also investment adviser,
Mr. Joseph Sullivan, he said that if Max Block himself will personally
guarantee this loan in addition to the Deercrest Country Club, it will
be all right.
On the strength of the properties of the club itself, in addition to
that, the personal pledge of Max Block, which we have attached to the
bonds, the $25,000 was loaned and it is the best investment that the
international union has today. Out of its $8.5 million invested, that
pays the most dividends to the money involved.
(At this point the following members were present: Senators Mc-
Clellan and Ervin.)
JVIr. Kennedy. How many country clubs has your union invested in ?
Mr. Gorman. None.
Mr. Kennedy. That is the only country club ?
Mr. Gorman. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Where are the rest of your funds ?
Mr. Gorman. Well, there are approximately, I would say, pretty
near $9 million that is invested exclusively in United States Govern-
ment bonds. As I recall, not more than $40,000 is in investments that
could be considered speculative.
Mr. Kennedy. Is this $25,000 included in that ?
Mr. Gorman. Yes, that is including that $25,000.
Mr. Kennedy. And that is in this country club, is that right ?
Mr. Gorman. That is in that country club.
IMr. Kennedy. Were they trying to build a golf course at the time?
Mr. Gorman. I have never seen it, Mr. Kennedv.
Mr. Kennedy. What did they need the $25,000 for?
Mr. Gorman. It was formerly patronized, and I understand one of
the best clubs in Connecticut. However, as Max told me, it was run-
ning down a little bit, and they needed some money to make rej^airs.
I think it is a sort of exclusive place, that they only take in so many
members. Whether it was for a golf course — the golf course, I think,
was there. It might have needed some im])rovement. I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. Did that improve the attractiveness of the loan, the
fact that it was an exclusive place ?
Mr. Gorman. I have never seen it. They showed me pictures of it.
Mr. Kennedy. You mentioned that several times.
Mr. Gorman Wliat is that ?
Mr. Kennedy. The fact that it was exclusive.
Mr. Gorman. I don't think it was open to the general public.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that one of the reasons you made the loan ?
Mr. Gorman. We seemed to think that it was a safe investment.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that the Blocks owned that ?
Mr. Gorman. I don't know who owns it. I understand one, at
least, Louis, is interested in it. Whether Max is, Mr. Kennedy, I don't
know.
Mr. Kennedy. Louis has the major interest in it, does he not, in the
country club ?
Mr. Gorman. Made me an interest ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11357
Mr. Kennedy. Major interest ?
Mr. Gorman. I wouldn't know.
Mr. Kennedy. When they spoke to you about it, didn't they explain
they had a major interest in the country club?
Mr. Gorman. Louis himself has some interest. Whether it is major,
I don't know.
Mr. KENNEDY. The bond says:
In the event of the insolvency of the corporation, the holder hereof shall be
entitled to share pro rata vpith general creditors of the corporation and with
holders of bonds of other issues, if any, of the corporation on the basis of aggre-
gate unpaid balance of principal plus accumulated interest hereon, provided,
however, that any and all obligations and /or indebtedness of the corporation to
any person, bank, trust company, insurance company, finance company, and/or
financial institution then accruing, whether due or not, shall first have been paid
and satisfied in full before any payment or distribution to the holder hereof.
So you are pretty far down the line as far as collecting money if the
country club didn't work out.
Mr. Gorman. That is the risk that anyone takes on a speculative
investment.
Mr. Kennedy. It is peculiar that you have a speculative investment
in a country club with Max and Louis Block. That is the only question
I raised.
Then he wrote you a letter, dated June 27, 1956.
Dear Sib and Bbotheb : In addition to the security offered by the Deercrest
Country Club, Inc., the purchase of $25,000 of this corpora tions bonds, I want to
personally assure you that I stand behind these bonds in the same manner as does
the Deercrest Country Club, Inc.
That doesn't give you very much either.
Mr. Gorman. Let me state again, Mr. Kennedy, that there is no
investment that I make without first taking it to Mr. Sullivan. When
he saw that, with Max's personal appearance that he would stand be-
hind him, "go ahead and take it."
Mr. Kennedy. It seems so unusual for union funds to be used to
finance the building of a golf course at an exclusive country club.
Mr. Gorman. AVell, it will always be controversial, I guess, how
union funds should be used. If they invest them in certain business
enterprises, then they are criticized for that.
If they invest them in speculative securities that might not be as
sound as they should be, then we are criticized for that.
Mr. Kennedy. Here you are investing in a golf course of a country
club which is partly owned by a vice president of the union. Cer-
tainly I think a question can be raised also about that.
Mr. Gorman. I think you will find that Mr. Max Block will say to
you that he has no investment in that.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, Mr. Louis Block, his brother
Mr. Gorman. He is no ojSicer of the international union.
Mr. IvENNEDY. He has something to do with your pension fund,
doesn't he ?
Mr. Gorman. He serves the pension fund only. He is no officer now
even of a local union.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, he is also Mr. Louis Block's brother, who is an
officer.
Well, would you read that to us ?
Mr. Gorman. This is of the board meeting of October 20, 1956.
This is right from the official records of the meeting.
11358 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Secretary Gorman told the board that the accountants for the international
union made the suggestion that ttie board should concur in at least periodically
all bills. Secretary Gorman said that in the past all action of the international
executive board was recorded through motions. The accountants for the inter-
national union said that it would be much better if major matters passed upon
by the executive board would not only be approved by a vote of the board, but
be set forth in the form of a resolution, concurred in by all of the board. For
instance, continued Secretary Gorman, we are advised that in the matter of
financial expenditures, while the entire board is furnished with the annual
reports of Mr. Thomas Havian & Co., CI'A, it is thought, nevertheless, by our
accountants that the board approve expenditures by resolution even in addition
to the above.
Attorney Leo Segal therefore suggests that on finances affecting everyone in
connection with the international union, and their expenditures approved by the
board, should be in the form of a resolution ; by promotion which was seconded
and carried, the board approved of a recommendation of the accountants and
attorneys for the international union and adopted the following resolution :
Be it resohwd. That the acts and doings of the president and secretary-treas-
urer of this international union, and the acts and doings of the agents, attorneyts,
servants, and employees, acting for and on behalf of the president and secretary-
treasurer, and all expenditures made by them, or for them, as .such to date here
have been approved and ratified by this executive board.
Mr. Kennedy. What date is that ^
Mr. Gorman. October 26, 1956. But that same motion has been
carried at every other board meeting since that time.
Mr. Kennedy. Tell us where you approved the $25,000 loan to the
country club ?
Mr. Gorman. All of the expenses and expenditures in this is ap-
proved by the international executive board. They must have had
that listed in the full report. Every bond, every piece of investment
that we have
Mr. Kennedy. Did you take it up with the board prior to the time
that you made the loan 'i
Mr. Gorman. Xo. We were never required to do that.
Mr. Kennedy. Then you did make the loan without their approval,
did you not ?
Mr. Gorman. Do you mean in the first — in the first place, j'es, it
was approved by the board and then made. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Under your constitution, isn't it required that the
executive board give approval to these transactions?
Mr. (torman. Tliat is right. But you will keep in mind, Mr. Ken-
nedy, that prior to this 1956 matter, tliere was nothing involved in
expenditures except United States Government bonds, so far as in-
vestments are concerned, and in a matter of that kind, it was not
necessary
Mr. Kennedy. Government bonds?
Ml", (torman. Government bonds — it was not necessary to take your
funds and put tliem \n Government lK)nds. Then we deemed when we
got a little speculative, they must be api^roved.
Mr. Kennedy. T would put (Toveniment bonds in a little dift'eivnt
category tlian Louis Block's country chib.
Mr. Gou:^r.\N. So do I.
Mr. Kennedy. Under your constitution, you must have the ap-
proval of the executive board, which you never did.
Mr. Gorman. It does not say prior to or subsequent to purchase. It
is with the approval.
Ml". Kennedy. l)i<l tlie executive board know tliat you were making
tliis loan ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11359
yir. Gorman. No, not at the time ; they all know it now.
Mr. Kennedy. They mi*j;lit know it now, but it is a little late after
you have made it. You can't go back on it.
Mr. Gorman. In that loan, Mr. Kennedy, let me say tliat in the
interest of our organization, if anything would happen to that loan
I would mortgage my home tliat our international union would not
lose one single dime.
Mr. Kennedy. According to the constitution it was supposed to be
taken up. The matter was not taken up, and, as you say, it was a
speculative loan, and it was to a country club in which the brother
of the vice president has a major interest. I would like to ask you
about one other thing before we close, and that is whether you had a
financial transaction with any of the officials of Food Fair?
Mr. Gorman. Food Fair?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Gorman. No.
yiv. Kennedy. Did you have a discussion with jNlr. Lou Stein re=
garding the purcliase of some bonds or stock ?
Mr. (tokman. Never. Oh, do you mean in Food Fair (
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Gorman. No.
]\rr. Kp;nnedy. Did you have any discussion with Mr. Stein, regard-
ing tlie purchase of any stocks or bonds? Not necessarily Food Fair
bonds or stocks.
Mr. Gorman. You mean any stocks oi- bonds ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
]Mr. Gorman. Well, that was quite accidental. That might have
been in 1956 when I asked him — I met him in the Statler Hotel in
New York. "We had one highball together, and I asked him did he
know of any good stock that I might invest in, in view of the fact that I
had just collected $4,800 which was withheld from my salary by the
international union, and he said ''Yes. I would suggest that you buy
some stock in Redding Tube." So he made tlie arrangements and I
purchased Kedding Tube stock in the amount of $5,000.
Mr. Kennedy. You received 200 shares?
Mr. Gorman. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Redding Tube stock at $25 a share?
]Mr. GoR^rAN. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. This was arr;tno:ed b}' Lou Stein, president of Food
Fair>
Mr. Gorman. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you know he was a director in the Redding Tube
Corp. at the t'u\ie(
Mr. Gorman. No.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not know that ?
Mr. Gorman. A director?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. (tOr^ian. He may have, Mr. Kennedy, told me that he was in-
terested in that. He said it was a small company and coming up fast.
Mr. Kennedy. Then that was on December 13, approximately,
1955.
Mr. Gor:man. That is riaiit.
?1L'4::— o8— i)t. 20 r.
1136.0. IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy, Then did you contact Mr. Stein at a later date?
Mr. Gorman. Yes; I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you write him a letter on September 6, 1956 ?
Mr. Gorman. Yes; I did, because I felt I wasn't treated fairly in
the matter, that I paid more for the stock than I paid, that I could
have bought it anywhere for less than $5,000. It was selling then in
the open market for $20 a share, and I was charged $25 a share.
Mr. Kennedy. The regular price at that time, and we have made
a study of it, Mr. Kopecky can testify on it, the market price at that
time was $25 a share, which you paid.
Mr. Gorman. I was told otherwise, Mr. Kennedy. In my letter, I
mentioned I would like to find someway to dispose of the stock, and
if he could find somebody to give me what I paid for it
Mr. Kennedy. At the time you purchased the stock, you paid the
market price, $25 a share.
Mr. Gorman. Was that it ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Gorman. I was told differently.
The Chairman. I present to you a photostatic copy of a letter or a
carbon copy dated September 6, 1956, addressed to Mr. Louis Stein,
Food Fair Stores, Inc. I ask you to examine it and see whether you
identify it.
(The document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. Kennedy. Could I read this into the record ?
The Chairman. All right. The letter has been identified.
Mr. Kennedy. It is to Louis Stein, signed by the secretary-treasurer.
Around the first of the year you purchased for me some 200 shares of Redding
Tube Corp. stock. I received 3 dividends on the stock. Par value I notice v?as
$20, but for the 200 shares I paid $5,000. I believe, Lou, you mentioned to me
that the stock may be divided. If it is, someone also told me that preferred
stock, such as mine, is never divided. Do you know of Anyone, Lou, that vrould
be willing to purchase my Redding Tube stock for what I paid for it? I am
willing to let it go if I don't take a loss. Wishing again a very Happy New Year
to you and yours,
lam,
Yours very sincerely.
Did they purchase the stock from you ?
Mr. Gorman. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Julius Schwartz purchase it ?
Mr. Gorman. Mr. Julius Schwartz ; yes.
The Chairman. Here is a copy of a letter fi-om Mr. Schwartz to you.
Would you identify that, please ?
(The document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. Kennedy. All right.
The Chairman. That letter may be read.
Mr. Kennedy. "Dear Pat."
This is September 26, 1956.
Lou Stein has mentioned to me that you have 200 shares of Redding Tube
convertible preferred stock available. I personally am interested in the stock
and would be willing to buy the 200 shares at a total price of $5,000. Incidentally,
Pat, it was certainly thoughtful of you to wire New Year's greetings.
Very kindest regards,
I am,
Julius Schwartz.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11361
Thereafter, you did sell the 200 shares for $5,000?
Mr. Gorman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, could we swear Mr. Kopecky to give
the par value of the stock at the time it was sold ?
Senator Ervin. Yes. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you shall
give before the Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Kopecky. I do, sir.
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE KOPECKY
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kopecky, have you made a study to find out how
much the stock was worth at the time it was purchased by Mr. Stein ?
Mr. Kopecky. At the time it was purchased, the stock was worth
$5,000.
Mr. Kennedy. That was the market value ?
Mr. Kopecky. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And the par value was $20?
Mr. Kopecky. $20.
Mr. Kennedy. But what it was selling for on the market was $25
a share ?
Mr. Kopecky. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. So 200 shares would cost $5,000 ?
Mr. Kopecky. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. AVlien he sold the stock to Mr. Schwartz for $5,000,
what was the market value of the stock ?
Mr. Kopecky. The market value at the time of the sale was ap-
proximately $4,400.
jNIr. Kennedy. So what was the result ?
Mr. Kopecky. The net result was that the investment was worth
$4,400 when it was sold by Mr. Gorman to Mr. Schwartz of Food
Fair for $5,000.
Mr. Kennedy. So Mr. Schwartz in this transaction took a $600
loss?
Mr. Kopecky. That is correct. Mr. Schwartz paid $600 more
for the securities than he would have been required to pay in the
open market.
TESTIMONY OF PATRICK GORMAN— Resumed
(At this ]:)oint, membei-s of the committee present: Senators Mc-
Clellan and Ervin.)
Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any comment on that ?
Mr. Gorman. No. Except I might make the comment, I hear
Mr. Kopecky talk about market value and par value, it should be
known that I don't know anything whatever about buying stock or
how it is operating, how the market is manipulated.
I don't buy stock. I have just one issue of worthless stock on my
hands now. I don't know anything about the stock market, whether
par value and market value mean anything in this discussion. Be-
cause I don't know tlie stock market and never deal in the stock
market.
11362 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy, So you will know now what happened was that
Mr. Schwai'tz of the Food Fair Co. purchased stock from vou worth
$4,400 and paid you $5,000 for it.
Mr. Gorman. As a matter of fact, I tliought I was being taken
for a thousand dollars.
Mr. Kennedy. You did very well, Mr. Gorman. Unions in Xew
York, Bronx unions, gave you a testimonial dinner in New York.
Mr. Gorman. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. That was when ?
Mr. Gorman. 1955 or 1956.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the money to be used for raised in the
testimonial dinner?
Mr. Gorman. I don't know what it was for. I am not sure whether
we were raising money for Israel bonds. All I know is that I was
guest of honor that night.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if they received any money from the
money that was raised ?
Mr. Gorman. You mean the Block boys ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Gorman. AYliether they received it? I don't know. I did
know they had a souvenir journal and that brought in considerable
money.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know how much money was raised (
Mr. Gorman. I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they send you any money or bonds ?
Mr. Gorman. Yes, the local union sent me a package with $15,000
worth of bonds face value that would have matured 10 years later at
$20,000. But I returned those bonds.
Mr. Kennedy. You didn't think it was right to take tliem ?
Mr. Gorman. I didn't.
Mr. Kennedy. What has happened to the bonds?
Mr. GoRJNtAN. I sent them back and haven't heard a thing about it.
I don't know Avhat has become of them and where they are at •
Mr. Kennedy. Who did you send them back to?
Mr. Gorman. I sent them back to the local union.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Block?
Mr. Gorman. I am not sure whether I addressed it to ]Mr. Block
as president or Mr. William Castle, who is secretary of the local union.
It went back to the local union, possibly to Mr. Block. I think it
was ]Mr. Block.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Avliat was done with the monev that
Avas raised, the $1 5,000 of bonds ?
Mr. Gorman. I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever check to find out?
Mr. Gorman. No. When I returned the bonds tliat Avas the end of
it as far as I was concerned.
Mr. Kennedy. I believe there was some $55,000 collected in the
dinner but you didn't take any yourself?
Mr. Gorman. No.
Mr. Kennedy. You didn't think it was right to take the money:
is that correct?
Mr. Gorman. I didn't take it.
Mr. Kennedy. Max Kaddock is arranging a book on your life?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11363
Mr. Gorman, That is right.
Mr. Kexxedy. How much money does your union pay to Raddock?
Mr. Gorman. Nothing.
Mr. Kennedy. Does he do any work for you ?
Mr. Gorman. He prints our constitutions.
Mr. Kennedy. How much money do you pay him for printing your
constitutions?
Mr. Gorman. I don't know the exact amount. It is a competitive
bid. We check with other companies.
Mr. Kennedy. How much approximately?
Mr. Gorman. I say it would not be accurate ; I would say we paid
him maybe $12,000, or maybe a little more than that, for 40,000 or
50,000 constitutions.
Mr. Kennedy. $12,000?
Mr. Gorman. I coukhi't be accurate.
Mr. Kennedy. How often do you pay him the $12,000 ?
Mr. Gorman. Those wdll last us for, gosh sakes, a long time.
!Mr. Kennedy. Do you get his newspaper ?
Mr. Gorman. We clo.
Mr. Kennedy. Does the international pay for that?
]Mr. Gorman. We have 500 subscriptions to it going to our local
unions.
Mr. Kennedy. How much do you pay him each year ?
Mr. Gorman. Ten cents a week for each paper.
Mr. Kennedy. How much a year?
Mr. Gorman. That would amount to about $2,400 or $2,500 a year.
Mr. Kennedy. He is in the midst of publishing a book called The
Gorman Story?
Mr. Gorman. There is no name for it. There is no title to it.
Mr. Kennedy. Have you receivey any money from him yet oh that
book ?
jSIr. Gorman. He made an advance payment of $6,000.
Mr. Kennedy. How much of the $6,000 did you receive ?
Mr. Gorman. $1,500 of that was to go to Hilton Hanna.
Mr. Kennedy. Hilton Hanna wrote the book?
^Ir. Gorman. Hilton Hanna is completing the book. It was begun
by Vice President Belsky in New York.
]\Ir. Kennedy. Who is Hilton Hanna ? Is that an employee of the
international?
Mr. Gorman. He is the executive assistant to the officers of the
international union.
Mr. Kennedy. How much did Hilton Hanna receive for the book?
Mr. Gorman. $1,500.
Mr. Kennedy. Did anybody else receive anything out of the $6,000?
Mr. Gorman. There is $1,500 due on the advancement to Mr. Belsky,
but he has not taken it.
]Mr. Kennedy. The rest went to you ?
]Mr. Gorman. Not yet.
]Mr. Kennedy. Have any of the books been printed ?
Mr. Gorman. Not yet. I hope they will.
^Ir. Kennedy. He sent you a sort of advancement ?
Mr. Gorman. That is right.
^Iv. Kennedy. Plow long ago did vou send the book in to him ?
11364 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Gorman. The book is not all to him as I recall now. There are
a couple of chapters to be revised.
Mr. Kennedy. You got your $6,000 back in August 1956, as I un-
derstand ?
Mr. Gorman. $6,000 what?
Mr. Kennedy. In August of 1956.
Mr. Gorman. You mean on this ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Gorman. Whatever date it may be.
Mr. Kennedy. And still no books ?
Mr. Gorman. No book. But I know. I have read all the chapters.
There is no question about it. When you read this book, it is first
back. He puts his heart in it. Whether anyone else woula put their
heart or eyes in it. He is doing a lot. I don't want to discourage
him. He wants to rewrite and change this. I don't want to dis-
courage him.
Mr. Kennedy. Who is it that you don't want to discourage ?
Mr. Gorman. The boy who is writing the book. He is a Negro boy,
and I don't want to discourage him.
Mr. Kennedy. I don't want you to discourage him. What is his
name?
Mr. Gorman. Hilton Hamia.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, the reason we had to go so late is
that Mr. Gorman is on his way to Europe and he is leaving on Monday.
He is going over on a labor meeting.
Mr. Gorman. To a meeting in Brussels. I am very grateful to you
for getting me off so I could get going anyway.
The Chairman. Is there anything further?
All right, thank you very much.
The committee will stand in recess until Tuesday morning at 10
o'clock.
(Whereupon, at 5 : 35 p. m., Friday, May 16, 1958, the committee
recessed, to reconvene at 10 a. m., Tuesday, May 20, 1958.)
INVESTIGATION OF OIPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE
LABOR OR 3IANAGEMENT FIELD
TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1958
United States Senate,
Select CoMMrrrEE 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 room 357, Senate Office
Building, Senator John L. ]\IcClellan (chairman of the select com-
mittee) presiding.
Present: Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Senator
Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat, North Carolina; Senator Carl T. Curtis,
Republican, Nebraska ; Senator Frank Church, Democrat, Idaho.
Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Walter R. May, in-
vestigator ; George H. Martin, investigator ; John Cye Cheasty, inves-
tigator ; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
(Members of the committee present at the convening of the session
"were: Senators McClellan and Church.)
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
Call the next witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Desmond Ferguson.
The Chairman. You do solemnly swear that the e^-idence 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. Ferguson. I do.
TESTIMONY OF DESMOND FERGUSON
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your
business or occupation.
Mr. Ferguson. My name is Desmond Ferguson. I live at 838 48d
Street, Brooklyn, X. Y. I work for the Great Atlantic & Pacific
Tea Co.
The Chairman. Do you waive counsel ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. How long have you worked for the A. & P. ?
Mr. Ferguson. I started in September 1949.
Mr. Ivennedy. You are a clerk there ?
Mr. Ferguson. Right.
Mr. Kennedy. You are in the Brooklyn unit ?
Mr. Ferguson. Right.
11365
11366 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr, Kennedy. Up to 1952, Mr. Ferguson, ^vllat had been the policy
of the A. & P. Co. toward a union coming into their stores and repre-
senting their employees?
Mr. Ferguson. They ^yere strictly against it.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they take any active role as far as being against
the union ?
Mr. Ferguson. Well the supervisors and the manager told us that
"they are nothing but a bunch of crooks ; they ride around in fancy
cars, and why do you want to belong to tliem ( You ask the butchers
and they will tell you the same thing."
Mr. Kennedy. Were you asked to sign one of these cards for the
Butchers' Union ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Had you signed a card ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Mv. Kennedy. What had you thought when you signed the card I
Mr. Ferguson. I didn't know what to think.
Mr. Kennedy. Was this prior to the time the contract was an-
nounced or before the contract ?
Mr. Ferguson. It was before the contract was announced.
Mr. Kennedy. Why did you sign the card ?
Mr. Ferguson. Well, we were brought in the back room and there
was a delegate and the manager and we were told to sign it and if we
didn't sign it, it w^ould cost us $50.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you mean the manager of the store brought you
in the back room ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And told you if you didn't sign the card it would
cost you $50 ?
Mr. Ferguson, Yes,
Mr, Kennedy, That was prior to the time of the contract ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes. And they told us there would definitely be an
election and we could choose any union we wanted.
Mr. Kennedy. And a few days later the contract was announced?
Mr. Ferguson. About a week a w^eek later we were told we had a
contract.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you surprised ?
Mr. Ferguson. We were stunned.
Mr. Kennedy. Had any of the employees known this was going on ?
Mr. Ferguson. No. Everybody was under the im})ression that we
would liave an election.
Mr. Kennedy. Was there a great deal of bad feeling on the part
of the employees in the A. & P. store ?
Mr. Ferguson. Well, we felt that way. The previous year we
voted no \mion and all of a sudden we are in a union and we don't
know what to think.
Mr. Kennedy. What about the payment of dues? Did the com-
pany urge you to pay your dues ?
Mv. Ferguson. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Was there much resentment on the part of the
employees?
Mr. Ferguson. There was.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11367
Mr. Kennedy. How did that take place? Wliat occurred^ Can
you tell us anything about that ?
Mr. Ferguson. We were told that we should pay our dues, we
belong to the union. There were a lot of people that didn't pay dues.
Mr. Kennedy. They refused ?
Mr. Ferguson. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. At that time, or shortly after, there were arrange-
ments made for another election in the Brooklyn unit; is that right?
Mr. Ferguson. That is right. Once that decision was made, nobody
paid dues.
Mr. Kennedy. They would not?
Mr. Ferguson. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Then local 1500 successfull}^ won the election, is
that right ?
Mr. Ferguson. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And the company refused to bargain with them?
Mr. Ferguson. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that resented by the employees ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes. Everybody was up in arms.
Mr. Kennedy. What was your role during this period of time ?
Mr. Ferguson. I was a shop steward.
Mr. Kennedy. For the union ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. How did you get to that position ?
]Mr. Ferguson. Well, the shop steward in the store at that time,
he quit — he quit the company — so the people— there were rumors about
the strike — so the people said that we better have a shop steward.
One fellow went around the store and asked if anyone wanted to
become shop steward and was it all right if Desmond became shop
steward and everybody said, "Yes," so I took over as shop steward.
Mr. Kennedy. Did yon continue as shop steward for a number of
months ?
]Mr. Ferguson. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you released then; that is, afterwards?
Mr. Ferguson. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you lose your job as shop steward ?
Mr. Ferguson. That was later on. Last year.
Mr. Kennedy. TN^ien was that ?
Mr. Ferguson. 1957.
]\Ir. Kennedy. Was that during the Fischetti incident?
Mr. Ferguson. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Will you tell us what happened then ?
Mr. Ferguson. Well, there was this fellow by the name of Fischetti
that came to work with us. So I approached him and told him he
would have to join the union after 30 days, so the guy says, "All
right."' He read the card and he questioned me on the checkoff system.
He said he didn't like it, that he wanted to pay his dues to the shop
steward or else to the business agent ; that he didn't like checkoffs.
I told him, I says, "Look, if you take my advice 3''ou Mill sign the
cards and a month after you can sign a registered letter, send one
to the company and one to the union and they will take you oft' the
checkoff' system." That is what the delegate told me. The delegate
came into the store about 3 weeks after that and he asked me if I had
11368 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
any new members. I told him I had two. I told him I had no cards.
So he gives me some cards. I only had one, and you have to sign
two cards. One card goes to the company and one card goes to the
union.
So after the delegate give me the cards, I went to lunch. I left the
store. So when I come back, I approached Fischetti. So he signed
the card and he paid me $10 and told me he would pay me the rest
the following Saturday night.
The Chairman. Was that dues or initiation fees?
Mr. Feeguson. Initiation fees.
The Chairman. How much were they ?
Mr. Ferguson. $75.
The Chairman. What was the weekly wage there ?
Mr. Ferguson. I don't know what he made. He was only after
starting.
The Chairman. They were charging him the regular price, $75,
or for anyone to join ?
Mr. Ferguson. That is right.
The Chairman. What is the average weekly wage there ?
Mr. Ferguson. $86.
The Chairman. $86?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, but he wasn't making nothing.
The Chairjvian. He wasn't making that much ?
Mr. Ferguson. No. He was making around, I would say, about
$67.
The Chairman. They charged him more than a week's wages to
join?
Mr. Ferguson. Right. So he paid me $10 and he told me the fol-
lowing Saturday night he would pay me the rest. About an hour
after that he told me that he had a fight with the delegate, and the
delegate threatened to have him fired. The delegate went on the
phone and made a couple of calls.
I didn't know what to do. I said, "Do you want to take back the
card" ? and he said, "No, I signed the card and I give you $10."
Right away I called the union and I left my number for them to
call me back. I never heard from them.
The following Saturday night, the supervisor came in and he told
me that he had to let go of Fischetti for refusing to join the union.
I told him, "Look, you better check the stoiy. This man has never
refused to join the union. He did question the checkoff system."
So he says, "Look, I got my ordei*s to let him go, and there is noth-
ing I can do about it." I didn't hear any more. The following
Monday, this guy Fischetti went down and filed unfair labor charges.
One of the investigators, I think he came out on a Tuesday, but I
wasn't in the store, but he came back the following Wednesday and
took a statement from me. The following Saturday night I was
transferred out of the store, and there Avas supposed to be an agree-
ment with the union and the company that a shop steward couldn't
be transferred.
Mr. Kennedy. What do you mean he took a statement from you ?
He got your account of what happened ?
Mr. Ferguson. He asked me if Fischetti refused to join the union.
Mr. Kennedy. This was an investigator for the NLRB ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11369
Mr. Fekgusox. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Aiid your stoiy supported Fischetti ?
Mr. Ferguson. That is right.
Mr. Ivennedy. And within, a short period after that the A. & P.
transferred you ?
Mr. Ferguson. The following Saturday night, I think it was.
Mr. Kennedy. Where did they transfer you ?
Mr. Ferguson. To 93d Street on 3d Avenue.
Mr. Kennedy. That was an inconvenient place for you ?
Mr. Ferguson. I didn't feel it was inconvenient, but I felt they put
me out there because the delegate's brother was the meat head and
his very best friend was the shop steward.
Mr. Kennedy. Why did you feel they transferred you ?
Mr, Ferguson. Because it was somebody to keep an eye on me or
something. That is what I felt.
Mr. Ivennedy. Because you testified and gave this information?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you bring any action yourself after that ?
Mr. Ferguson. Well, the investigator, Mr. Hoffman, he came out to
83d Street, and I told him, I said, "Boy, you told me — by the time I
testified I was scared stiff and you knew it, but you guaranteed there
would be no reprisals," and I said, "I w^as transferred out here and
taken away from shop steward." He said, "That is a union matter,"
and he couldn't help me.
They closed the store a couple of weeks after that and I was moved
5 or 6 blocks from my house, 5 or 6 blocks from where I live.
Mr. Kj:nnedy. The contract that was agreed to, was that ever rati-
fied by the employees, the contract that was signed ?
Mr. Ferguson. Which contract was that ?
Mr. Kennedy. The contract that was initially signed by the Meat
Cutters and the A. & P. ?
Mr. Ferguson. The first one ?
Mr. KJENNEDY. Yes.
Mr. Ferguson. Never.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you raise any question about that ?
Mr. Ferguson. We went to a shop steward meeting out in Queens
and Mr. Block was there. One fellow by the name of Vinie Guarner
asked him, "How could you sign a contract without asking us for our
O. K. ?" and Mr. Block laughed it off. He got no answer.
Mr. Kennedy. Did anybody know of any secret agreement at that
time to extend the terms of the contract ?
Mr. Ferguson. No.
Mr. Ivennedy. You did not ?
Mr. Ferguson. No.
Mr. Kennedy. It was a 45-hour week ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not know that ?
Mr. Ferguson. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Did the A. & P. Co. take any steps to support Mr.
Block in his bid for reelection in 1956 ?
Mr. Ferguson. They certainly did.
Mr. Kennedy. What did they do ?
11370 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Ferguson. Well, I was shop steward at that time, and the day
of the nomination meeting I got a call. They didn't know I was
running on the opposition slate. At 4 o'clock I got a call and I was
told, "Leave the store with two other men, and it is all right with tlie
manager. "We want you up front at the meeting."
Mr. Kennedy. Who called you and told you that ?
Mr. Ferguson. Toby Coletti.
Mr. Kennedy. What is his position ?
Mr. Ferguson. Business agent with 342.
Mr. Kennedy. He told you you could leave the store ?
Mr. Ferguson. At 4 o'clock.
Mr. Kennedy. And would you continue to get your salary as if j'ou
worked a full day ?
Mr. Ferguson. Right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you go ?
Mr. Ferguson. No ; I refused to go.
Mr. Kennedy. What did you tell them ?
Mr. Ferguson. Every time we had a union meeting, as shop stew-
ard, I always made it my business, we have a lot of girls in the store
and other people that don't have cars, so I always organized it so that
everybody got a ride to the meeting and a ride back.
I told them if I left there would be 5 or 6 people that couldn't go to
the meeting, and I hung up and that was it,
Mr. Kennedy. So you went to the meeting ?
Mr. Ferguson. Right.
Mr. Kennedy. But you refused to leave early ?
Mr. Ferguson. That is right.
(At this point. Senator Curtis entered the hearing room.)
Mr. Kennedy. What took place at tlie meeting with Mr. Block ?
Mr. Ferguson. Well, somebody by the name of Leon Shackley, he
is supposed to be from the international, he ran the meeting. There
was a Judge Murphy on the stand as an impartial observer.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you know Judge Murphy at that time was
working for the union ?
Mr. Ferguson. No.
Mr. Kennedy. They told you he was there as an impartial observer?
Mr. Ferguson. They said he was an impartial observer.
Mr. Kennedy. You didn't know he was on the payroll of the union
at that time?
Mr. Ferguson. I didn't know he had anything to do with the union.
Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead.
Mr. Ferguson. Well, there was a discussion on the term of the
contract. They tried to put it 4 years, and accept it. So some fellow
on down the hall put up a protest on that. He said, "We want a
1-year term."
So they put it to a vote. It was a hand vote, for 4 years and 1 year.
The 1 year won it, there is no question about it, and tliey give it to the
4 years. So everybody stai'ted banging their feet and they held up
the meeting for about 20 minutes.
Finally he said, "All right, we will take a standing vote," and the
1 year still won it and they still give it to the 4 years. Everybody
kept banging their feet and held the meeting up for almost a half hour.
This guy Mr. Shackley said, "All right, we will put it on the ballot,"
but it never was on the ballot.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 11371
Mr. Kennedy. This was a question of extending the terms of the
officers ?
Mr. Ferguson. Right.
Mr. Kennedy. And there was a motion that the officers should be
extended to 4 years rather than 1 year ?
Mr. Ferguson. Right.
Mr. Kennedy. And when it was put to the membership that at-
tended the meeting, it lost both times ?
Mr. Ferguson. It certainly did.
Mr. Kennedy. And then you were told that it would be put on the
ballot '(
Mr. Ferguson. On the ballot ; right.
Mr. Kennedy. It never was ^
Mr. Ferguson. Never was ; no.
]Mr. Kennedy. Was the term of office in fact 4 years ?
Mr. Ferguson. Right.
Mr. Kennedy. It was never approved ?
Mr. Ferguson. It was never put on the ballot.
Mr. Kennedy. What about the pension that has been given to Mr.
Block and certain of the other officers of the Meat Cutters ^ Was that
ever taken up with the membership ^
]Mr. Ferguson. I never heard of a pension.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you attend the meetings ?
Mr. Ferguson. I never missed a meeting from the time the union
came in, only one meeting in Lost Battalion Hall, and I was in from
August 15 to October 6.
Mr. Kennedy. And you say the pension that was given
Mr. Ferguson. Nobody else ever heard of it, either.
Mr. Kennedy. Had you inquired of the other employees ?
Mr. Ferguson. I have.
Mr. Kennedy. What developed ? We will develop the situation of
the pension at a later time.
The Chairman. Was that a pension for the officers of the local ?
]\Ir. Ferguson. I never hearcl anything about it nor any other mem-
ber, either.
Mr. Kennedy. It was a pension for Mr. Block and Mr. Casale, who
Avere officers of the local.
The Chairman. Representatives of the A. & P. have submitted a
question for the witness. I will ask the question.
Do you know any other food chain stores in New York City that
pays its employees as well as the A. and P. t
\iv. Ferguson. No.
The Chairman. All right, proceed.
Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman I
The Chairman. Senator Curtis.
Senator Curtis. ]\Ir. Ferguson. I have been interested in your testi-
mony, and particularly those things that indicate that the workers
themselves became pawns, either by management or by labor union
leadership. I think that is wrong.
What I am about to say is not a question but an observation, but I
wish it to go into the record. That is this : It is morally wrong to have
a situation, to have contracts, that make it impossible for members to
withdraw from the union and stop paying dues, when the union is fol-
11372 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
lowing a course that they do not like. Sometimes they may be in
collusion with management and sometimes not.
I believe that workers of the country are entitled to absolute free-
dom to run their own union, and if the union top leaders do not take
workers into confidence, let them know what is in the contract, or
otherwise push them around, they should have a remedy of withdraw-
ing and stop paying their dues without losing their jobs.
I think to do otherwise is most unfair. This very thing of these
union bosses voting themselves pensions without knowledge of active
members, such as you is an indication that they are disregarding the
wishes of the people and they are doing it because of the power they
have over individuals to destroy their jobs and hold a captive mem-
bership.
That is all, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. What is the amount of the pension he is supposed
to get, do you know ?
Mr. Ferguson. I don't know ; no.
The Chairman. Are you still a member of the union ?
Mr. Ferguson. I am still a member of 342.
The Chairman. In good standing, I guess. Do you pay your dues ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
The Chairman. Are you still employed ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes.
The Chairman. Yet you don't know what the pension is that has
been voted your officers ?
Mr. Ferguson. No.
The Chairman. Is there any way you can find out ?
Mr. Ferguson. I don't know of any way.
The Chairman. Could you ask about it ?
Mr. Ferguson. We were never told about it.
The Chairman. You were never told about it. All right.
Are there any other questions ?
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I might just say Mr. Ferguson had
some difficulty, as he stated in testifying before the committee, when
he opposed the company back in 1954, 1 believe, in the Fischetti inci-
dent. He was transferred out of his job.
I think it should be said that he is here under suli^ena and has
cooperated with the committee. We wouldn't want to see this happen
again.
The Chairman. As I undei-stand it, because you protested some
activity or action on the part of the company with respect to tlie
union, or, rather, with respect to this man Fischetti
Mr. Ferguson. I didn't protest it. I just told the truth.
The Chairman. You just gave the facts to the N. L. R. B. repre-
sentative, gave him a statement of what you knew ?
Mr. Ferguson. I was told at that time by the supervisor, he says,
"Don't fight them because you are going to lose."
The Chairman. Do you think they retaliated against you by trans-
ferring you away from the store ?
Mr. Ferguson. Well, there was an agreement that a shop steward
can't be transferred. I was never transferred before because I was
usually always a sliop steward.
The Chairman. Well, then, they made an example out of you.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 11373
Mr. Ferguson. The people in tlie store felt, "Well, he stood up for
what he thought was right and now he gets transferred. He is not
our shop steward any more."
The Chairman. Well, that is pretty reprehensible. If they under-
take anything about you this time because you testified and cooperated
with the committee, let me know, will you ?
Mr. Ferguson. I certainly will.
Mr. Kennedy. I have one other point. In furtherance of the state-
ment of Senator Curtis, according to the records there was a card
count taken in 1956 for the part-time emplovees. Were vou aware
of that?
Mr. Ferguson. I never heard it until now.
Mr. Kennedy. And you were a shop steward at the time?
Mr. Ferguson. Right.
Mr, Kennedy. Ordinarily if a card count is being conducted, you
would know about it, would you not ?
Mr. Ferguson. AVhat was the card count for ?
Mr. Kennedy. Part-time employees. Did you know anything about
it?
Mr. Ferguson. They were in the union before tliat.
Mr. Kennedy. 1956 ?
Mr. Ferguson. Part-timers were in the union before that. There
was a difference in hours. If they worked less than 19 hours, they
didn't have to belong to the union.
Mr. Kennedy. This was for the employees that worked for 10 to
20 hours. Did you know anything about the card count ?
Mr. Ferguson. No. We were told that there was a change in the
contract and everybody had to belong to the union.
Mr. Kennedy. The records show there was a card count at that
time.
Mr. Ferguson. I never heard of it.
Mr. Kennedy. You never heard about that ?
Mr. Ferguson. No.
Mr. Kennedy. They just told you that there was a change in the
contract ?
Mr. Ferguson. Yes, to sign up everybody that worked in the store.
(At this point, Senator Ervin entered the hearing room.)
The Chairman. The A. & P. suggests this question be asked : What
did A. & P. attorneys tell you about appearing here and your job at
the A. & P.?
Mr. Ferguson. They guaranteed me. Mr. McKee was very nice.
He guaranteed there would be no reprisals.
The Chairman. So you have been guaranteed this time by the com-
pany ?
Mr. Ferguson. Right.
The Chairman. Do you have the same guaranty from your union ?
Mr. Ferguson. No.
The Chairman. You have a guaranty from the company ?
Mr. Ferguson. Right.
The Chairman. But you don't have one from the union yet ?
Mr. Ferguson. No.
11374 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman. Let's watch and see what the union does. I am con-
fident the company will keep its promise. Are there any other ques-
tions ? If not, thank you.
Call the next witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. O'Brien.
The Chairman. You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give
before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. O'Brien. I do.
TESTIMONY OF THOMAS O'BRIEN, ACCOMPANIED BY JEROME
DOYLE, COUNSEL
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your
business or occupation.
Mr. O'Brien. My name is Thomas J. O'Brien. I live at 21 Plymouth
Eoad, Summit, N. J. I am employed by the A. & P. Tea Co. as a super-
visor out of the Newark unit.
The Chairman. Supervisor where ?
Mr. O'Brien. Supervisor out of the Newark unit.
The Chairman. You have counsel, Mr. Doyle, representing you ?
Mr. O'Brien. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Mr. Doyle has appeared for others. His name will
appear in the record here as representing the witness.
All right.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. O'Brien, you have been with the A. & P. Co. for
how long ?
Mr. O'Brien. Twenty-eight years.
Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been a supervisor in New Jer-
sey'^
Mr. O'Brien. A little better than 10 years.
Mr. Kennedy. Prior to 1952, the end of 1952, had it been the policy
of the A. & P. Co. to oppose any unionization of their employees?
Mr. O'Brien. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Had they actively, within the law, opposed as much
as possible, the unionization of the employees? That is, any union
coming in and trying to act as bargaining representative '?
Mr. O'Brien. Well, it would be considerably before 1952.
Mr. Kennedy. All the years prior to 1952 ; is that right i
Mr. O'Brien. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. You were over in New Jersey, but shortly after the
contract was signed in New York on October 11, Avith the Meat Cut-
ters, did you receive any instructions that the policy of the comj^any
was to be changed ?
Mr. O'Brien. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any instructions that you were to
continue to opi)ose unionization of the employees ?
Mr. ( )'Brien, AA'e had no definite instructions.
Mr. Kennedy. Let's start over again. Before 1952, in the first
part of 1952, you had always o])posed unionization of the employees;
is that right?
Mr. ( )"JiRiEN. Tlie lirst part of 1952 ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. The company, in the last part of 1952, after October
11, 195i2, no longer opposed unionization of the employees?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11375
Mr. O'Brien. Yes, that is true.
Mr. Kennedy. That was not your own decision. That was the
company's decision ; was it not?
Mr. O'Brien. That is true.
Mr. Kennedy. You had a meeting in wliich you received those
instructions, that you were no longer to oppose the unionization of the
employees ; did you not ?
jNIr. O'Brien. Well, at this meeting we were told that union repre-
sentatives were to be permitted to go into the stores and have a card
count, and managers and supervision were to have no part of it.
]\Ir. Kennedy. You were no longer to oppose the unionization of
your em)>loyees, at least by the Amalgamated Meat Cutters ?
Mr. O'Brien. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. The Meat Cutters were to be allowed into the stores
to sign u]) the employees ?
:Mr. O'Brien. Eight.
^Ir. Kennedy. This was a different policy than existed in the
A. & P. Co. prior to that time ?
Mr. O'Brien. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. The Meat Cutters were the only union that was to
be allowed to come in and sign up the employees ?
Mr. O'Brien. That was the only union activity going on in Newark.
i\Ir, Kennedy. Did the officials of the A. & P. call in the various
supervisors from the New Jersey stores and inform them of this ?
Mr. O'Brien. As I remember it, it was at a regular sales meeting,
and at the tail end of this meeting this information was given to us.
Mr. Kennedy. Let me understand this. The representatives of the
Meat Cutters were to come into the store. Were you instructed to
help and assist them in any way by setting aside some space for them
to operate in ?
Mr. O'Brien. We were instructed not to help and assist, but they
were to be permitted to talk to the employees individually in a certain
spot in the store, away from our customers.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you to set aside a room for them to speak to
your employees?
Mr. O'Brien. No room, just a spot.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you set aside some space for them ?
]\Ir. O'Brien. There was some space set aside.
]Mr. Kennedy. Did you make arrangements to send each of the
employees back to see them ?
Mr. O'Brien. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Were those part of your instructions?
Mr. O'Brien. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. The employees would then be sent one at a time
back to see the representative of the union, is that right?
Mr. O'Brien. Yes, sir.
]\Ir. Kennedy. And the representative of the union at that time
would discuss with them about signing this card ?
Mr. O'Brien. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. For the jNIeat Cutters, that is. This was a com-
plete reversal of the A. & P. former policy, was it not, toward unions?
]Mr. O'Brien. Yes, although prior to this these cards were a gen-
eral thing for the last 2 or 3 years.
21243—58 — pt. 29 — —13
11376 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Church. The company had never reserved any space for
representatives of any other union, or instructed you to let your em-
ployees go back at regular intervals to discuss these matters with
any other representatives of any other union at a previous time?
Mr. O'Brien. That is true, sir.
Mr. KJENNEDY. Was there ever an election held in your unit?
Mr. O'Brien. It seems to me there had been an election, but I be-
lieve at that time it was just for butchers.
Mr. Kennedy. Was there ever an election whereby the employees
selected the Butchers to represent them ?
Mr. O'Brien. I don't know that.
Mr. Kennedy. You know of no election that was held ?
Mr. O'Brien. I know^ there were several elections going back over
the years.
Mr. Kennedy. But you know of no election during this period of
time where the employees selected the Butchers to represent them?
Mr. O'Brien. No ; I can't say I do.
Mr. Kennedy. After the contract was signed with the Butchers
on December 1 for the New Jersey group, December 1, 1952, did you
then urge and tell the employees of the store that they Avould have to
join the union or otherwise they would possibly have to pay a $50
initiation fee ?
Mr. O'Brien. No; Mr. Kennedy, I didn't urge anyone, but there
had been, after the contracts were signed, there were some few that
came to me and asked me is it so, that if they did not would they, and I
told them to the best of my knowledge they would.
Mr. Kennedy. They would have to pay the $50 initiation fee ?
Mr. O'Brien. If they did not join, now that the contract was signed.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you urge them or tell them that also before the
contract was signed ?
Mr. O'Brien. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any discussions with them along that
line before the contract was signed, that they might have to pay a
$50 initiation fee unless they signed these cards ?
Mr. O'Brien. Well, there was bound to be a lot of discussions. They
asked me for information.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever have conversations along that line?
Mr. O'Brien. I don't think so. AVe were very careful
Mr. Kennedy. Is your answer that you did not tell any of the
employees ?
Mr. O'Brien. To the best of my knowledge, I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. You say that only happened, and you are sure of it,
after the contract was signed ?
Mr. O'Brien. After the contract, I am sure I did.
Mr. Kennedy. That is all.
The Chairman. Senator Curtis.
Senator Curtis. Mr. O'Brien, in discussing membership in the union
and the proposed contract witli employees, did you at any time tell
them that a contract would be entered into that, provided if they ever
withdrew from the union, they would lose tlieir job ?
Mr. O'Brien. No, sir. As a matter of fact, there was some sort of
abstract put on the bulletin board that granted them that permission
to withdraw if they so desired.
Senator Curtis. But the contract did not so provide ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11377
Mr. O'Brien. I am not familiar with that.
Senator Curtis. Do you belong ?
Mr. O'Brien. Do I? No, sir.
Senator Curtis. You dont know whether the contract has a mainte-
nance of membership in it or not ?
Mr. O'Brien. No ; I don't, sir.
Senator Curtis. That is all.
The Chairman. All right. Call the next witness.
Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, there is just one fact that I would like
to establish on the record.
The Chairman. State your question.
Mr. Doyle. During the summer and fall of 1952, Mr. O'Brien, do
you know of the activities in the Newark unit of the A. & P. of any
other union other than the Meat Cutters Union seeking to organize
your butchers and clerks ?
Mr. O'Brien. No, sir. It was just this one union, and they became
increasingly active.
The Chairman. We have had testimony here that unions have been
in there trying to organize and have an election for a number of years.
That was in New York, though; you are confining yourself to New
Jersey ?
Mr. O'Brien. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Did you know this program of inviting the Meat
Cutters in to organize tlie clerks was general, was over all of that area,
instead of just in New Jersey ?
Mr. O'Brien. I wasn't too familiar with a lot of the activity.
The Chairman. About all you did was just carry out orders; is
that correct ?
Mr. O'Brien. That is true, sir.
Senator Ervin. Also, Mr. Chairman, I will make this observation.
According to some of the testimony, the union was diligent to see that
the contract between the A. & P. Tea Co. and the union was kept secret
until they could get the folks in New Jersey signed up, it appearing,
from inference, that the object of the secrecy was to prevent any other
union from finding out about it and having an opportunity to endeavor
to organize New Jersey employees of the A. & P. Tea Co.
Mr. O'Brien. I would like to say that, prior to sigTiing this, the
clerks were very popular toward this union movement and there was
no question in my mind but what it was just a question of time before
they would have union representation. It grew in momentum and
gathered speed and was inevitable. They were very much in favor
of it. They needed no pressure from management.
The Cil^irman. The fair way would have been to put all of these
questions that were trying, the Clerks Union and the Butchers Union,
on the ballot and let the men determine themselves what union they
wanted. That would be the right way to do it.
Mr. O'Brien. Mr. Senator, at my level, it was handled in a very-
fair way. It was very popular with the rank and file.
The Chairman. That doesn't seem to be the story now.
Mr. O'Brien. I am speaking of New Jersey, sir.
Senator Ervin. It was calculated to produce cooperation on the part
of the employees of the A. &. P. Tea Co., since it is quite evident from
the testimony that has been adduced that the A. &. P. Tea Co. was
just as anxious for this union to organize its workers as the union
was anxious to organize them.
11378 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. O'Brien. That could be.
The CHAiRMAisr. Do you say that a 5-year secret contract for 45
hours a week was popular with the rank-and-file employees ?
Mr. O'Brien. Forty-five-hour workweek, back in those years, was
very desirable.
The Chairman. Forty-five hours a week for 5 years under a secret
contract. Do you think that was popular with the employees?
Mr. O'Brien. You are getting beyond my depth. I can only talk
of my own experience.
The Chairman. We are getting in beyond your knowledge, too,
aren't we?
Mr. O'Brien. That is right.
The Chairman. And, also, beyond the knowledge of the clerks.
They didn't know that was happening to them, did they?
Mr. O'Brien. I can't answer that, sir.
The Chairman. You didn't know it, and you were a supervisor.
Mr. O'Brien. Eight, sir.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Kennedy. If the union was popular with the employees, why
did management assist the union in signing up the employees ?
Mr. O'Brien. As I interpret this, this movement just gathered in
strength. They had these card counts going on, say, unofficially.
They were presenting the store managers with this, and the super-
visors, and perhaps our own office. So, finally, for a showdown, to
declare their position of strength, they had this card count to
establish that.
Mr. Kennedy. Why did management assist? If this was a popular
movement, why didn't you leave it up to the employees to make the
decision? First, why did management assist, and why didn't you
have an election in the stores ? Can you answer those 2 jDoints ?
Mr. O'Brien. All I can say, Mr. Kennedy, was that the card count
was an authorization for the clerks to have the union represent them.
Mr. Kennedy. But that was done with the company's help and
assistance by sending the employees back to see the union repre-
sentatives.
Mr. O'Brien. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. The second thing is that you never got an election in
the union.
Mr. O'Brien. Just card counts is all I am familiar with, Mr. Ken-
nedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Wlien you make a point that this was a popular mat-
ter witli the employees, certainly, the decision should have been left
with the employees. Maybe they did not want this union. Possibly,
they might want another union or, possibly, they would Avant an
election.
Mr. O'Brien. To me, they did want it, and they had these cards
unofficially. This was the way of determining it, officially.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you. Call the next'witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Alfred A. Bieber.
The ('hatrman. You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give
before tliis Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, ho help you God ?
Mr. Bieber. I do.
i
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11379
TESTIMONY OF ALFRED A. BIEBER, ACCOMPANIED BY JEROME
DOYLE, COUNSEL
The CiiAiRMAisr. State your name, your place of residence, and your
business or occupation.
Mr. BiEBER. My name is Alfred Bieber. I live at 170 Townsend
Avenue, Pelham Manor, N. Y. I am a vice president of the eastern
division of the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. in charge of the Bronx
unit.
The Chairman. And Mr. Doyle appears as your counsel, does he ?
Mr. Bieber. He does.
The Chairman. Proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been with the A. & P. Co. ?
Mr. Bieber. 35 years.
Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been vice president ?
Mr. Bieber. I have held the present job, not the title, for 30 years.
Mr. Kennedy. How many ?
Mr. Bieber. Thirty.
Mr. Kennedy. How long have you held the title ?
Mr, Bieber. A few years less than that.
Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been in charge of the Bronx
unit ?
]\rr. Bieber. 30 years.
Mr. Kennedy. There has been a long-term company policy, has
there not, up until 1952, to oppose unionization of the employees^
Mr. Bieber. There was.
Mr. Ivennedy. And there was an election held in March of 1952,
was there not, which the union lost by a very close margin?
Mr. Bieber. There was.
Mr. IvENNEDY. That was local 474 that lost that election; is that
right ?
Mr. Bieber. I believe there were two in there.
Mr. Kennedy. But the union that came the closest was 474.
Mr. Bieber. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. That was Pat Reape's union ?
Mr. Bieber. Right.
Mr. Ivennedy. CIO ?
Mr. Bieber. Right; CIO.
Mr. Ivennedy. Subsequently, the company decided to go along
with the Amalgamated Meat Cutters Union?
Mr. Bieber. I can't exactly say that.
Mr. Kennedy. Subsequently, the company's policy changed toward
unionization of its employees?
Mr. Bieber. I can't quite go along with that. I don't think our
policy changed. "We were faced with an entirely different and new
situation.
Mr. Kennedy. Subsequently, the policy changed, that you would
no longer oppose imionization ?
Mr. Bieber. That is correct.
Mr. Ivennedy. And the recipient of the change in policy was the
Amalgamated Meat Cutters?
Mr. Bieber. That is correct.
11380 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. KJENNEDY. Sj)ecifically, the policy changed, that you would
no longer oppose unionization as long as the union was the Amalga-
mated Meat Cutters?
Mr. BiEBER. The Amalgamated were the ones that had threatened
us, and I don't think the others came into any discussion.
Mr. KJENNEDY. Other unions were interested in organizing your
employees, were they not?
Mr. BiEBER. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. And they had been for some period of time?
Mr. Bieber. Right.
Mr. Kennedy. The change in policy was directed toward the
Amalgamated Meat Cutters. You had opposed these other unions;
you had opposed the CIO ; you had opposed the 1,500. The change
in policy was directed toward the Meat Cutters.
Mr. Bieber. They were the only ones that could strike.
Mr. Kennedy. In answer to the question, the change in policy was
directed toward the Meat Cuttei-s, was it not ?
Mr. Bieber. Mr. Kennedy, I don't want to try to get myself too
mixed up, but, frankly, our policy did not change, except that we were
faced with an entirely ditferent situation.
Mr. Kennedy. Your policy — let me go through it again. You op-
posed unionization up until 1952 ?
Mr. Bieber. I did, and I would still txxiay, if I could.
Mr. Kennedy. Then, in the end of 1952, the policy toward union-
ization changed. We will go into the reasons that it changed, but it
did change.
Mr. Bieber. Our position changed ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And it was a reversal, as far as the opposition to
unionization by the company ?
Mr. Bieber. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. And the recipient of the change in policy was the
Amalgamated Meat Cutters?
Mr-BiBBER. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. The reasons thattliie-change occurred were a number,
as I understand it ; is that right, thei-e were a nimiber of reasons ?
Mr. Bieber. There were several ; yes,
Mr. Kennedy. During the period of time that led up to the card
count in October 1952, had there been some discussions on the part
of representatives of the compauy and representatives of the union
that there would be a 5-year contract ?
Mr. Bieber. They thought they could negotiate a 5-year contract.
Mr. Kennedy. Ilad there been some assurances that were offered
by the Meat Cutters that they wold give the A. & P. a 5-year contract?
Mr. Bieber. Well, they had to believe our negotiator.
Mr. lOiNNEDY. From what you were told.
Mr. Bieber. From was I was told ; yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that was one factor in the
decision to allow and permit or to have a change in policy toward the
Meat Cut tei-s?
Mr. Bieber. It was not a deciding factor.
Mr. Kennedy. But it was one factor?
Mr. Bieber. It was a factor.
Mr. Kennedy. There was another factor, was there ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 11381
Mr, BiEBER. There was.
Mr. Kennedy. That was
Mr. BiEBEK. Tlie threat of a strike by the Amalgamated.
Mr. IvENNEDY, These were the two main factors that led the com-
pany to change its policy ?
Mr. IkEBEK. But not of equal importance.
Mr. Kennedy. But these were the two main factors ?
Mr, BiEBER. Those were two of the main factors ; yes.
Mv. Kennedy. Was it agreed at that time that subsequently there
would be a card count?
Mr. BiEBER. I did not know of a card count until possibly a week
before it took place — 10 days maybe.
Mr. Kennedy. Then the card count took place on October 9 and
10. You knew about the fact that there would be a card count on
what, October 2 and 3 ?
Mr. BiEBER. Somewhere in there ; yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you then publicize throughout the store the fact
that there was going to be a card count ?
Mr. Bieber. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Why did you keep it quiet?
Mr. Bieber. I had no reason to publicize it.
Mr. Kennedy. If there was going to be a card count, all of the
employees were to take part in it. Why wasn't it publicized through-
out the stores that this card count was to take place?
Mr. Bieber. I didn't feel that it was my job to notify the em-
ployees.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive instructions that the card count
was to remain secret ?
Mr. Bieber. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you i-eceive instructions that there was to be no
publicity given to the card count?
Mr. Bieber. Not that I can recall.
Mr. Kennedy. Was it publicized at all, the fact that the card
counts were to take place ?
Mr. Bieber. I would not know whether it was publicized. Not by
me.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you know of any place where the employees
knew generally that this card count was taking place ?
Mr. Bieber. I can't say that I do.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not oppose the representatives of the Meat
Cutters in their attempt to obtain signatures?
Mr. Bieber. We did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive instructions to that effect?
Mr. Bieber. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. That you were not to oppose them ?
Mr. Bieber. Yes.
Mr, Kenniedy. You knew that the card count was to select the bar-
gaining representatives of the employees ; is that right ?
Mr, Bieber, Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you know that the representatives of the union
were going around and using subterfuges to get the people to sign
the cards ?
11382 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. BiEBER. I heard there were various statements made by the
union to the effect if they didn't sign, the dues, the initiation, would
be much higher. Well, having been through a lot of union solicita-
tions, there were a lot of wild statements made.
Mr. Kennedy. By the union solicitors ?
Mr. BiEBER. By the union solicitors.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand they also told them that this
was in order for the employees to get an election, obtain an election
in the store ?
Mr. Bieber. I had not heard that before the testimony here, Mr,
Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. What other subterfuges did they use that you knew
of?
Mr. Bieber. Well, that they would be a marked man and the union
would take proper steps and so forth. I mean it is all wild, and
nobody believes it too much, I guess.
Mr. Kennedy. And large initiation fees later?
Mr. Bieber. Large initiation fees, I think.
Mr. Kennedy. Why didn't you take some steps then to protect your
employees by telling them what the true facts were?
Mr. Bieber. I couldn't tell them what the initiation fees would be.
Mr. Kennedy. You could tell them what the true facts regarding
this whole matter were.
Mr. Bieber. I could not speak for the union in telling them what
initiation fees they would charge.
Mr. Kennedy. These other subterfuges that they used that you
knew were going on, why didn't you make a statement of clarification
on that for these employees ?
Mr. Bieber. Mr. Kennedy, all the time this was going on, we were
under threat of a strike, and under threat of a strike, you act dif-
ferently than if you are not under the threat.
Mr. Kennedy. You say that you did not tell the employees what
the true facts were because you were afraid of a strike?
Mr. Bieber. We were threatened by a strike.
Mr. Kennedy. Is that the answer, that j^ou did not tell the em-
ployees what the true facts were because you were afraid of a strike?
Mr. Bieber. During what time?
Mr. Kennedy. During this period they were getting ready for a
card count.
Mr. Bieber. That was a period of possibly a week.
Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time when you knew they
were making false statements.
Mr. Bieber. I did not know at that time how the card count stood.
I had no knowledge of it.
Mr. Kennedy. That is not the question. The question is: Was
the reason that you did not tell the employees the true facts on the
card count, the true facts on the statements that were being made
by the re])resentatives of the Butchers, was the reason that you were
afraid of a strike?
Mr. BiraiER. It was a very big part of our decision.
Mr. Kennedy. That was what?
Mr. Bieber. It was a big part of our decision.
Mr. Kennedy. Not to tell them ; is that right ?
Mr. Bieber. Not to tell them.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11383
Mr. Kennedy. That is on the part of the union representatives
using subterfuges. What about on the question of when tlie em-
ployees signed these cards, that they were told that they were signing
the card for an election, when the card count was taking place ? AAHiat
was the reason that you did not tell that to your employees?
Mr. BiEBER. Why didn't I tell them what they were signing the
card for ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Bieber. I didn't know prior to a week before the card check.
Mr. Kennedy. During that period of time, the w^eek before, from
October 2 to October 10, or in that period, about the 9th, when there
was a greater effort on the part of the Meat Cutters to get people to
sign the cards, why didn't you tell the employees at that time that
they were signing up, or that they were in the midst of selecting their
bargaining representatives? Why didn't you publicize the fact that
the card
JNIr. Bieber. I thought I answered, Mr. Kennedy, that we were
under the threat of a strike, and, as such, you walk very softly.
Mr. Kennedy. I would think if you didn't want this union or
actively want this union, then you would have wanted to make pub-
lic to the employees what the situation was.
I can't see that the strike would play a part in that, that you could
not tell the employees what they were doing, the fact that they were
selecting a union, the fact that this card count was taking place.
Mr. Bieber. I did not know how many cards they had. Maybe at
that time they had all of them. There was no particular running
around, signing of cards, by outside people in the Bronx unit.
Mr. Kennedy. There was what ?
Mv. Bleber. I say there was no particular running around by out-
side business agents or anything like that in the Bronx unit. It was
done chiefly within the store by the butchers.
Mr. Kennedy. Don't you feel then in fairness to your employees
that they should have known. No. 1, about the subterfuges that were
being used on them, which you, as the manager of the store realized
and knew, and, No. 2, the fact that this card count was going to take
place at the end, on October 9 and 10.
Mr. Bieber. To answer your first question, Mr. Kennedy, the wild-
est statements have always been made by miions in trying to organize.
There is no way that I can controvert those.
Mr. Kennedy. Except by making a statement as to what the true
facts were. What about the second point ?
Mr. Bieber. Would you mind repeating it?
Mr. Kennedys The second point is why you didn't make public to
your employees the fact that a card count was to take place on October
9 and 10.
]\Ir. Bieber. Mr. Kennedy, I have tried to tell you that we were
under threat of a strike, and, as such, we did not know what was going
to happen.
JNIr. Kennedy'. Did the union tell you that they w^ould strike if you
made public the fact that a card count was being conducted ?
]\Ir. Bieber. Not me ; no.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they tell your superiors ?
Mr. Bieber. I wouldn't know.
11384 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Was that the information tliat came down to you ?
Mr. BiEBER. The information was not to oppose the Amalgamated
signing cards.
Mr. Kennedy. This is just on the question of making it public.
Were you informed that the union would strike if you made public
the fact that the card count was being conducted ?
Mr. Bieber. No.
The Chairman. May I inquire about this of the witness, and maybe
counsel can answer it : Is there anything in the files of the company,
any letter, any memoranda, any documents, from the union in which
it threatened a strike?
Mr. Doyle. Yes, sir; Mr. Chairman.
The Chairinian. I would like for that to be produced.
Mr. Doyle. Your staff has a letter written on September 30 by the
union's attorney, and then a telegram of, I think, October 7 or 8, stat-
ing economic sanctions, or words to that effect.
Mr. Kennedy. Wliat was the date that the telegram came that they
were going to invoke economic sanctions ?
Mr. Doyle. I think it was the 7th or 8th.
Mr. Kennedy. And this was 5 days after the witness knew about
the card count.
Mr. Doyle. The chairman asked if there was anything in writing,
and I am sure, Mr. Kennedy, you are not eliminating the fact that the
union leaders certainly could have stated these threats several times
orally to persons, officials, of A. & P., who could have passed that on to
Mr. Bieber, the witness.
I was simply trying to answer the chainnan's question as to whether
there was anything in writing. Those are the two writings I know.
The Chairman. I didn't know whether we had it. I wanted to get
in the record if there was anything in writing, whatever there was in
writing, to substantiate the contention that a strike was imminent. I
wanted to see how strong it is, because I think in dealing with unions
you always are laboring under the impression that a strike may re-
sult if the bargaining agreement is not reached. I just wanted to see
about that.
This seemed to develop so suddenly. Apparently there had been no
negotiations of any consequence, and all at once the management de-
cides, "Well, we might have a strike, and we had better go in and settle
with these folks and help them get a card count and get these folks in
the union."
Mr. Doyle. I don't want to prolong this, Mr. Chairman, but I think
this witness has been trying to get across to you and to tlie committee
the unique situation the A. & P. was faced with here.
For the first time we were threatened with a strike by a imion that
already had 25 or 30 percent of their emplovees. All of these other
miions were not organized in the A. & P., and were trying to be or-
ganized, and so that the A. & P.'s attitude to the outside union was
entirely different than it had to be with a union that already had its
nose under the tent, and already had 25 percent of its employees or-
ganized, and they were trying to negotiate a contract with those
Butchers.
I just simply wanted to get it on the record so that you and the com-
mittee could appreciate it.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11385
The Chairman. I fullv understand that, and I am tryiiijj; to find
out whether it was just tfie usual routine thing, that you may have a
strike if you don't reach an agi«eemeiit, or whether there was some
extraordinary pressure applied. We will take these documents, what-
ever the}' show.
You say there was no other union. As I recall the Clerks' Union,
No. 1500, had an election and they had a majority of the vote, in part
of the places.
Mr. Doyle. That took place about 6 or 7 months after the contract.
Tlie Chairmax. After the contract?
Mr. Doyle. After the contract, yes.
Senator Curtis. What year was this ? You referred to a week dur-
ing which there was a card count.
Mr. BiEBER. 1952, Senator.
Senator Curfts. In what month ?
Mr. BiEBER. The card count, you mean?
Senator Curtis. Yes.
Ml'. BiEBER. It was, I believe, in October.
Senator Curtis. Now. were the Meat Cutters already in your store
at that time?
]Mr. BiEBER. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. Wlien did they come in ?
Mr. BiEBER. About 1946. I believe.
Senator Curtis. In 19-lG ?
Mr. Bieber. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. And what employees did they have organized?
Mr. Bieber. All of the meat-department employees.
Senator Curtis. You have meat departments in all of your stores?
Mr. Bieber. All supermarkets, and a few regular stores with meat
departments.
Senator Curtis. But you had a collective-bargaining agreement with
them since 1946 ?
Mr. Bieber. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. Well, now, you have spoken of a threat of a strike.
If you ended up with two unions, the Clerks' and the Meat Cutters'
as bargaining agents, either one of them might call a strike.
Mr. Beiber. That is correct. Senator.
Senator Curtis. And if the Teamsters' Union particularly, as well
as other unions, sup]:)orted that strike, it would be quite crippling to
your operations, would it not?
^Ir. Bieber. We would have to close down within 2 to 3 days.
Senator CuntTis. Well, the chances of the A. & P. suffering from a
strike would be increased by negotiating contracts with 2 unions
rather than 1 ?
Mr. Bieber. We felt if we liad to have a union, it was preferable to
have one from our standpoint.
Senator Curtis. Because if the Clerks for instance were dissatisfied,
and chose to strike, and they were able to get the support of other unions
and particularly the Teamsters, it would close down your meat depart-
ment and your whole store.
Mr. Bieber. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. On the other hand, if the Meat Cutters Union
struck, and likewise their strike was supported, it would close down
the whole operation, including the Clerks?
11386 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. BiEBER. It could easily have closed us out. I might say that
one of the unions competing was at that time CIO, and we had AFL
contracts with the Teamsters, the Warehousemen, and with the Butch-
ers in the stores.
Senator Curtis. Did the management of A. & P. figure it would be
better to deal with 1 than 2 ?
Mr. BiEBER. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. So you say while claims were made by organizers,
after you had resisted over a period of years, you quit resisting and quit
resisting their claims, is that right ?
Mr. BiEBER. Well, part of their complaints were high initiation
fees, over which we had no control. So they could go around and say
it, and we could say, "Don't believe them," but we had no real authority
or anything else to controvert them.
Senator Curtis. I would like to ask your counsel, under the free-
speech provision of the Taft-Hartley law, what in this premise could
management say and what couldn't be said under the law ?
Mr. Doyle. Is that question addressed to me ?
Senator Curtis. Yes.
Mr. Doyle. Would you read the question ?
(The reporter read from his notes as requested.)
Mr. Doyle. I would answer your question this way. Senator : that
management had the right to choose whether to send letters to their
employees and say there was some sort of card signing going on,
and risk the abrupt action of this union that was already in their
stores, of striking, or ultimately, under the right of free speech, they
could remain neutral and say nothing.
In either instance, they were trying to protect themselves and their
stockholders from a devastating threat of a strike. It is quite clear
to me, and I was not counsel for the company at the time this took
place, but the choice the company made was to avoid the possibility
of a strike by not saying anything, and as this witness has already
testified there wasn't much they could say anyway even if they wanted
to exercise the right to say something.
Senator Curtis. That is all.
Senator Ervin. Now, in September of 1952, the company had op-
posed its employees, the clerks, in joining the union ; hadn't they ?
Mr. BiEBER. Not had opposed ; no. Senator.
Senator Er\in. They had a vote, an election, and the clerks had
been trying to affiliate with unions in the election ?
Mr. BiEBER. Not at that time. Senator.
Senator Ervin. I am talking about 1952. I believe I have the
months wrong, possibly.
Mr. BiEBER. Prior, yes; in March, there was an election held.
Senator Ervin. And the clerks had refused to affiliate with the
CIO union?
Mr. BiEBER. With either union, I believe, that was on the ballot
at that time.
Senator Ervin. Now, the company evidently came to the con-
clusion that sooner or later the clerks were going to be organized and
they decided they would just cooperate with what they conceived to
be tlie inevitable.
Mr. BiEBi'j{. Senator, we were living on borrowed time at the time
when this came up.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11387
Senator Ervin. Under those circumstances, you felt you might as
well cooperate?
Mr. BiEBER. We had a choice of ports, and there was a storm, and
we headed in for the one that we thou<iht was the best harbor.
Senator Ervin. By doing that, you got some concessions; didn't
you ? You got a r)-year contract ?
Mr. BiEBER. I thought we had, yes.
Senator Ervin. There was some prearrangement, was there not,
between the A. & P. Co. and the Amalgamated Meat Cuttei-s, which
got the A. & P. in such a position that it sought legal advice as to what
was to happen if these events occurred ; namely, they did not oppose
the unionization of the clerks by the Amalgamated Meat Cutters, and
agreed to a card count rather than an election? The fruit of these,
possible future events was a 5-year contract ?
Mr. BiEBER. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. So they sought legal advice as to what would hap-
pen when these prophecies were fulfilled?
Mr. BiEBER. I might even say that j)rior to the card check, I believe
the company had the hope that the union would not insist upon a card
check.
Senator Ervin. Now, were the Amalgamated Meat Cutters in the
A. & P. Co. already, and were they threatening to strike ?
Mr. BiEBER. There Avas a lot of wild talk in the stores, sir.
Senator Ervin. I have heard a lot about strike threats in this in-
vestigation, but I never have been able to find out who made them.
Could you tell us who was threatening to strike ?
Mr. BiEBER. They get together and they talk, and some of the rumors
come back to us about what they are going to do, and we try to weigh
them and find out if they are good or bad, or any basis to it.
Senator Ervin. They had gone so far as to seek advice. A. & P.
Co. was seeking advice based in part upon a threat to strike, and we
have had that testified about the threat to strike; but so far as the
evidence discloses this threat to strike must have been made by some
unknown and unidentified John Doe that creditors have been looking
for all of these years and never have been able to find them. That
is all.
The Chairman. Is there anything further ?
Mr. DoYLE. Mr. Chairman, in response to Senator Ervin's last state-
ment, I might point out that there is a document in the possession of
the stati', taken from the files of the A. & P., reflecting the minutes of
a union meeting of September 30, 1952, where one of the statements
made at that meeting was "There was some talk about a wildcat grocery
walkout and we will try to get more information on this today." It
is Document No. 11222.
Senator Ervin. Wasn't that based on the desire of the Amalgamated
Meat Cutters already in the plant to get a 40-hour week?
Mr. Doyle. All I can say. Senator, is that there is no talk in this
j)art of the document about that.
Senator Ervin. I think, based on the investigation, that was caused
by the Amalgamated Meat Cutters already complaining about not
getting a 40-hour -week, and so you wind up with an agreement for a
45-hour week to last for 5 years on the part of the clerks.
11388 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IK THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman. If they delivered the clerks into the Butchers
Union.
Senator Ervin. If you delivered the clerks into the hands of the
Butchers, that is right.
Senator Church. Ultimately, the company did obtain a 5-year con-
tract with the Meat Cutters Union, isn't that correct ?
Mr. BiEBER. I believe the first contract was 2 years.
Senator Church, It was 22 months, I believe.
Mr. BiEBER. Yes, sir.
Senator Church. Then the testimony has shown that the company
entered into a supplemental agreement which was not disclosed to the
employees, which extended that contract to 5 years. Were you
familiar with that ?
Mr. BiEBER. No ; I was not.
Senator Church. Did you understand in your position as vice presi-
dent of the company at this time or any time thereafter that the com-
pany did have a supplemental agreement or a gentleman's agreement
or some kind of understanding that in fact the contract was not a
22-month contract but a 5-year contract ?
Mr. BiEBER. I never had it very definitely explained even to me. I
did question it, because after all I signed the 22-month contract.
Senator Church. You did not sign any supplemental agreement
extending that contract ? You personally did not sign ?
Mr. BiEBER. No.
Senator Church. We do, of course, have in evidence the additional
supplementary agi-eement and we had testimony on it last week. Mr.
Schimmat was here last week before the committee and when he was
questioned on it, and asked why the fact that such an agreement had
been entered into was not disclosed to the employees ali'ected, he an-
swered that in his opinion it was not the responsibility of management
to make any such disclosures, but this was solely a responsibility of a
labor union.
I would like to ask you as an executive in this company, whether
you share that feeling.
Mr. BiEBER. I heard Mr. Schimmat's testimony, and all I can say
is that lie was trying to do the best he could for the company. 1 have
never negotiated with the unions directly, so I don't know what goes
on in negotiations. All I can say is that ^Ir. Schimmat was faced with
a decision that I am very glad 1 was not faced with. Since that time
I have given it some thought, and I can honestly say I don't know
what I would have done had I been faced with it.
Senator Church. Can you tell me now, having given this matter
some thought, whether, as an abstract proposition, you feel that it
is not the responsibility of management to disclose the terms of a
contract with the employees of a given company ?
Mr. BiEBER. Well, after all, we had to continue to do business with
them. We take it that they are the representatives of the employees.
Once a union enters your organization, they have a new boss, and
they go to them with their problems and their questions and so forth
much more than they do to management.
I am not trying to go around the barn. I don't know, today, and I
liave searched, because I heard the testimony of last week, just what I
would have done or would do now.
Mr. Doyle. Senator, I don't think Mr. Bieber really got the ques-
tion. Do you mind if I consult with him for a second? I think you
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11389
asked him in the abstract and he again answered you in the particular.
Senator Church. Yes.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Senator Church. All I want to know, Mr. Bieber, is whether you
personally approve of the fact whereby a company which employs
thousands of employees, arid they are your employees, enters into a con-
tract affecting the wages and working conditions of these employees,
and keeps the contract secret from those employees, w^hether this is a
practice which you personally approve, whether you think it is a good
management practice and a defensible practice.
Mr. Bieber. If I had my choice, 1 would make certain that every
employee knew everything that was in a contract. I think it is their
right to know what they can and cannot do, and it would be easier
because some of them really read things into a contract that never
was there.
Senator Church. What, in fact, was done in this instance, would
not have your personal approval ?
Mr. Bieber. Well
Senator Church. That is all right.
Mr. Bieber. Thank you.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman, I will just make this observation.
It is refreshing to find the first person who confesses he cannot find
an ex post facto solution to the problems.
The Chairman. The Chair presents to you a photostatic copy of a
letter dated March 14, 1952, a photostatic copy, w ith an attachment,
and I ask you to examine it and state whether you identify it.
( The document was handed to the witness. )
The Chairman. Do you identify it?
Mr. Bieber. I do.
The Chairman. What is it ?
Mr. Bieber. One letter signed by me to all supervisors, specialists,
managers, assistant managers, and first meatmen, all of whom are non-
union. The second is "To all employees eligible to vote in next
Wednesday's election."
The Chajkman. That may be made exhibit 5 for reference. That
need not be printed in the record.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 5" for refer-
ence, and may be found in the files of the select committee.)
The Chairman. The significance of it is that in March 1952, you
did feel that it was quite proper for you to inform your employees
what was going on and try to persuade them to vote against any
union.
Mr. Bieber. I did.
The Chairman. And by October your position had completely
changed. Instead of keeping them informed of what was going on,
you cooperated in a card count that got them all into a certain union.
Mr. Bieber. Well, the circumstances were quite different, Senator.
The Chairman. I understand, but I am emphasizing the circum-
stances, if you want to put it that way. The circumstances in March
w^ere such that you were taking great pains to keep everyone informed
and persuade them to vote against any union.
IVIr. Bieber. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And by October you were taking no pains to inform
them at all, and cooperating to get them into the Butchers Union.
11390 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Whatever your explanation, and certain events changed, that is a fact,
is it not ?
Mr. BiEBER. Yes.
The Chairman. Are there any other questions ?
Mr. BiERER. May I say this : I did not cooperate to get them in. I
did not oppose it.
The Chairman. How do you mean you did not cooperate, when you
instructed everybody to let them come in during business hours and
take employees and direct them around to the union people to talk to,
and let them persuade them to sign cards ? How do you contend that
is not cooperation ?
Mr. BiEBER. Mr. Senator, it did not happen in my Bronx unit.
The Chairman. It was testified here that it happened over in New
Jersey, at least. That is not in your jurisdiction ?
Mr. Bieber. That is not in my jurisdiction, no, sir.
The Chairman. Well, the same company owns both establishments.
Mr. Bieber. It is the same company, yes, sir.
Mr. Doyle. Just so the record is clear, Mr. Chairman, the evidence
that you just outlined took place in New Jersey which is a different
unit, took place after the New York contract was signed, and I think
later testimony will make clear why there was such a broad difference
in policy in New Jersey as compared to the Bronx'
Mr. Kennedy. We have had testimony and evidence before the
committee, and I want to make sure that the record is completely clear,
that coercion was used against the employees in the New York area
also prior to October 11, to get the employees to join the union.
You did cooperate in two areas, at least. You cooperated when you
knew there was subterfuge being used against the employees to get
them to sign the cards, and you did not tell them or inform them about,
it, and the second point is you kept this card count secret, the fact that
there was to be a card count, you kept that secret, so you cooperated
to that extent.
Then you cooperated, of course, by changing the attitude toward
unionization during this period of time. At the time the contract
was signed, isn't it true that you understood there was an agreement,
a gentleman's agreement, or whatever you might call it, that the 45-
hour week would be extended for a 5-year period ?
Mr. Bieber. I understood that, yes.
Senator Ciiurcii. The reason for this cooperation, as has just been
outlined by our counsel, Mr. Kennedy, as I understand your testimony,
was because you were under circumstances where the Meat Cutters
were threatening a strike.
You furnislied this committee with certain documents. I concur
with what Senator Ervin said that there is a good deal of vagueness
around this threat of strike. Do you have any comparable documents
that would indicate that the union ever took the position that, if you
told your employees fully what this card business was about, and, when
they signed the cards, what they were doing was designating this union
as tlieir bargaining agent, that as a result of such disclosures the luiion
would strike ? Have you any documents like that ?
Mr. Biebkk. No.
The ( -haikman. Thank you very nnich.
The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. I cannot deter-
mine at this moment whether the meeting will be here or in room 318..
Those interested in attending may check with the committee staff'.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11391
(Whereupon, at 11 : 57 the hearing was recessed until 2 p. m. of the
same day, with the following members present : Senators McClellan,
Church, Ervin, and Curtis.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
(Members of the committee present at the convening of the session
were : Senators McClellan, Curtis, and Church.)
The Chairman. The committee will be in order.
Call the next witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Ratcliffe.
The Chairman. You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall
give before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I do.
TESTIMONY OF FRENCH T. RATCLIFFE, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS
COUNSEL, JEROME DOYLE
The Chairman. State your name, and your place of residence, and
your business or occupation ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. My name is French T. Ratcliffe. I live at 753
Summit Avenue, Westfield, X. J. I am director of operations of the
eastern division of the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. in New York
City, 420 Lexington Avenue.
The CiLviRMAN. Let the record show that Mr. Doyle represents Mr.
Ratcliffe.
Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been with the A. & P., Mr. Rat-
cliffe?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Almost 30 years.
Mr. Kennedy. And how long have you held the position you
hold now?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Almost 6 months.
Mr. IvENNEDY. What position did you have during 1952 and 1953 ?
Mr, Ratcliffe. I was industrial relations representative of the
eastern division.
Mr, Kennedy. What were your responsibilities as industrial rela-
tions supervisor?
Mr. Ratcliffe. To conduct negotiations with the unions, deal
with the unions in general, and see that our contracts were lived up
to so far as we were concerned, and the union was concerned.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Ratcliffe, it had always been the company's
policy, had it not, to oppose imionization of the employees up to
1952?
Mr. Ratcliffe. The company's policy; no sir.
]Mr. IvENNEDY. Well, the division's policy?
Mr. Ratcliffe. That is a safe statement to make; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. A safe statement?
Mr. Ratcliffe, Yes, sir.
Mr, Kennedy. It is true ?
Mr, Ratcliffe, It is a question. In general it was true, but
Mr. Kennedy. It is a question of you. Was it always the com-
pany's policy?
21243— 58— pt. 29 14
11392 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Ratclitfe. Up to 1952 in the eastern division; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. To oppose unionization of its employees up to
1952?
Mr. RATCLirrE. In the eastern division; yes, sir.
Mr. KJENNEDY. Now, in the election that was held on March 19,
1952, in the Bronx, the unions there made a great improvement over
the showing that they had shown in prior years, did they not?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I believe that is true; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And the company was quite concerned about the
increase of support by the employees of the union ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, the company was quite concerned about any
elections that we had, regardless of the outcome.
Mr. Kennedy. You were particularly concerned in this election,
were you not, by the fact that the unions seemed to be increasing in
strength ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I don't believe any more so than the previous one,
sir.
Mr. Kj:nnedy. There was a letter that went out, and you had
meetings as to what went wrong that the employees would vote such
a high percentage for a union, and you discussed steps you could
take to prevent the unionization, and what you could do to get tlie
employees to be against the union?
Mr. Ratcliffe. We tried to analyze it and find out why the surveys
were not as correct as they had been before.
Mr. Kj:nnedy. Well, for instance, I will show you this letter of
April 22, 1952, that goes into detail in the matter and says there was
a combination of many things that contributed to the poor showing,
but the best reasons advanced were as follows. So that election of
March of 1952, the only point is that it did cause you some concern?
Mr. Ratcliffe. It caused us concern.
Mr. ICennedy. And the fact that union had increased its strength
had caused you some concern, and you felt the company made a poor
showing in that particular election ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, I can't says yes or no to that, because that
was my first election in the Bronx, and we were always concerned
about our Bronx elections.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, you were concerned in this particular case,
as to the poor showing?
Mr. Ratcliffe. That is true.
The Chairman. I present you the letter referred to, a photostatic
copy of it, dated April 22, 1952, addressed to Mr. Bums and Mr.
Reynals, chairman of the board and president, respectively, and signed
with a capital "R," eastern division.
Mr. Ratcliffe. That is my mark, sir.
The Chairman. Are you capital "R" ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes, sir it is an "F. R."
The Chairman. Will you see if you identify that ?
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. Kennedy. I am not going to ask any questions. The letter
speaks for itself.
Mr. Doyle. I take it you are not going to read it into the record.
Mr. Kennedy. I wasnV, planning lo, nnloss the chairman wanted to.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11393
The Chairman. We will make it an exhibit. If any questions are
iisked, you may see it again to refresh your memory. It is a question
of identification I wanted to make of the exhibit.
Do you identify the letter?
Mr. Ratclitfe. Yes, sir.
The Chairman, It may he made exhibit No. 6.
(Docun)ent referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 6," for reference
and may be found in the files of the select committee.)
The Chairman. That is made for reference, and if any question
arises about it, you may see it further to refresh your memory.
We have two more letters and I don't know whether you can
identify them or not. If so, I will put them in the record as exhibits.
I hand you a letter dated August 24, 1950, signed "Howard Lich-
tenstein," and addressed to Mr. Cohen. I cannot make out his full
name here. It is Arnold Cohen, I think. I ask you to examine that
letter and see if you identify it. I desire to make it an exhibit.
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Mr, Doyle. Mr. Chairman, the witness states he doesn't remember
the letter, and it is quite apparent this was a copy he sent from the
outside counsel to the A. & P., and a copy was indicated for Mr.
Katcliife, and we have no reason to dispute the fact it shouldn't be
entered.
The (^iiAiRMAX. There is no reason to question the authenticity
of it?
Mr. Doyle, No.
The (^iiAiRMAx. It may be made exhibit No. 7.
(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 7," for reference,
and may be found in the tiles of the select committee.)
The ('uAiRivrAN. Here is another letter, and I wonder if you can
sufficiently identify these to see if they are copies. This is addressed
to the manager, dated October 24, 1951, and signed by F. E. Charlton,
vice president, and I wish you would examine this copy and state
if you will identify it or if you can see that it is a part of the files
of the company.
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. Doyle. There is no question of the authenticity.
Mr. Kenxedy. Mr. Chairman, both of these letters indicate for our
benefit the attitude or position of the company toward unionization
during this period of time. I think generally it supports the testi-
mony of the witnesses given, but I would like to read this letter
of October 24, 1951, into the i-ecord.
The Chairman. It may be read into the record and not made an
exhibit.
Mr. Kennedy. It reads as follows :
Dear Sib: It was been brought to my attention that union representatives
have been interfering with our normal business activities by campaigning in
our stores during business hours.
Such interference is contrary to law and cannot be tolerated.
It is your responsibility as manager to see that union organizers are kept out
of the store premises. As manager you should make it clear to any represent-
atives or solicitors who attempt to enter into discussions with your employees or
pass out leaflets on the store premises, that if they want to engage in this
activity they must do so outside the store after business hours.
Very truly yours,
P. E. Charlton, Vice President.
11394 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman. I hand you another letter, a photostatic copy of a
letter dated April 22, addressed to Mr. F. Ratcliffe, operating division,
eastern division, and signed by Mr. R. J. McKee, personnel manager,
and ask you to examine it and state if you identify it ?
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, here again there is no question as to
the authenticity of this document. It came from the files of the
A.&P.
The Chairman. It seemed to be addressed to this witness. I assume
he can identify it.
Mr. Ratcliffe. That is true.
The Chairman. It may be entered into the record at this point.
You may interrogate about it if you desire.
Mr. Kennedy. This is the letter :
The following employees were very active with the CIO, 474 in the last union
election. The seven men listed below were also selected as union observers with
the CIO—
Then there are listed seven names. There is also another name men-
tioned as checker and a certain address.
* * * whose services have been terminated since the election.
There are four other individuals mentioned and then the letter con-
cludes :
We have no immediate plans for these employees. However, if their work
would prove unsatisfactory, they would most certainly be eligible for dismissal.
Very truly yours,
R. J. McKee, Personal Manager.
The Chairman. That seems to indicate, and I may ask 3^ou about it,
if it was the policy of the company in April of 1952, and this letter
is dated April 22, to check up on those that were active in the organiz-
ing effort or in the election with respect to selecting a union. Was it
the policy of the company to discharge those who took part, those Avho
took the most active part '{
Mr. Ratcliffe. I am sorry, sir. I didn't follow that.
The Chairman. Well, this letter indicates that immediately after
the election, this check was made and that it became the policy, if it
was not already the policy of the company, to discharge those who
were active in supporting the union, those who were most active at
least. Was that the policy of the company I
Mr. Ratcliffe. No, sir. I say, "no, sir," and if I may qualify that,
for the simple reason that the statement that these people could be fired
if they took an active part in campaigning during the tour of obser-
vation.
The Chairman. It seems to me from the letter they had already
taken a part ; am I correct ?
Mr. Kennedy. These people whose names are listed are those indi-
viduals who took an active role in favor of the CIO Union, and those
names were l)eing furnished to you.
The Chairman. Some of them were observers at the polls, I take it i
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Ratcliffe. I believe that I don't recall the letter too clearly, but
I believe what prompted the letter was t\\Q request of a ruling on
whether or not they could be discharged for the activity that they took.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11395
However, I also believe I can safely say that most of those people are
still with us, and they were not discharged.
(At this point, the followin<2; members were present: Senators Mc-
Clellan, Church, and Curtis.)
Mr. Kennedy. Three are still with you, 3 of the 12.
Mr. Doyle. And 2 resi<jned ; that makes 5.
Mr. Kennedy. Three are employed, 1 resigned before the date of
the memo, 1 resigned after that, and 7 others were discharged.
Senator Curtis. Mr, Chairman?
Mr. Ratcliffe. But not specifically for that reason.
Mr. Kennedy. No.
Mr. D0YI.E. My records indicate 4 were discharged for failure to
pay their union dues, the other 3 were discharged for disciplinary
reasons. The first was discliarged because of excessive absenteeism.
He left New York City voluntarily and never told the company he was
going. The second was discharged becaused of charges of dishonesty,
substantiated by a confidential report from an independent investi-
gating firm. The last one, it appears, was discharged for insubordi-
nation. Of the 7, 4 were discharged for failure to pay their dues.
The company had no choice there. The other 3 were discharged for
disciplinary reasons, all backed up by the company's personnel reports.
Mr. Kennedy. I think it is interesting that you should write out
a memo and list the 12 individuals who took an active role in favor
■of unionization. That would appear to indicate, at least, that there
was a special interest in those who were in favor of unionization at
that particular period of time, April 1952.
The Chairman. Senator Curtis.
Senator Curtis. Mr. Ratcliffe, this letter was addressed to you.
What position did you hold at that time, April 22, 1952 ?
]Mr. Ratcliffe. Industrial relations representative of the eastern
division.
Senator Curtis. What does the industrial relations representative
do^
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, labor relations, but we did not like the word.
Senator CtrR'ns. This letter from R. J. McKee, personnel manager —
where was he personnel manager ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. In the Bronx unit.
Senator Curtis. This letter informs you, as head of the eastern
division industrial relations or labor section, of the names of certain
people that were active for the CIO; isn't that correct?
]\Ir. Ratcliffe. That is true.
Senator Curtis. After listing them and telling what their addresses
are, and what they were assigned at, such as checkers, the onl}'^ other
paragraph I see here in the letter is the last one. It saj's :
We have no immediate plans for tliese employees. However, if their work
would prove unsatisfactory, they would mo.st certainly be eligible for dismissal.
What does that mean ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, it means just what it says, Senator.
Senator Curtis. To me it says this, that on the basis of what they
have done or their activity, there is no grounds to dismiss them, but
it would depend upon their conduct as employees thereafter.
Mr. Ratcliffe. That is exactly right, sir.
11396 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Curtis. That is what it says ; it says :
We have no immediate plans for these employees. However, if their work
would prove unsatisfactory, they would most certainly be eligible for dismissal.
Mr. Eatclitte. That is true, sir, and I think the record shows that
that was the case, and the men that left the employment were dis-
missed for other just cause.
Senator Curtis. You, as head of the industrial relations division^
were notified by a store employee who it was that had taken an active
part for the CIO. Was any other publication made of this letter
that you know of ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. May we clear up one point, sir? You say a store
employee. Are you referring to Mr. McKee?
Senator Curtis. Yes, sir.
Mr. RATCLirFE. He was personnel manager in the Bronx unit.
Senator Curtis. He was in the Bronx unit?
Mr. Ratcliffe. He was the Bronx unit personnel mailager ; yes, sir,
at that time.
Senator CuiiTis. And he had a responsibility to report to you?
Mr. Ratci.iffe. That is true.
Senator Curtis. Was there any other publication made of this?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Not to my knowledge at this point. I don't recall
any.
The Chairman. Would you say that constituted a gentle or a
pointed hint for you to find something wrong with their work ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. You are trying to put words in my mouth. Senator.
I don't say so ; no, sir.
The Chairman. If their work proved unsatisfactory, of course, they
would be eligible for dismissal. Why would it make them any more
eligible for dismissal than anyone else whose work proved unsatis-
factory ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. They weren't, and other people were dismissed
for the same reason.
The Chairman. It is a rather humorous situation. I don't know
why you would write a letter saying that these are the ones that
worked for the union in the election, and say —
We have no immediate plans for these employees. However, if their work —
it doesn't say should —
would prove unsatisfactory, they would most certainly be eligible for dismissal.
I think anyone's work that would prove unsatisfactory might be
eligible for dismissal. I am wondering why some others that didn't
work were not included in the list, who didn't work for the union.
Mr. Ratcliffe. So far as I am concerned, it constituted no threat,
sir.
Tlie Chairman. Would you regard this as a veiled hint or sug-
gestion that it miglit be well to see if you could find something wrong
with tlieir work ?
Mr. Raix:liffe. No, sir; I don't — I didn't.
Tlic Chairman. I don't know. I just couldn't tell from the way
the letter is worded really what it means.
Mr. Ratcliffe. No, sir; in those days when we wanted to fire them,
we said ''fire theuL"
The Chairman. "Fire them"?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11397
Mr. RATCLin-TS. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Tliat is what I thought. I couldn't see why you
would single out these and say if their work was unsatisfactory, fire
tliem, and not any othei-s.
Senator CuRiis. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Curtis.
Senator CuRi'is. You are the recipient of the letter, not the writer?
Mr. Ratcliffe. That is true.
Senator Curtis. As recipient of the letter, did you have anything to
do with hiring or firing individual employees, in your position as
industrial representative ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I don't recall — in that position, no, I don't think
I ever had any direct responsibility. Well, I know I never had any
direct responsibility for hiring, and I can't recall any direct respon-
sibility or any responsibility for anyone being dismissed.
. Senator Curtis. You wouldn't be the individual who would be in
the store to observe whether somebody's work was unsatisfactory ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. No, sir.
Senator Cm'ns. So if the letter was addressed to you, it could not
be a hint to fire somebody because that wasn't your job ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I was thinking about the letter on the choice of
words by Mr. McKee. I can't answer that, sir.
Senator Curtis. It was addressed to you.
Mr. Ratcliffe. It was addressed to me, but certainly so far as I
was concerned it was no hint or threat of dismissal of any of these
people.
Senator Curtis. The point I am trying to get at is you were not
the pei'son who hires and fires ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. That is true.
Senator Curtis. When it was made to you, then, I don't see how it
could be a hint to fire somebody, if it was made to you, somebody who
didn't even handle that work.
The Chairman. I wonder Avhy he wrote you about it in the fii*st
place.
]\Ir. Ratcliffe. I have been wondering that myself.
Mr. DoTLE. I think I can offer one suggestion, Mr. Chairman. I
think tliat the writer of the letter had this in mind. That the mere
fact that a person worked as an organizer for the CIO didn't guaran-
tee his employment the rest of his life in the A. & P.
The Chairman. Counsel, we are very glad to have your comments
sometime, but, after all, we are looking for testimony. The witness
who received the letter was the one who was expected to interpret it,
and I was trying to interrogate him to see what it meant.
Senator Church.
Senator Church. I was going to say, Mr. Chairman, that if I were
to get a letter of this kind it would not be very difficidt for me to inter-
pret it. The language is pretty plain. It certainly represents a veiled
indication to take action, I should think.
Mr. Ratcliffe, did the company normally advise you or other store
managers from time to time upon singling out a certain employee
that they could be dismissed if proper grounds were found for doing
so? Was it a practice of the store to write letters singling out cer-
tain people who were active in one way or another and then say "If
11398 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
proper grounds could be found, of course, these men could be dis-
missed?"
Mr. Ratcliffe. No, sir. That was an unusual letter.
Senator Church. It is an unusual letter ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. It is an unusual letter.
The Chairman. Was this an unusual letter?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I say that is an unusual letter.
The Chairman. The unusual has more significance than the usual,
does it not ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. No, sir. I don't understand it myself. The record
speaks for myself. There was no
The Chairman. I understand they were not all discharged. But
it did inject a little humor into the inquiry.
Mr. Ratcliffe. That relaxes me a lot, Senator.
Mr. Kennedy. At least it is not a list of commendations for 12
individuals.
Mr. Ratcliffe. No, sir, nor is it the other kind of a list. No ; that is
true.
Senator Curtis. It still puzzles me that it was sent to somebody that
Mr. Ratcliffe. I agree with you. Senator. That is absolutely
right. That is the reason I say I don't understand the letter myself.
I did not write the letter.
(At this point. Senator McClellan withdrew from the hearing
room. )
Mr. Kennedy. At that period of time you were not very fond of
unions, were you ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. At that period of time we were not.
Mr. Kennedy. Is that right, at that particular period of time?
Mr. Ratcliffe. We were not.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not become fond of unions until about 3 or
4 months later ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. We did not become fond of unions, sir.
Mj.\ Kennedy. You became fond of the Meat Cutters ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. We did not.
Mr. Kennedy. You liked the Meat Cutters ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. No, we did not like tliem better than any of the
others.
Mr. Kennedy. You liked them better than other unions ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. In the sense that you mean, I can still say "No."
Mr. Kennedy. Well, in the sense that you mean
Mr. Ratcliffe. When it is a bitter pill shoved down your throat,
you have to like it.
Mr. Kennedy. Let's discuss that a little bit. In 1952 did you have
some conversations with representatives of the Meat Cutters as to
their representing your clerks ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. In 1952 ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Ratcfjffe. With representatives?
I discussed it several times with Mr. Block of the Amalgamated
Meat Cutters, yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he make some offers to you as to certain terms
that might be included in the contract that miglit be attractive to the
A.&P.?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11399
Mr. Katcliffe. There were suggestions. There was quite a series
of conversations, and it was sort of intertwined with the beginning
and building up of the negotiations of tlie butcher contract that was
expiring that year.
(At this point, Senator McClellan entered the hearing room.)
Mr. Kenxedy. When did Mv. Block lirst approach you in connec-
tion with this?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I would say in the late spring or early summer.
Mr. Kennedy. July, maybe, or June ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Earlier than that, I would guess.
]Mr. Kennedy. May or June, 1952 ?
j\Ir, Ratc^liffe. I would only guess, but I would say it was as early
as April that I first got the suggestion that we consider the fact that,
according to Mr. Block, he had a number of grocery clerks signed up,
and he thought that he should re))resent them.
Mr. Kennedy. And did he, during the course of the discussions,
point out to you that he might be able to arrange it for you to obtain
a 5-year contract?
Mr. Ratcliffe. During the course of our negotiating the meat con-
tract, there was the idea that crept into the discussion
Mr. Kennedy. Crept in ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Crept in, yes, sir — that we could work out a con-
tract for the butchers and, on proper recognition of the grocery
clerks, that perhaps that same contract could be extended to cover the
grocery clerks.
Mr. Kennedy. And did it also creep in that you might get a 45-
hour week over that period of time ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. That crept in, too.
Mr. Kennedy. That crept in, too. Also in these discussions, was
it also discussed as to what you were going to do with the CIO union
that had been trying to organize your employees ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Would you repeat that, please ?
Mr. Kennedy. Did it also arise in the course of these discussions
as to what your attitude or what the position of the company was
going to be toward the CIO imion that was attempting to organize
you ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. No, sir. We were organized with the CIO for a
Mr. Kennedy. If you signed this contract with the Meat Cutters,
what were you going to do with the CIO union ?
INIr. Ratcliffe. We had no intention of signing a contract with the
Meat Cutters.
Mr. Kennedy. But these various offers crept in about the 45-hour
week and about the 5-year contract. Didn't that interest you a little
bit?
Mr. Ratcliffe. When I am negotiating, everything that pertains
to the negotiation interests me, and I try to explore every avenue.
Whenever we got into the depth of this thing, and I thought I had a
5-year contract with the butchers with the possibility of extending it
to the grocery clerks, when and if the union proved themselves repre-
senting them, I was feeling pretty good about a 5-year contract. My
job is to get a contract that covers us as long as possible.
11400 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD
But up until tlie very last moment did we have the qualms and
fears of the union actually representing the grocery clerks.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you mean you did not realize that up until the
last moment ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. For months I did not take Mr. Block seriously at
all.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you attracted to these various discussions?
We brought out earlier in the testimony you were somewhat con-
cerned at the success of the CIO local in the Bronx unit, the success
that they had in their contract, in the election, and this bait that
Mr. Block and the Amalgamated Meatcutters were offering to you at
that time, did that attract you a little bit ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. It attracted me personally; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. As a representative of the company it attracted
you?
Mr. Ratcliffe. No.
Mr. Kennedy. It did not attract you ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Wait a minute. May I put it in my own words?
The proposition did interest me, but when Mr. Block iirst started in
with this gentle breeze of a suggestion I told him very definitely that
if I went back to tlie company with that kind of a proposition, they
would throw me out of the 22d floor window. For several months
we kept negotiating and talking about the Butcher contract and get-
ting closer to our negotiations on the Butcher contract, and all the
time Mr. Block was getting a little stronger on liis request, to finally
a demand, that we recognize the grocery.
Mr. Kennedy. When you finally did go back in the summer of
1952 to the company and gave them the offer, did they throw you
out the 22d flood window ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. No, sir, but they were very concerned about it.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss what Mr. Block had offered to you ?
Did you discuss that with the company attorney, Mr. Zorn ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell them at that time what the course of
the conversations were, and these things that crept in in the conversa-
tions with Mr. Block ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes, but that is before we figured any cost on it.
1 was not taking it seriously. I went to Mr. Block
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Zorn.
Mr. Ratcliffe. I went to Mr. Zorn.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Zorn prepared a memorandum, didn't he, based
on your recommendation ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. He prepared a memorandum, I think, based on my
second conversation. Early in July, I would put it, when I began to
realize that Mr. Block was more serious than I had taken liim through
April, May, and June ; I went back to my superiors, who were quite
concerned about it.
They sent me to Mr. Schimmat, to get his advice about it. He told
me it was strictly eastern division's baby and we would have to make
up our minds. Then I went back and told Block that we weren't
interested, and he told me how simple it was, that all we had to do
was to have a card count by some third party that would make an
impartial card count, that he had the cards, and then we would recog-
nize them and we could liave a fair and legitimate contract.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11401
I went to Mr. Zorn and asked him about whether or not a card coimt
would be legitimate and acceptable. He told me most emphatically
a card count would, at that time, that was in July. That is, I believe,
all I asked Mr. Zorn at that time.
Mr. Kennedy. You gave him the facts as had been developed in
your conversation ?
Mr. Ratcllffe. Up to that point, yes, sir.
Mr. Ketstnedy. We have this memorandum here to Mr. Zorn.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Kennedy. Can you listen to both of us ? I haven't got a ques-
tion that is outstanding.
Mr. DovLE. Mr. Chairman, I wanted the witness to realize you were
talking about a document that was written in a law office from one
lawyer to another lawyer, before he answers the question, so that he
wouldn't believe that the document you are referring to was some-
thing that necessarily he had read.
Mr. Kennedy. Fine. These are the facts as outlined, as I under-
stand it, by you to Mr. Zorn, which he, in turn, gave to his junior
partner to prepare a memorandum as to what course of action the
A. & P. could take in view of tliese facts. He relates on August 25,
1952 — I would like to have Mr. May read what the factual situation
was, and let you tell me if that correctly summarizes what the situa-
tion was as of August 1952.
Mr. May (reading) :
There have been NLRB elections involving the Bronx and Brooklyn clerks
within the past 12 months. No union has received a majority of votes, and
consequently no certification has issued. There is a possibility that the
A. F. of L.-Amalgamated Meatcutters Union, hereafter called A. F. of L., which
was not a party to the above-mentioned elections, may undertake an organiza-
tional campaign without company opposition.
This campaign may result in a strike threat, and a consequent recognition
of the union by the company on the basis of a card check. The fruition of the
foregoing event would be in the form of a 5-year contract with yearly wage
reopening.
It says "positions."
Mr. KiiNNEDY. Was that a factual recitation as to what the situa-
tion was at that time ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. In July, when I first went to Mr. Zorn and asked
him about the validity of a card count, he explained to me that such
a card count could be made.
However, he did point out that a 5-year contract would have a
doubtful value. I went back and talked to Mr. Block about this. I
was trying to find as much argument as possible to discourage him
from his insistent and persistent discussion of the grocery clerks, and
claiming that he had sufficient cards lined up, and still insisting or
trying to persuade me to go along with accepting a card count. Well,
sometmie in August the veiled or implied threat was received verbally
from Mr. Block that he had the cards, sufficient cards, for the grocery
clerks, and if we didn't recognize them — and he also made it very
clear that he would not go to an NLRB election. In the first place,
he could not, because the Bronx and Brooklyn were both on ice for
the rest of the year of 1952. But he insisted that if we did not recog-
nize a card count, we would have a work stoppage. I went back to
Mr. Zorn and told him what the threats were at that time, and that
11402 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
is when he started Mr. Lester Block exploring the legal aspects of
the whole situation.
Mr. Kennedy. This does not sound as if there was much of a strike
threat, certainly, at this period of time.
It says here that the Meatcutters may undertake an organiza-
tion— this is a recitation of the facts — may undertake an organi-
zational campaign without company opposition.
You were already considering having this organizational campaign
withovit opposing the union.
Mr. Ratcliffe. No; that is not true. As I said, this thing started
off like a gentle breeze, and it kept boiling up until it became a cyclone.
Mr. Kennedy. At this time it was still vei-y gentle.
Mr. Ratcliffe. No ; it was beginnig to get stronger, and there was
a veiled threat in late July and early August. Not until I got the
veiled threat did I take it seriously enough to go back to my own
people, other than the July report. And then I just explored. But
some time in August, early August, as I recall, it became stronger, and
by this time there was definitely the veiled threat and that is when I
went back to Mr. Zom again, and the veiled threat existed at the time
this exploration was made by Mr. Zorn through his own office staff.
Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time, did you make a study
to find out how much the company would save if they had a 45-hour
week rather than a 40-hour week ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. We made a study— I don't know the date, but I
would guess that it was in August.
Mr. Kennedy. It was during this period of time, if you were having
these discussions.
Mr. Ratcliffe. There were meetings called by Mr. Reynolds, of the
unit heads, and whenever this thing got to the serious point that we
had to do more than tell Mr. Block that we weren't interested, because
we had told him "No," as emphatically as we could, he was still per-
sistent, and he was beginning to break me down and convince me that
possibly he had more than a majority of the cards. But
Mr. Kennedy. Just answer the question, would you, JNIr. Ratcliffe?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I tried to.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you then make a study as to the relative cost to
the A. & P. Co. of a 45-hour week versus a 40-hour week?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Then did you have an agreement with these discus-
sions were going on that you would also take in the New Jersey area
as well as the New York area, and Mr. Block would be able to organize
them?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Not at that time.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, in September of 1952 ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I believe it was in September that the scope was
extended to include New Jersey, because I don't remember Mr. Kaplan
coming into the picture until early September. As a matter of fact,
Mr. Block was the only one talking about the recognition of grocery
clerks ud until the end of August.
Mr. Kennedy. But you did pretty well decide in early September
that tliis arrangement would also include the New Jersey stores, is
that right?
Mr. Ratcliffe. No, sir. That was the invitation to recognize. By
this time it was a demand.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD ] 1 403
Mr. Kennedy, That was on September 2, was it?
Mr. IIatcliffe. I can't swear to the date, but I would say that it
was in the beginning of September.
Mr. Kennedy. And then shortly afterward you decided that you
would call on Mr. O'Grady to be the individual who would operate
or run the card count ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I did not.
Mr. Kennp:dy. "Was it decided bv the company officials that Mr.
O'Grady would conduct the card count?
Mr. Ratcliffe. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know when that was decided ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Approximately, yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. When was it decided?
]Mr. Ratcliffe. I would say it was either the 2d or 3d of October.
That is a guess. But it was an arrangement made by Mr. Zorn, our
attorney, and Mr. Arnold Cohen, the union's attorney.
Mr. Kennedy. You don't know of any arrangements made back in
the middle of September, around the 19th or 20th of September, re-
garding the retaining of Mr. O'Grady for a card count?
Mr. Ratcliffe. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You do not ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. This is a meeting of September 2, which was taken
from Mr. Zorn's timesheet. It recites a meeting which you attended.
Mr. May (reading). Lunch and dinner conference, Ratcliffe, J. Cohen, Sam
Cohen, Max Block. Meeting, Schimmat and Ratcliffe, problem in re : Meat Glit-
ters Union demand for organization and contract for all New York A. & P. em-
ployees, including clerks, including question of possible contract terms, and
provisions of procedures with respect to possible subsequent NLRB proceedings,
September 2.
Mr. Kennedy. "\"Miat were the subsequent NLRB proceedings that
were of concern to you on September 2 ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. That is ^Nlr. Zorn's notes. I think he ought to
answer it.
]Mr. Kennedy. "\Aniat do you remember? You attended the con-
ferences.
]Mr. Ratcliffe. I attended the conferences every day. I don't re-
member the specific conference. As I stated before, I thought early
in September Mr. Kaplan came into the picture, and perhaps that
is whenever they expanded their demands to include the two Newark
units, Newark and Paterson units.
IMr. Kennedy. Weren't you concerned at that time also about the
fact that the other unions, the CIO union, and possiblj' 1500, would
bring some NLRB action if vou went in and made a contract of this
kind ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I don't think so ; no, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't that discussed?
]SIr. Ratcliffe. I don't remember it being discussed.
Mr. Kennedy. Certainly it is discussed in this August 25, 1952,
memo, and it would appear that it was also discussed in the September
2 meeting, that you were concerned about the action that the NLRB
might take, or what proceedings might occur before the NLRB.
11404 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Ratcliffe. May have been, but I don't remember any particu-
lar threat over in New Jersey, the CIO or anybody else.
Mr, Kennedy. I am not talking about New Jersey. But wasn't it
during this period of time that you were also concerned about what
proceedings might take place before the National Labor Relations
Board, what actions these other unions might take against you if you
went in and made this contract ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. That was another phase of it we were exploring
for the sake of knowing all the legal approaches to it. I think that
is strictly a legal
Mr. Kennedy. I am just saying that that was obviously one of
the things that were of concern to you.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Mr. Kennedy, as I tried to explain before, we tried
every avenue to escape this pressure or this business of forcing us
into recognizing the Amalgamated as representing our grocery clerks.
Mr. Kennedy. It would appear that he had offered, or at least
there had been discussions about the 45-hour week at this time, and
a 5-year contract. This was obviously very attractive to you in view
of the fact that the CIO union had been making some inroads, and
they hadn't made, certainly, an offer of such an attractive contract.
Didn't you state to our investigators before w^hen they interviewed
you, that "Mr. Block dangled the bait and we took it" ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. No, sir; I didn't say he dangled the bait and we
took it. He dangled the bait and Ave felt the merchandise.
Mr, Kennedy. You just felt it ; is that right?
Mr. Ratcliffe. We explored the stuff.
Mr. Kennedy. You just felt it?
Mr. Ratcliffe. My job was to ferret out all of the possibilities of
the contract, and to negotiate the best contract that I could with the
Amalgamated for the butchers, and Mr. Block kept insisting on
recognizing the Grocery Clerks.
Mr. Kennedy, I am not saying that this isn't the best possible
contract that you could negotiate. I don't think the A. & P. Co, could
find fault with you on that, that it wasn't the best possible contract
you could negoiate for the A. & P. Co. That is not the point we are
looking into, exactly.
We are looking into how you were able to negotiate such a contract.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Do you think it was a good contract ? It was the
best contract in 1952 in the whole industry.
(Witness conferred with his counsel,)
Mr, Ratcliffe. For the workers ; yes.
Mr. Kennedy. On September 30, 1952, there was a letter written
by Arnold Cohen to the A. & P. Co. Did you expect to receive that
letter ? Do you know the letter to which I am referring ?
Mr. Doyle. Is that September 30 ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr, Ratcliffe, Yes, sir ; I expected to receive that letter,
Mr, Kennedy, You had discussed the letter prior to that time?
Mr. Ratcliffe. We liad been forewarned.
Mr. Kennedy. You had been forewarned. Thank you.
The Chairman. I submit to you a photostatic copy of the letter of
September 30, 1952, addressed to the company, signed "Arnold Co-
lien." I ask you to state if you identify it.
(A docnnient was lianded to tlic witness.)
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11405
Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. The letter may be printed in the record at this
point. Counsel may refer to it for the purposes of interrogation.
Mr. May. It is addressed to the A. & P. Co. and reads as follows :
Gentlemen : I am the attorney for the Butchers' District Council of New
York and New Jersey, which consists of local unions chartered by the Amalga-
mated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, in New York and
New Jersey.
I have been requested by Max Block, president of the council, to inform you
that the council, acting on behalf of its member locals Nos. 342 and 400 and 489
within their geographic units, has been designated as the sole collective-bargain-
ing agent, each in their geographic units, in a unit consisting of your employees
in the grocery, dairy, and produce departments employed in your supermarkets
and service stores.
Then the attorney also makes mention that the particular locals also
represent the majority of those employees. Then he continues:
I have been recjuested to notify you that Local No. 342 of the Amalgamated
Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen represent more than a majority of your
employees in the above-mentioned unit in stores serviced by the Brooklyn ware-
house, and also have been designated as sole collective-bargaining agent by more
than a majority of the employees in the above unit in stores serviced by the
Garden City unit, and that locals Nos. 400 and 489 of the Amalgamated Meat
Cutters and Butcher Workmen Union have been designated as sole collective-
bargaining agent by more than a majority of the employees in the above unit
working in .supermarkets and service stores supervised by your Bronx unit.
I have been requested by the council, acting on behalf of the aforementioned
local unions, to request recognition by your company of the aforesaid council
acting on behalf of the locals as sole collective bargaining agent for the em-
ployees within the aforementioned units, and separately in each of the units
supervised by your Brooklyn, Garden City, and Bronx warehouses.
I have further been requested to urge you to communicate with the council,
through Max Block, or through this office, to arrange a conference upon receipt
of this letter, at which time collective bargaining negotiations can be commenced.
Very truly yours,
Arnold Cohen.
Mr. I^NNEDY. You say you knew this letter was coming. Wasn't
it a fact, then, that you were taking the first step in building up a
record that this certain exchange of correspondence took place oe-
tween you and the union, the company and the union, to build up a
record in case there were any legal proceedings at a later date ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. That was not a fact, sir.
Mr. ICennedy. This letter would make it appear that you were just
beginning to negotiate, you were absolute strangers to one another,
didn't know one another, but were just going to begin to sit down and
discuss the contract, when, in fact, you had been discussing it for some
2 or 3 months.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Five or six months.
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Ratcliffe. As I say, it started out as a gentle breeze and blew
itself into a tornado, and now the tornado is beginning to strike.
Mr. Kj;nnedy. The tornado takes a funny shape, because it makes
it appear that you didn't discuss anything prior to this, that you were
absolute strangers to one another.
Mr. Ratcliffe. I can explain that.
Mr. Kennedy. Go ahead.
Mr. Ratcliffe. I don't know, but 2 or 3 days before we received
this letter — and the reason I say I knew we were going to receive
11406 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
the letter was because we had another one of these many, many meet-
ings, and by this time Mr. Block was getting very forceful, strong
and demanding, and he told us that he was — well, I will have to trans-
late this to English,
He told us he would stop messing around and not put up with any
stalling any more, that he nad sufficient cards and he w^as going to be
recognized by the company one way or another, and he was going to
direct Arnold Cohen to send me a letter, and if we didn't accept that
letter he would then take the next necessary step. That is the reason
I knew that I was going to receive such a letter.
The Chairman. How does it happen this letter says "to arrange a
conference upon receipt of this letter, at W'hich time collective bar-
gaining negotiations can be commenced"? You say they had been
going on for 6 months. I do not understand this.
Mr. Ratcliffe. The verbal instructions that we received about the
letter was that Mr. Block was absolutely fed up with the stalling
tactics that I was taking, that he had
The Chairman. The stalling tactics were tactics you had em-
ployed in the course of negotiations ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I was still undecided as to whether or not he had
a fair representation of the grocery clerks. But he started implying
his economic pressure, and at this point he said that he was going
to stop being nice and going to get rough.
The Chairman. And this is the way he got rough ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. He got rough by taking the first step, and they,
also, in this conference, invited us to agree that Mr. Zorn and Mr.
Cohen sit down and elect a third party. We still tried our stalling
tactics and they didn't work, and as a result we received that letter.
But in between the conversation and that letter I made a quick sur-
vey of the three New York units.
This survey showed that, according to our information, the clerks, a
majority of the clerks, were not signed up. When I received the
letter, I called Mr. Zorn and I told him also — well, I mailed the letter
to him. I sent it with a transmittal letter of mine, just a note, that
according to a quick survey the union still does not have a majority
of our grocery clerks signed up.
With tliat, Mr. Zorn suggested on the telephone that we call Mr.
Block's bluff, if I felt that this survey was correct. I then went
back to my top management and told them Avhat had transjiired.
Tlie Chairman. I hand you what purports to be a photostatic copy
of the letter to which you referred, which you sent Mr. Zorn, at
which time you transmitted, I assume, to liim, this letter wliich has
already been read into the record, the letter of September 30.
(A document was handed to the witness.)
The Chairman. Is that correct?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Tliat is correct.
The Chairman. That may be ]n'inted in the record at this point.
Mr. Kennedy. The letter of October 1, 1952, to ]Mr. Zorn, Pros-
lea uer, Rose, Goetz & Co., 11 Bi'oadway, New York City, N. Y., reads
as follows:
Dear Mr. Zoun : Enclosed please find self-explanatory letter that I received
from Mr. Arnold Cohen representing the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Woi-knien of North America in New York and New Jersey.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11407
We question Mr. Cohen's statement that Mr. Block represents a majority
of the employees in our grocery, dairy, and produce departments of our super-
markets and service stores.
Therefore, will you kindly contact Mr. Cohen and clear up this matter.
Yours very truly,
French T. Ratcliffe.
Durino- tliis Avliole period of time you had been discussing the matter
with Mr. Zorn ; had you not?
Mr. IvATCLiFrE. Surely.
Mr. IvEXNEDY. This is an extremely formal letter that you are
writing to jNlr. Zorn, furnishing this other letter that had been sent
to you. Wasn't it a fact that you wrote this letter so that if there
were any NLRB proceedings at a later time you could show them this
correspondence you had received and what steps you had then taken ?
Mr. Eatcliffe. That is not a fact, sir.
Mr. Kexnedy. Did Mr. Zorn then Avrite a letter or send a telegram?
Do you know if Mr. Zorn then took any action ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes; I directed him to get in touch with Mr.
Cohen and clear the matter up. I am sure that he followed through
on it.
Mr. Ejexnedy. Do you know what steps he took after that ?
Mr, Ratcliffe. That would be Mr. Zorn's
Mr. Kennedy. But do you know what he did ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Prescisely ; no.
Mr. Kennedy. Hadn't you discussed it during this period of time,
that you would have to have certain documents that would pass be-
tween yourselves and the union to make sure that the record looked
proper in case there were a proceedings at a later time ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Mr. Kenned}^, it wasn't that we were that smart.
We weren't anticipating any necessity for that. Whenever the union
went on paper, we went on paper. When the union brought along
a lawyer, I brought along a lawyer. When I got a letter from the
union lawyer, I sent it to my lawyer.
Mr. Kj:nnedy. In very formal terms. Particularly, the letter from
the union would make it appear that you hadn't been discussing this
whole matter for a period of 3 or 4 months, which you had, and your
letter is an equally formal letter, and then you say you weren't smart
enough to anticipate all these things.
I point out to you that in the memo of August 25, 1952, which was
some months prior to this time, you made a study as to what action
the NLRB might take if you signed such a contract with the Amalga-
mated Meat Cutters, and what action Local 1500 of the Retail Clerks
could take, and what action the CIO union could take.
So back in August of 1952 you were that smart, and September 2,
1952, indicates that you were then discussing and consulting as to
what the NLRB might do.
I ask you again if this exchange of letters was not a matter of try-
ing to build a record in case the NLRB should look into this matter
or m case a union should question or challenge the contract ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. It was not.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know the letter that Mr. Zorn wrote to
Mr. Cohen?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I don't know whether I did or not.
21243— 58— pt. 29 15
11408 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. IvENNEDY. Then I Avon't go into that.
Yon were stating that you Avere undecided as to whether you should
sign up with the Amalgamated or go along witli the Amalgamated;
is that right, in October 1952 ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. In October 1952 ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
INIr. Ratcliffe. We were undecided right up until the last minute,
until we put it down in black and white as to the calculated risk oi
the economic sanctions, and then when we felt that the risk was too
great, that is around — well, the first week of October — and that is
when we capitulated.
Mr. Kennedy. You took a survey ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I took a survey the last couple of days in Septem-
ber, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And you thought tliat the Meat Cutters would not
have the employees ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. The repoi-t showed that the Amalgamated did not
have the grocery clerks signed up in the three XeAV York units.
Mr. Kennedy. But in this period of time you said that Mr. Block
had been stating that he did have them ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. He had been stating that since April or early in
the summer.
Mr. Kennedy. Why did instructions go out to your employees
on the Tth of October — if Mr. Block already had the employees signed
up, why was there an intensified drive to sign up more emplo^'ees
just prior to the card count on October 7 and 8 ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Some time around the od or 4th of October, after
my discussions with ]Mr. Zorn to conduct the matter Avith Mr. Cohen,
we came back, and we thought we were calling their bluff. Whether
or not Ave called their bluff or Avhether Ave got stuck Avitli it, the next
turn of events Avas that the union further told us that Ave avouIcI have
a strike on our hands, because if Ave didn't give them a cai-d count
they Avould not sign the Butchers' contract even though by that time
AA'e had concluded it.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Ratcliffe, ansAver my question.
]\Ir. Ratcliffe. I am trying to.
Mr. Kennedy. I don't think you have to go through all of that.
You testified that Mr. Block told you that he already had a majority
of the employees signed up. Why, then, Avere arrangements made
iu October, October 7 and 8 of 1952 for an intensified drive by the
Meat Critters to sign up your employees ^
Mr. Ratcliffe. All along Ave didn't believe tlieni, and until Ave had
an official card count by a third and disinterested party we Avere will-
ing to accept the card count.
Mr. Kennedy. Obviously, you coiddn't liaA'e had them signed up •
Mr. Ratcliffi:. There Avere ahvays doubts.
Mr. Kennedy. AVhy did the company help them i
Mr. Ratcliffe. We didn't help them.
Mr. IvKNNEDY. Why did they change and alter their policy toward
this union ? Tliat is the first questi(m.
Mr. IvATCLiFFE. Under the threat of a strike if Ave did anything
else. But the fact is
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 11409
Mr. Kexnedy. Do you mean to say that the union said, "Unless
you go in there and allow us free access to your employees, j^ou will
have a strike"'?
^Ir. Katcliffe. That is right, that Ave Avould have no butcher con-
tract even though we had concluded our negotiations, and that the
Butchers alone could stand in front of each store, stand in front of
the stores, and stop our whole activity in all of our store opera-
tions.
Mr. Kexxedy. You say you would haA^e be^n agi-eeable to a card
count, but they said, "It has to go further than that. You have to
change your jjolicy, the policy of the company, and allow us free
access to the store in our attem))ts to sign up employees, or otherwise
we will strike, if you don't allow us free access to your store and your
em])loyees** ? They said that to you?
]\rr. Ratcliffe. They said that to us.
Mr. Kexxedy. This was after they already told you that they had
the employees sigiied up?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I liaA'e been trying to explain to you that Ave never
believed them. Certainly Ave Avere justified in our lack of belief even
up to that point. But that Avas hindsight. We didn't discover that
luitil some time later.
Mr. Kexxedy. Again taking the one step further, according to tlie
testimony before our committee, there Avere individuals, supervisory
emjjloyees, of the A. & P. Co. that actually assisted in the signing
up of the employees of the A. c^ P. Co., coerced employees to sign these
cards?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I don't knoAv tliat for a fact. I have heard it re-
cently. But I daresay there Avere just as many managers and super-
visors on the antiunion side, and they Avere all acting on their OAvn
and Avithout direction from the divisional office, ancl I am pretty
sure without direction from the unit office.
Mr. Kexxedy. This is a situation AAhere, at least by the 1st of Oc-
tober, the union had told you that they already had a majority of the
employees signed up. Then they said, "Noav Ave are going to have to
put on a neAV dri\-e,'* which Avould indicate that they didn't have a
majority signed up, and at that time they said to you that you could
not opiX)se them in tlieir drive. Then according to the testimony Ave
have had before the committee, the comi)any officials actually coerced
the employees into the union.
If you have given an ansAver to those matters, tell the CDunnittee
Avhy you kept the secret during this period of time that you Avere
having this card count secret from your employees ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. "When Ave got down to the deadline, and we AAere
definitely running out of time, because Ave sparred for time all sunnner
and all fall, Avlien Ave got doAvii to the 1st of October Ave really had
the gun to our back, and Ave Avere seriously threatened Avith a Avork
stoppage of either the grocery clerks, if we dithi't recognize the card
count, or if Ave didn't give them free access to go in and out of the
stores and keep our mouths shut about it Ave Avould not get the
Butchers' contract signed.
The Chaikmax. I tliink there is one point Ave ought to clear up be-
fore we go further. Are supervisors and managers part of manage-
ment and not eligible as employees to join the union (
11410 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Ratcliffe. That is true, sir.
The CHArRMAN". It had been the policy of the company heretofore,
and I am sure all managers and supervisors were familiar with that
policy, to oppose miionization ; is that correct ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. That was the company's policy, but it was not the
individual managers or supervisors in all cases.
The Chairman. The individual managers and supervisors were not
eligible to join the union in the first place ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. That is true.
The Chairman. All right. The managers and supervisors had
heretofore carried out the policy of the company as antiunion or
against organization ; isn't that true ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Not entirely, no, sir.
The Chairman. You wouldn't keep one long that didn't carry out
the policy of the company, I am sure, if you laiew it.
Mr. Ratcliffe. If we kiiew it, but how are we going to know it, sir.
The Chairman. All right. Let's take it a little further. Do you
mean that these managers and supervisors all changed over on their
own without the company's knowledge when they went out and en-
couraged or even coerced employees to sign cards to join this union?
Do you think they would do that without the company knowing it ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. There is no evidence of all the managers and super-
visors coercing.
The Chairman. I didn't say all of them. Some of them. Any of
them.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Nevertheless, any of them. I know of no instance
where the supervisors or managers went out and were even prounion
minded.
The Chairman. I just can't conceive that a part of management, the
managers and supervisors, who are bomid to have known and who
were bound to help enforce the policy of the company against imioni-
Jiation up to that time, suddenly, without any suggestion from man-
ftgement reverse their position and go out and undertake to help or-
ganize, without management knowing it, without management's ap-
proval. It just does not stand to reason.
Mr. Ratcliffe. I fail to see any proof of such action.
Tlie Chairman. We have some proof of it.
Mr. Ratcliffe. But the thing is this : There definitely was an agree-
ment between the company and the union on a hands-off policy. That
fact was passed along to the units, who in turn, passed it along to the
supervisors. There, again, if we had taken the wraps off and they
were prounion minded, that would be an invitation for them on
their own to go out and do something about it.
The Chairman. You had supei-visors and managers who were not
eligible to join the union, who were prounion minded ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. In an organization of our size, yes, sir, we are
bound to.
The Chairman. You didn't know any of them, did you?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Personally, no.
Tlie Chairman. Did any other in management know about any of
them ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I can't speak for any of them.
The Chairman. I can't conceive that management would keep a
manager or supervisor that was working aaginst the known, estab-
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 11411
lished policy of the company. I don't think management would
keep them.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Sure we Avoiild. Senator, some of our managers
were ex-butchers, and we know that tliey were union minded. Per-
haps they didn't even turn in their cards. We also have liad rumors
from many sources tliat a lot of our managers carried union cards.
"VAHiat is the point in them carrying a union card ? I can't understand
it either. That is the reason I can't explain it to you.
Mr. Kennedy. You received a letter which was dated October 8,
1952, from Eugene Kennedy. This has already been made an exhibit.
Gentlemen, information from unimpeachable sources has come to us that
notwithstanding the pendency and still undetermined status of the above-en-
titled representation proceeding initiated by our union as i)etitioner, your dis-
trict supervisors have been visiting your supermarkets in the geographical area
in said petition involved, urging the employees comprising the bargaining unit,
to join up and affiliate themselves with the Amalgamated Meat Cutters of
Greater New York, Local 342.
I might say that the representative of the National Labor Relations
Board when he appeared before the committee, read in a niunber of
affidavits from individuals who stated they were coerced into joining
and signing these cards, and were coerced by the management repre-
sentatives of tlie A. & P. Co. I can read those to you, if you like, if
there is any question about it.
Mr. Doyle. I think he would like to address himself to the letter
first, Mr. Kennedy.
The Chairman. All right. Address yourself to the letter.
Mr. Doyle. I think I recognize the letter, but I would like to see it.
(The document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. Ratcllffe. This was dated October 8, and I received it October
9. I immediately turned it over to Mr. Zorn, I am sure. His reply
was that he was about 3 or 4 days late, because by this time the stip-
ulations had been drawn and the card count was underway. There
was no way of stopping it. I would also like to point out that this
fact shows that the so-called arrangement was not secret, because if
Mr. Kennedy knew about it, everybody knew about it.
Mr. Kennedy. Certainly he didn't know about the arrangement.
He just knew that the representatives of the A. & P. were around
coercing the employees to sign up with the Amalgamated Meat
Cutters. He didn't know that you were going to then hold a card
count. Wliy didn't you make it public that you were going to hold
a card count ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Apparently it was public, if Mr. Kennedy knew
about it.
Mr. Kennedy. Some individuals were complaining about it. Why
didn't the A. & P. Co. make it public, the fact that this was going
to be a card count ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. For two reasons. In our book, it is the union's
duty to make it public, and No. 2 under threat of strike, we had to
keep our mouth shut.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you mean that the union said, "Unless you keep
it quiet that you are going to have a card count, we will strike you?"
Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes, sir. That was part of the whole arrange-
ment.
11412 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Don't you think the A. & P. Co. have any respon-
sibility at all to their employees ? These are people that are working
for you, and don't you think that as management you have respon-
sibility to them to keep them advised ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. On topics, it is our duty to keep them advised, yes.
But when they sign a card which clearly states what they are signing,
and they say then they did not know w^iat they were signing, it does,
not make sense. All of these cards were clear and concise, and it was
the union's job to put the thing across, and I say that they did it. I
also say that the very few clerks who claimed that they did not know
what was going on are very much in the minority, and most of our
clerks were smart enough to know what they were signing.
Senator Church. A minute ago, Mr. Ratcliffe, if I heard you cor-
rectly, you said the company did not make the card count public
because that was part of the whole arrangement. AVliat did you mean
by that?
j\Ir. Ratclhte. When we got right down to the wire and our hands
were tied behind our backs, and Mr. Block was making his — well,
what is stronger than demands — he was telling us what we were going
to do. But we discussed all the points, and we got down to the point
where we came up with this agreement : That if Mr. Block was right,
and he had sufficient cards signed up, it would make no diiference any-
way. Mr. Zorn and Mr. Cohen would get together and establish a
third disinterested party to make the card count. If the card count
was successful, they would have the same opportunity extended to the
New Jersey stores and, four, if the card count was unsuccessful we
would have a card count with the butchers and they would get off
our backs.
Senator Church. And the company remaining quiet with respect
to the employees as to the fact tliat a card count was in process was
part of the arrangement you had with the union, is that right ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. That was all that four-phased agreement, yes, sir.
In other words, Senator, it was, again, a very powerful threat of
a work stoppage.
Senator Church. Following this, did you go ahead with the con-
tract itself? Did you negotiate the contract itself with the Meat
Cutters Union ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I had been negotiating the contract with IMr. Block
and with the committee on and off all summer.
I felt, as I remember it, that we had pretty well concluded what I
thought was a pretty firm contract for the butchers early in Septem-
ber. I even went so far as to draw a draft, and I later submitted it to
the union, after I submitted it to our unit heads and all of our people
who are principals in our contracts.
Senator Church. Did you negotiate the contract that was finally
entered into, the 22-month contract that applied not only to the meat-
cutters but the clerks as well ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. No, sir. It was negotiated exclusively for the
butchers, and also, I thought, on a 5-year term. But the inference
all along was that when and if the grocery clerks indicated their
preference of the amalgamated representing them, the butcher con-
tract could very easil}'^ be converted into a contract covering the
grocery clerks, which would be the best contracts that the grocery
clerks had ever gotten, money wise.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 11413
Senator Chfrcit. Ultimately the company did enter into a 22-
nionth contract with the jNleat Cutters Union which covered both the
butchers and the clerks, is that right?
Mr. Ratcliffk. That is true.
Senator Church. Did you negotiate that contract ?
Mr. RATCLrrFE. Yes, sir.
Senator CiiURcii. Did you ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I did that with the help of Mr. Schimmat, Mr.
Zorn, and the union — there was quite a party.
Senator Church. You participated in the negotiations, consum-
mated by this contract.
]Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes, sir.
Senator Church. Did you know that there was drawn between
the company and the union a sup]3lemental agreement that extended
this contract from 22 months to 5 years and preserved the 45-hour week
and included the union shop, that this supplementary contract was
entered into?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I did not know it.
Senator Church. You did not know it ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. At that time.
Senator Church. At that time?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I have since learned of it, yes.
Senator Chl^rch. Did you subsequently learn that such a secret
contract had been entered into ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I think Mr. May told me about it.
Senator Chltjch. When was this?
]Mr. Ratcliffe. A couple of months ago.
Senator Church. You didn't know until a couple of months ago
that the company had in fact entered into a secret contract with the
union for a 5-year contract ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Senator, I don't think the company entered into
any secret agrement. That was a private agreement on the part of
Mr. Schimmat, and it was nothing more than a little insurance.
He felt that I had been doublecrossecl in my negotiations.
Senator Church. It was wonderful insurance, because there is
testimony here that it was worth anywhere from $2 to $12 million a
year to the company.
Mr. Ratcliffe. That is an exaggerated amount.
Senator Church. That may be your opinion.
Mr. Ratcliffe. I know it is.
Senator Church. We have testimon}- that varies from the one
figure to the other.
iNIr. Ratcliffe. Yes, sir, I know.
Senator Church. Certainly it was a matter of great concern to the
company to have some kind of private insurance or private arrange-
ment whereby the 45-hour week would be retained over a 5-year period,
at the very time when the 40-hour week was beginning to be negotiated
in the industry.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Sir, that was not a company arrangement. That
was Mr. Schimmafs private arrangement.
Senator Chlrch. Who is Mr. Schimmat? Isn't he a representa-
tive of the company ?
My. Ratcliffe. He is a representative of the company, and he had
the insurance, but it was not exercised. That is what I wanted to get
11414 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
across. That agreement was never brought to light, it was never ex-
ercised, because in 1955, when we were negotiating the contract, long
before Mr. Block even got into the negotiations — and it is always his
practice, he follows a very even practice, that he stays out of the ne-
gotiations for tlie first 3 or 4 times, and we sit down with 107 council-
men or negotiating committeemen from all 5 units. There are some
10 union officials. It so happened that Mr, Joseph Cohen of local 400
was the strong advocate of the 40-hour week. He was going at great
guns on tlie demands for a 40-hour week. We offered them point-
blank the 40-hour week on the Safeway basis, which is a 40-hour week
with a stagger. After about a half day's argument, the committee
itself rejected it, and they gave us a little less than a 24 months' con-
tract with the same 45 -hour week.
After that contract was signed, Mr. Schimmat has since told me
he destroyed his little insurance policy and I only learned about it
very recently.
Senator Church. An insurance policy is insurance only if it can
be relied upon to provide the safeguard that is included in the policy.
Otherwise it is just a meaningless scrap of paper. This is obviously
something that was more than a meaningless scrap of paper. This
was a private arrangement, a supplemental agreement that was en-
tered into by an authorized representative of the company and the
labor union, and it obviously had great value to the company.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, it didn't, sir.
Senator Church. You say that you learned about this only 2
months ago ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes, sir.
Senator Church. Tell me, do you think that the company has ne
obligation to disclose the terms of such a supplemental agreement that
affects the working hours and conditions of the employees of the com-
pany ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Sir, I still maintain that that was not a company
document. That was Mr. Schimmat's personal document, and I think
that he answered the thing himself.
Senator Church. How could it be Mr. Schimmat's personal docu-
ment? Mr. Schimmat's doesn't employ these people. He is a paid
representative and authorized representative of the management of
A. & P., and he was one of those who was authorized by the company
to negotiate with the union.
How can it be his private agreement ? That makes no sense.
Mr. Ratcliffe. It was a private agreement. No one else in the
company knew about it, so it was a private agreement. You are say-
ing that the union people didn't know. No one but the union presi-
dent knew about it, so it was private on that side.
Senator Church. This agreement was obviously done in terms that
were meant to be binding on the A. & P. and the union, and was ne-
gotiated by a representative of the union and A. & P.
You personally had been negotiating with him in previous negoti-
ations with these veiy same people. It was the thing you were looking
for. It was the thing that crept into your earlier negotiations.
Obviously, it was something that had great value to the company.
It just doesn't make sense for you to say that this was a private ar-
rangement with Mr. Schimmat.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11415
Mr. Eatcliffe, But it was never used, Senator. That is the main
point. The agreement was held in secret by Mr. Schimmat, according
to his own testimony, and I negotiated in good faith with a 107-man
committee, and they, themselves, rejected the Safeway 40-hour week,
and gave us a less-than-24-montli extension on the 45-liour week.
Senator Church. This so-called private agreement, to use your
phrase, was designed to give insurance, to use your phrase.
Mr. Eatcliffe. It was insurance.
Senator Church. Insurance that the company would have a 5-year
contract presei-^'ing the 45-hour week, and that is in fact what hap-
pened, wasn't it? Didn't you have a 5-year contract? Didn't you
pursue, over that period of 5 years, an arrangement with your em-
ployees whereby you preserved the 45-hour week ?
Mr. Eatcliffe. No, sir. The first contract gave us 22
Senator Church. The public part of it was 22 months.
Mr. Eatcliffe. And then the NLEB held us up for 40 weeks, that
is about 9 months, and then we negotiated a new contract in 1945 —
1955 — with the rank-and-file committeemen that extended the 45-hour
week another almost 24 months, and that was without any help of Mr.
Schimmat's agreement, that I knew nothing about, and that never,
never came to light.
Senator Church. You already had the 5-year agreement. In ef-
fect, you got a 45-hour week over the period of time that was origi-
nally contemplated, and provided for under the terms of that
agreement.
It seems to me that it is very clear that there were two beneficiaries
in this whole aiTangement. One of the two beneficiaries was the
union, by virtue of the fact that this union was recognized by the
company. The union got 10,000 members, which meant roughly half
a million dollars a year in additional dues. They got the matter
under terms of a union-shop agreement, so that the 10,000 employees
either paid those dues or got fired. So, obviously, the union was one
beneficiary. The other beneficiary was, obviously, the company, be-
cause the company got a very favorable contract, part of which was
public and part of which was private insurance, which saved the
company a great deal of money.
I think the most shocking part of this whole testimony that I have
heard thus far is that the very man who negotiated that private
insurance agreement, in behalf of the company, testified before this
committee that he did not think it was the obligation of management
to disclose the terms of an employment contract covering the em-
ployees of the company. Do you agree with that ?
Mr. Eatcliffe. I have not been faced with that problem yet. I
don't know. When I come to the bridge, I will have to cross it.
Senator Church, But you don't know now ?
Mr. Eatcliffe. I don't know ; no, sir.
The Chairman. Is there an}- thing further ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes. Going back to this contract^ you were aware,
were you not, that managers were assisting the union in signing up
the employees ?
Mr. Eatcliffe. Personally ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
11416 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Eatcliffe. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. We liave a memorandum here wliicli I would like
to have you examine. It appears to be from Mr. Block, who is tlie
assistant to Mr. Zorn, Mr. Lester Block, and he is accounting a con-
versation with French Ratcliffe. He says :
French Ratcliffe says many managers helped and said "Sign cards," i. e.,
October 8 and 9.
Did you mention that? Were you aware of that fact? It would
appear from this memorandum that you were aware of the fact and
made your knowledge known to at least Mr. Lester Block, that the
managers had helped and assisted the union in signing up the
employees.
French Ratcliffe says many managers helped and signed cards, i. e., October
8 and 9.
Mr. Eatcliffe. I don't recall any discussion with Lester Bloclv on
that, and I don't recall any laiowledge. It may have been hearsay
and maybe I was quoting it to Lester Block, hearsay. But person-
ally, and that is the reason I specified personally, I knew of no man-
agers or supervisors that were helping get signed cards.
Mr. Kennedy. I Avould like to show you the evidence. First there
are the affidavits we have here, Avhich are numerous.
The Chairman. This is Mr. Block's memorandum. Since it has
been referred to, I would like for the witness to see it. He may be
able to identify it, and perhaps he cannot.
(The document was handed to the witness.)
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Eatcliffe. All I can do is confess ignorance. I am not famil-
iar with it and I have never seen it before.
The Chairman. That clearly indicates that you had reported to
Mr. Block that your managers helped.
Mr. Eatcliffe. It does not help my memory, Senator.
The Chairman. It does not help your memory, but tliat says ac-
cording to Mr. Block that you reported to him that your managers
helped get the cards signed up. That is the purpose of it.
Mr. Eatcliffe. I have no answer for that. I don't recall any such
discussion. If I did, it had to be hearsay, because I had no personal
knowledge of any such actions.
The Chairman. Who w-ould you hear that from? Management
or labor ? That is, if you heard it.
Mr. Eatcliffe. Well, not recalling having heard it, I couldn't
guess who I Avould have heard it from.
I imagine if I heard it, I must have heard it from our own people.
(At this point, Senator Ervin entered the hearing room.)
Mr. Kennedy. As an example of one of these affidavits, from a
man :
I was out of the store when Cornelius of 342 came around to sign up em-
ployees. This was definitely in the first week of October 1952. When I came
in the next day, the bookkeeper, Lillian Leban, said to me "Sign this card."
I asked her what it is, and she said "This is for the union." She said I have
to fill it out because if I didn't I would have to pay a ifno fine. So I went to
the manager. I said "What in hell is going on here? AH these years you are
against the union and all of a sudden you send us cards saying to join a union."
Stewart, the manager, told me if I did not want to pay $50, to fill out the card.
IMPROPf:R ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 11417
There are a number of tliem here.
Mr. Ratcliffe. 'i'hat rni<zht have been a personal idea of the man-
ager that we wanted to lielp him save his job and save $50.
Mr. Kennedy. This was prior to tlie time you signed tlie contract
with the union.
]Mr. Ratcliffe. I said when we let down the bar, some of these
managers showed their true colors and some of them exercised their
personal feeling of sympathy to labor.
Mr. Kennedy. Then you have tlie letter of October 8, when another
labor leader states that he had hundreds of telephone calls from em-
j)loyees who said that the managers were coercmg the employees to
join the imion.
We had the testimony from Mr. Bieber who said that he knew that
subterfuges were being used to get employees to join the union.
Despite all of this, despite this October 8 letter Avhich came in
prior to the time you signed the contract, you made no steps to inform
your employees that what was taking place was a card count in which
thaj were selecting the union to represent them.
jNIr. Ratcliffe. I thought I explained that.
Mr. Kennedy. To me, there is something wrong in not making
public the terms of the contract. Certainly it would appear that you
also had an equal responsibility to inform the employees, despite the
fact that you mentioned that yoti had an equal responsibility to inform
the employees that what Avas happening here was that a card count
Avas going to take place, and when they signed these cards, they were
selecting a bargaining representative, Avhich was not done by the
management in this case.
Mr. Ratcliffe. That is true. For this very simple reason, that we
have stockholders to answer to, we have a business to conduct, and
if we shut doAvn the business
]Mr. Kennedy The only people you were thinking of, then, was that
the employees were ignored and you Avere thinking of your stockhold-
ers and management?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Xo; I say the employees themselves would have
been hurt just as badly or Avorse had we had a shutdown; everybody
seems to be losing sight of the fact that these clerks had four distinct
opporttmities to throw out the union and they never did do it.
Mr. Kennedy. I am talking noAv about the fact of your ability to
make it public to these people, that what they AA'ere doing was joining
a union, getting ready for a card count. This you failed to do. Cer-
tainly as management you have responsibility not only to your stock-
holders but to the employees of the store.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Maybe we Avere having a heartfelt consideration of
our clerks, because if we kept the stores opened and they continued
to work, they were better off than on the streets.
Mr. Kennedy. You felt that if they kneAv as little as possible Avhat
was going on, it was better for them ?
Mr. Ratci-iffe. That is Avhat you say.
Mr. Kennedy. That is Avhat you said.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Xo, I didn't say that. I said it could add up tliat
we were doing as well or better for tliem, certainly, than closing the
stores. They would have been hurt more than the stockholders, so
far as that is concerned.
11418 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman. That adds up to this, that the reason you are saying
it would close the stores is that if you told what was done the union
would call a strike.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Did you believe that?
Mr. Ratcliffe. At that time I very emphatically believed it,
Senator.
The Chairman. In other words, if you let your own employees
know what the union was doing with respect to the kind of contract it
was making with you, the union would call a strike.
Mr. Ratcliffe. We had that definite threat.
The Chairman. Do you think the employees would have gone out
under those conditions, simply because you were trying to tell them
what the union was doing, and the contract that you were getting
from them ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, Senator, the mere fact that we had no con-
tract with the Butchers, and they represented 25 percent of the store
personnel, then it only takes about 10 percent of the people to create
a strike in the store.
The Chairman. We also understand that the Butchers were very
unhappy with the contract that was made because it calls for a 45-hour
week for 5 years.
Mr. Ratcllffe. The Butchers negotiated that contract, sir. Why
should they be unhappy about it ?
The Chairman. Not the fellow who actually cuts the meat, but the
miion officials negotiated it without the butchers knowing about it.
Mr. Ratcliffe. You lost me there, sir.
The Chairman. The point I am making is you said you would have
a strike if you told these employees what was going on.
Mr. Ratcliffe. That is true.
The Chairman. Then what was going on was that you were getting
a 45 -hour week when the butchers had been demanding a 40-hour
week. I am talking about the real butchers.
Mr. Ratcliffe. No, sir, we had already negotiated fairly and
squarely a 45-hour week with the Butchers, and we had been sitting
with them off and on, all through, maybe as early as July, August,
and September. But by the 1st of September, in my own mind I was
firmly convinced that we had a 5-year contract, with 45 hours, with
the Butchers.
The Chairman. When was the contract with the Butchers signed ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. October 11, 1952.
The Chairman. When was the contract with the Clerks signed ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. October 11, 1952.
The Chairman. You then have as of the time of October 11, 1952,
a 45-hour-a-week contract with the Butchers?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I said we didn't. I said in my mind I firmly be-
lieved that.
The Chairman. Both of you wanted to keep it in your minds and
keep it away from the employees.
Mr. Ratcliffe. No, we didn't want to keep it away from tlie em-
ployees.
The Chairman. You did. You said the union was going to call a
strike if you let them know what was going on.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 11419
Mr. Ratcliffe. "We had no choice at that point.
The Chairman. You said the storm had gotten pretty strong by
October 11, that tlie breeze had turned into a tornado?
Mr. Katcliffe. That is right, it got to be a tornado and blew the
house oft' the blocks.
Mr. Kenxedy. When was the card count finished ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I think late Friday night, October 10.
^Vlr. Kexxedy. When did you sign the contract?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Some time Saturday afternoon, October 11.
Mr. Kexxedy. So you signed the contract within 24 hours after
tlie card count?
Mr. Ratcliffe. That is right.
Mr. Kexxedy. Was the reason that 3'OU had to sign the contract so
quickly so that other unions Avould not become aware of the situation
and bring proceedings before the NLRB ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. No, sir.
Mr. Kexxedy. Isn't that one of the points that was examined by
JVIr. Zorn, as to the rights of another union bringing an action prior
to the signing of a contract ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. AVell, let's let Mr. Zorn answer that.
Mr. Kexxedy. You have some personal knowledge that that was
one of the matters.
Mr. Ratcliffe. I asked Mr. Zorn to explore it ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kexxedy. That was one of the reasons that you signed the
contract so quickly, was it not ?
yiv. Ratcliffe. No, sir.
Our demand was that if we had no contract by October 13 there
would be no work in the stores.
j\Ir. Kexxedy. You say that it was the fact that you were getting
a 5-3'ear contract, that you were going to get a 45-hour week over a
5-year period, and that you had one union to deal with, and that you
could avoid making a contract with local 1500 and the CIO — that
those were the reasons that you agreed to keep the negotiations for
the contract secret; that you would keep the card count secret, and
that 3'ou would negotiate and sign a contract the day after the card
count ? Isn't that correct, the fact that you were getting a good deal
out of this?
You were going to get a 5-year contract, a 45-hour week, and 1
union to deal with.
]\[r. Ratcliffe. It was a good contract for both the employees and
the company.
Mr. Kexxedy. But isn't that why 3'ou
]\Ir. Ratcliffe. It had a bearing on it, but it was not the major fac-
tor. The major factor was that we still insisted or hoped to open our
stores again on Monda3' morning.
]Mr. Kexxedy. That was really the most important factor that you
were getting such a good contract, and that was the reason 3^011 kept
it secret from 3'our emplo3^ees, the card count.
That is the reason there is evidence that 3'OU coerced the employees
into the union. That is the reason, because 3'ou sot a c;ood deal out
of it. ^ - ^
]\Ir. Ratcliffe. It is not the reason, and we didn't keep it secret
from tliem. We just didn't tell them. But that is not keeping it
11420 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD
secret. I can explain that. It might sound a little silly. The mere
fact was that it was the union's responsibility to tell these people. I
still insist tliat a majority of our people are intelligent enough to
know wliat they were signing; the fact that the butchers had been
parading in tlirough our stores, the butchers in our own stores had
been parading through our stores, getting the grocery clerks to sign
up, and they were waiving tlie $5 across the board increase to the
grocery clerks. I think that was the major factor in these people
signing the cards. All they had to do was to read the card and
realize that when they signed that, they were in the union.
Mr. Kennedy. I clon't see that. I will read the card. "In accord-
ance with my legal rights, guaranteed by the National and State Labor
Relations Act," and I don't know what that means. Do you know
what that means?
Mr. Ratcliefe. We will get their
Mr. Kennedy. You say the clerks know what it means. I don't
know what it means.
Mr, Ratcliffe. You don't. I will ask the clerk for you, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know what it means ? "In accordance with
my legal rights, guaranteed by the National and State Labor Rela-
tions Act." Do you know what that act provides ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. How do you expect it of a derk ?
I hereby designate the Joint Chain Store Organizing Committee of Local 400
and Local 489, A. F. of L.
Do you know what that is, the joint chainstore organizing com-
mittee ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. That means that they are signing up for 400 to rep-
resent them.
Mr. I^nnedy. What is "I hereby designate the Joint Chain Store
Organizing Committee of Local 400" ?
Mr. Ratcliffe, what is the joint chain-
Mr. Ratcliffe. They authorize the joint chain
Mr. Kennedy. What is that ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Could I look at it ?
Mr. I^nnedy. I will go on. You say a clerk can understand what
this means. "As my agent for collective bargaining." Does that
mean he is in the union ?
Mr. Ratcliffe, That is clear.
Mr. Kennedy. What does that mean, that he is in the union?
Mr. Ratcliffe. That means he is in the union : yes, sir. Don't you
think? ^
Mr. Kennedy. That he is in the union once he signs this?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes, sir, that is my understanding. I believe that.
And I believe that most of the clerks realized that at the time.
Mr. Kennedy. ''I'hat is not what it means.
Mr, Ratcliffe, It is not what it means ?
Mr. Kennedy. No.
Mr. Ratcliffe. I believe they took it to mean that.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you want to look at it ?
(The document was handed to the witness.)
Senator Ervin. Would the. law permit anyone to be a bargaining
agent for them until they had a majority of the employees signed up?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 11421
Mr. Ratcliffe. Are you asking me that, Senator?
Senator Euvix. Yes.
Mr. Katcliffe. No. That was what the whole discussion was
about, because Mr. Block claimed that he had a majority of these
clerks signed up. All summer long I did not believe that he did, and
I tried my best to stay away from it until he convinced me with a lot
of pressure and threats of a strike did we ever take it seriously, and
when we did come down to a card count by an impartial third party
and the results of the card count, as per our agreement early in Octo-
ber, it was that if they had a majority we would recognize them and
negotiate a contract and sign the thing up and continue with the
stores operating on Monday, October lo.
Senator Ervin. What time on the 10th of October was it that they
completed the card count and ascertained that they had a majority
of the signatures ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I would guess it was 9 or 10 o'clock at night, sir.
Senator Ervix. 9 or 10 p. m. ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Sir ^
Senator Ervix. 9 or 10 p. m. ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervix. When was the contract signed on the following
day?
(At this point, Senator Church withdrew from the hearing room.)
Mr. Ratcliffe. To the best of my recollection, it was along about
4 or 5 o'clock Saturday afternoon. But we were in Mr. Charlie Schim-
mat's office from 10 o'clock in the morning, with all the union officials
and the attorneys from both the company and the union, and Mr.
Schimmat and myself. We were negotiating firmly and fast to con-
clude the contract and get a signature on it so that the stores would
open on Monday morning.
Senator Ervix. When was the contract actually reduced to writing?
Mr. Ratcliffe. It was reduced to writing right there on the scene
for the simple reason that we converted the predrafted butcher con-
tracts into contracts covering the grocery clerks. I might add, Sena-
tor, that to my knowledge, or to my information, those contracts were
later ratified by the rank and file. They accepted the $5, but they
threw out the welfare package.
Senator Ervix. The contract was signed. You had been negotiating
with the representatives of the Meat Cutters for how long?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Two or three months.
Senator Ervix. And
Mr. Ratcliffe. I will take that back. Senator. I think that we
had fairly well completed our meat contract negotiations about, I
would say, the end of August or early September. That is when I
first drafted the contract, as I understood it. Of course, I had to cir-
culate it around to the iniit heads and to the top management, to the
lawyers and everybody else interested, and I finally got what I thought
was a final draft of a 5-year contract with 45 hours with the butchers
dated October 6, 1952, to run 5 years.
Senator ER^•IX. There was no reason for Negotiations to go on
after the 30th of August, then, with the butchers?
Mr. Ratcliffe. That is true.
Senator Ervix. Did you have negotiations between that time and
9 or 10 o'clock
11422 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Ratcliffe. We had many meetings and a lot of conversations,
yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. You had meetings with people who were not au-
thorized under the law to do negotiations, didn't you ?
Mr. Eatcliffe. No, sir. The implied threat was that I was tiying
to get this Butcher contract signed and I was getting no place fast.
Instead of discussing the signing of the Butcher contract or even
finding any fault with the drafts, the discussion was generally about
recognizing the Grocery Clerks, because the Amalgamated claimed
that they had a majority of the cards signed.
Senator Ervin. You just told me a moment ago that on the 30th
of August you agreed on the final terms of the. Butchers' contract.
Mr. Ratcliffe. No, I never said on the 3d of August.
Senator Ervin. The 30th.
Mr. Ratcliffe. I am guessing. I said by early September, as I
recall it, we had finished what I thought was the final negotiation
of the Butchers' contract, at which time I sat down and drew a draft,
as I understood the terms, and as I thought I had a contract. But
it turned out that I did not have a contract then, and on the final date
of October 11, I still didn't have a contract for 5 years.
Senator Ervin. You had all the terms agreed on the 30th, you told
me.
Mr. Ratcliffe. We discussed them. Until you get a signature on
the line, you are still negotiating. Senator.
Senator Ervin. That has not been my experience. I think when
you have the terms — you told me positively that you had agreed on
tlie contract with the Butchers on the 30th of August, and tliat
there was no occasion for you to do any further negotiations with
them after that. Do you want to change that statement? If I have
stated the facts wrong, it is all right to change it, but that is what
I understood you to say.
Mr. Ratcliffe. I didn't intend to say that, if I said it. I don't
think you understood me correctly, I said I felt tliat we had con-
cluded our negotiations with the Butchei's by early September ; how-
ever, as it turned out, we still continued to liave meetings and I would
submit this draft of what I thought contained all the terms of our
negotiated contract for the Butchers, but I could not get it signed.
Until you have a signed contract, you are still negotiating.
Senator Ervin. The Butchers told you tliat they would not sign
the contract until you delivered the clerks to them, is that right?
Mr. Ratcliffe. That is right.
Senator Ervin. So you proceeded to deliver the clerks. In order
to encourage deliveiy, some of your managers told them if thev
didn't join before the union had a majority, the union Avould liave
bo pay $50 in addition, didn't they ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I don't know that.
Senator Ervin. When did you first hear tlint the statement had
been made to some of the employees tliat they would have to pay
$50 additional in the way of a fine or in the way of an increased
initiation fee if they didn't sign up before the union was recognized?
Mr. Ra'ix'liffk. When did I first hear of it, sir?
Senator Ervin. Yes.
Mr. Ratcltffk. I haven't any idea. It may have been at this meet-
ing. I don't remember any discussions like that. But what T wanted
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11423
to say before in answer to your qnery is these mana<2;ers, if it looks
like they were coercinji^ the clerks, they could have just as well been
tryinc; to bo helpful, and it was their own ovei'zealousness to maybe
maintain their own store personnel or to look out for their clerk
friends to make sure that they didn't get burned.
kSenator Ervin. My experience, observation and hearsay about
mana<rers of stores shows that they are carrying out the wishes of
those above them.
ISIr. Ratcliffe. That is generally very true, sir.
Senator Ekvix. Who was it that promised to give a $5 increase
across the board if the union came in?
Mr. Ratcliffe. That was negotiated with the Butchers' negotiating
committee.
Senator Ervin. That was negotiating with the Butchers' negotiat-
ing committee before the clerks could agree to come in ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. That is true.
Senator Ervix. So you not only had coercion but had something in
the nature of a bribe, also? They promised them if they would sign
up with the union they Avould get $5 more across the board.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Ratcliffe. I would like to correct that, Senator. I wondered
if you misunderstood me or did I misunderstand you.
Senator Ervin. I understood you to say that you agreed with the
negotiations conmiittee of the Butchers that if the Clerks would come
in and sign up, there would be a $5 increase across the board.
Mr. Ratcliffe. No, sir ; that was not the agreement. That is what
I was afraid of. We had practically concluded the negotiations with
the Butcher committee, which included a $5 increase for the Butchers.
We were virtually finished with all of the crossing of t's and dotting
of i's, and I drew up a draft of what I understood had been concluded
as a Butcher contract. I kept submitting that all through the month
of September for a signature. I did not get the sigiiature.
Senator Ervin. The reason I was asking about the $5 was because
you volunteered the statement a moment ago that the reason you
thought the clerks were willing to sign the cards was because they
thought they would get the $5 increase across the board.
Mr. Ratcliffe. I still think a lot of them signed it for the $5, for
the simple reason, Senator, that later on the clerks still accepted the
$5, but they rejected the welfare plan.
Senator Eratn. What period of time was the $5 for ?
Mr. RATCiiiFFE. That was for 22 months.
Senator Eratln. A $5 increase of pay for what period?
Mr. Ratcliffe. $5 a week?
Senator Ervin. $5 a week?
Mr. Ratcliffe. $5 a week over their base salary, plus overtime.
Senator Ervin. So you are of the opinion that the clerks signed
up the cards because of the assurance that they were going to get $5
a week more pay ?
jVIr. Ratcliffe. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Who was giving them that assurance before they
signed the cards ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. That was a negotiated agreement. The negotiating
committee had the right to speak for all of the butchers in our stores.
21243— 5S—pt. 29 ^16
11424 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Ervin. The negotiating committee was not only, appar-
ently, speaking for the Butchers, for whom it was authorized to
speak, but it was also speaking for the Clerks, for whom it was not
authorized to speak.
Mr. Ratcliffe. That is not apparent, sir, because they were only
speaking for themselves. They were not speaking for the Clerks.
Mr. Block made it plain that not until he had evidence of the Clerks
indicating their preference for his representation would we negotiate
the Clerks' contract.
Senator Ervin. But if the clerks signed the card to join tlie union,
with the promise of the $5, somebody was promising the $5 before
the negotiating committee was authorized to act for the clerks. Who
was doing that ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. The union, so far as I know, the union organizers
and the shop stewards.
Senator Ervin. The union organizers started by telling the clerks
that if they signed the cards they would get a $5 increase across the
board. Why didn't the company come out and tell its employees who
were signing this statement, that the union was not fixing the wages
that the A. & P. Tea Co. was going to pay the clerks ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. At that time we did not know about the promises.
It was all one of those things where this is something that we have
since learned. That was the promises that got the grocery clerks
to sign the cards, or some of them.
Senator Ervin. So while negotiations were going on, you tell me
that A. & P. Tea Co. officials were totally ignorant of the fact that the
Clerks were being promised a $5 increase by the Butchers, that you
were totally willing to sign up the Clerks to the Butchers ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Not totally. Some of them were ignorant of the
fact, but some of them, I am sure, were actively participating, but
all of our managers and all of our supervisors, they all took their
own individual part in this whole thing.
Senator Ervin. Also, I notice here that both contracts, the one for
the Butcliers and the one for the Clerks were both signed by the
same man.
Mr. Ratcliffe. That is true. For the company or for the union?
Senator Ervin. I am talking about for the union.
Mr. Ratcliffe. For the union ? Well, that would be true, because
the contract was extended to cover the groceiy clerks in the case of
the Bronx stores by local 400 and Mr. Prosto, the president, executed
both the Butcher and grocery contract.
Senator Ervin. And it took about 3 or 4 months for him to nego-
tiate a contract with the Butchers and apparently about 3 or 4 hours
to negotiate one for the Clerks?
Mr. Ratcliffe. No, sir ; that is not the case.
Senator Ervin. He had no authority, did he, to negotiate a con-
tract with the Clerks until the card count was completed, and that
was 10 o'clock the night before he signed the contract.
Mr. Ratcliffe. But the spadework was being done all summer, and
the net Avas being woven around, and when they lowered the boom,
they cracked us on tlie head.
Senator Ervin. I don't think there is any question but what the
net was being woven around. In other words, the evidence convinces
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 11425
me that the company and the union were botli weavinj:^ the net aromid
the Clerks, and they were negotiatino- about what the Clerks would
get before they had any authority, before anybody had any authority,
to negotiate with the Clerks.
How did the $5 increase that the clerks were to get compare with
the initiations and fees tliat they would pay to the union ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I don't know.
Senator Ervin. Do you know if it is more or less ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I am sure that tlie initiation fees are more than $5.
Senator Ekvix. Didn't you have enougli curiosity ?
Mr. Ratclute. That was none of my business. Senator. I stay on
my side of the fence. When I cross over and get inquisitive in the
union's side, they tell me very vulgarly and emphatically where to go.
Sentor Ervin. Well, you know, I have so much curiosity I inquire
about a lot of things that are maybe none of my business. But I
would think I would at least be interested as a representative of the
employees whether they were going to get more by the payment of
the wage increase or less by the payment of the dues and the initiation
fees. They say that curiosity killed the cat, but apparently you have
no curiosity about that at all.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, I am just human.
Senator Curtis. We understand the terms of the contract as it
related to the people in the meat department were extended to the
clerks after this card count was completed, is that what happened?
Mr. Ratcliffe. That is true, sir.
Senator Curtis. So your negotiations as to what the terms should
be were carried on in reference to the people in the meat department ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. That is exactly true, sir.
Senator Curtis. They had been organized since 19-16, I believe you
said?
Mr. Ratcliffe. In the Bronx they had been organized since 1946
and in Brooklyn since 1950 and in Garden City in 1949 or 1950. I
would say both Brooklyn and Garden City were 1950.
Senator Curtis. During the years immediately prior to 1952, how
many hours did the indi\dduals in the meat department work under
their contract ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. In our stores ? — 45 hours, sir.
Senator Curtis. The terms arrived at for those in the meat depart-
ment in the contract that was extended for 22 months, what did they
provide relative to the hours to be worked? How many hours?
Mr. Ratcliffe. 45, sir.
Senator Curits. What was the situation with respect to your major
competitors during the years immediately prior to 1952 and the years
following, during that 22-month period, in reference to the number
of hours worked ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Prior to 1952, no one was less than 45. Some were
more than 45.
Senator Curtis. What ones were more, do you know ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Off hand, I don't know.
Senator Curtis. How did A. & P. compare in their number of
hours required under a contract during this period covered by the
22-month contract? How did you compare with 3'our major com-
petitors then ?
11426 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr, Ratcliffe. With the butchers or with the grocery clerks, sir :
Well, by that time I would say that the butchers Avere fairly uniform,
and the grocery clerks some had, 54 — in 1500, Mr, Kennedy — some
stores had 54 hours, and some had 49, I believe, and none had less
than 45,
Senator Curtis, Who are you classifying as j'our major competi-
tors?
Mr, Ratcliffe. Well, in the case of Bohack, Food Fair, the major
chainstores in the metropolitan New York area, sir.
Senator Curtis. They all had 45 hours ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Or better.
Senator Curtis. By better, you mean more hours ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. They had more, or they had a 45 hour on a stagger.
Senator Curtis. You would say that was true throughout the
period of the 22 months ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes. Well, I have one exception, sir. During the
period of our 22 months, the Safeway stores went on a 40-hour stag-
ger, and a stagger means that they pay overtime after 40 hours and
they can work them at different hours, bring them in at 8 o'clock
one morning, and 11 o'clock the next morning, or they can work them
short days and long days.
Senator Curtis. At the end of this 22-month contract, when you
were negotiating again, at any time during those negotiations did
either management or the union bring up and discuss the supple-
mental contract which you have described as a private contract?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Sir, I don't describe it as a private contract. I
knew nothing about it, and it was not mentioned to my knowledge.
Senator Curtis. Was it discussed in the negotiations that followed
your 22 -month period ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Not at all, no, sir. Positively not.
Senator Curtis. Did at any time management for A. & P. say to
the union "You must extend this 45-liour provision because you have
already made a contract with this gentleman about it?"
Mr. Ratcliffe, No, sir. If you will bear with me a minute, I
would like to explain a little further that we were resigned to lose
the 45-hour week in our negotiations in June of 1955, and I offered
the rank-and-file committee the Safeway 40-hour stagger. They
rejected it emphatically, and without Mr. Block's participation in ihe
discussion. It was the rank-and-file members.
Senator Curtis. Yes; I understood you to say that earlier. There
is talk here that there was a supplemental agreement of some kind.
What was the gentleman's name?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Mr. Schimmat.
Senator Curtis. Talk that this 45-hour provision would be good
for 5 years.
If it was, why didn't management go to the negotiation table at
the end of 22 months and say "Here, that issue is settled because you
have agreed to it?"
Mr. Ratcliffe. Simply, sir — it is partly conjectural on my part
because I never had tlie slightest inkling of the agreement, as I say.
The mere fact is that according to Mr. Schimmafs testimony, he was
asked to keep it secret, and he was just holding it as insurance, and
us long as it wasn't needed he said lie later tore it up and forgot all
IMPROPEK ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11427
about it. But it was never used, because in our 1955 negotiations that
is one of the first things that was eliminated from the many demands
that 107 negotiating committeemen can ask.
Senator Curtis. You say that A. & P. management at that time
offered a 40-hour week on a staggered basis similar to what Safeway
was going ?
Mr. Ratclitfe. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. And that was rejected?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Emphatically by the rank and file committeemen,
not the union. The union officials did not even have a voice in it.
Senator Curtis. So did either party rely and seek to put into effect
this supplemental agreement?
Mr. Ratcliffe. No, sir, that never came to light at all. I only
learned about it
Senator Curtis. I understand you just learned about it. But did
the company rely on it and seek to put it into effect, to your
knowledge ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Positively not.
Senator Curtis. You had a delay, then, because of NLRB rulings,
didn't you ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Litigation and clarifying a lot of technical points.
Senator Curtis. Then you entered into your contract running 24
months; is that right?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, a little less than 24 months w^as what we
negotiated over the table.
Senator Curtis. Was it nearer 24 months than 23 months?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I believe it was, sir.
Senator Cutjtis. Well, we wouldn't quibble about that.
Mr. Ratcliffe. I would say we concluded about the middle of June
1955, and it ran to the middle of May 1957.
Senator Curtis. How many hours a week did that call for?
Mr. Ratcliffe. 45 hours.
Senator Curtis. When did that expire?
Mr. Ratcliffe. May 24, 1957.
Senator Curtis. It began approximately 2 years before?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes, sir, it began in June 1955.
Senator Curtis. Now, during the period of May 1955 to May 1957,
roughly the period covered by this contract, what kind of contracts
did your major competitors have as it relates to the hours per week
to be worked ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, Safeway went on the 40-hour week with a
stagger, I believe, in 1953.
Senator Curtis. I am talking about from 1955 to 1956.
Mr. Ratcliffe. And they stayed on the 40-hour week with a stag-
ger and they are still on it. No other competitors went below 45
hours until after May 24, 1957, except American Stores, who also
adopted the 40-hour week with a stagger in the interim period and I
don't remember just when. I would guess 1956.
Senator Curtis. I am not familiar with who are the major markets,
and I want to know the names of the companies during the period
May 1955, approximately, to approximately May 1957, who were on
a 45-hour week, your major competitors.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Our major competitors on the 45-hour week, be-
tween May or June of 1955 to May of 1957, were Bohack and Gristede.
11428 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Cuktis. Who are they, and how many stores do they
have — not exactly, but how big are they ?
Mr, Katcliffe. Well, it is a sizable chain in Brooklyn, and I would
saj^ — Bohack is a sizable chain in Brooklyn, and I would say they
have 80 to 100 stores or maybe more. They have some large stores
and then they have some small stores. Gristede is not as large, but
they cover Manhattan and the Bronx.
Senator Curtis. How many stores would you guess they have?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I would guess they have close to 100 stores, but
they don't have too many large stores.
Senator Curtis. Who are some of your other major competitors?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Safeway is another.
Senator Curtis. You have already eliminated them, because they
were on the 40-hour week staggered, and I mean that had the 45-hour
week.
Mr. Ratcliffe. The next I would name is Grand Union, and they
are out on Long Island, and they have some stores in Brooklyn and
not too many, and they have stores in the Bronx, Manhattan, and
they are now developing up into Westchester, and they are very
heavily covered over in New Jersey.
Senator Curtis. Now, in this period we are talking about, May
1955 to May 1957, about how many stores would you say they had in
the New York area ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. That were on the 45-hour week ?
Senator Curtis. This Grand Union Co., I mean.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, they have a lot, sir, but I would guess
Senator Curtis. Would it be 25 ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. It is over 100.
Senator Curtis. Now, any other competitors ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. The next would be Food Fair, a very formidable
competitor, with several very large stores.
Senator Curtis. Do you know how many hours were provided in
Food Fair's contract in the period roughlv from May 1955 to Mav of
1957?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Sir, their meat contract was a 45-hour week, and
their grocery contract was a 45-hour week with a stagger.
Senator Curtis. 45-hour week with a stagger ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. For their groceries.
Senator Curtis. But the minimum was 45 hours?
Mr. Ratcliffe. They had a 45-liour week, but actually tlie differ-
ence between a stagger is a 9-hour day as against a 45-hour week. A
straight 45-hour week, the company pa3'S overtime after 9 hours each
day, and in the 45-hour week with a stagger, you pay overtime after
45 hours, and accumulate it as a week.
Senator Curtis. Were tliere any other major competitors who were
on a 45-hour week or more during 1955 ?
Mr. Ratcijffe. The First National is another competitor that is in
Westchester and in the Bronx, and they are moving out into Long
Island, and they have some beautiful stores, ami they are a competitor.
Senator Curtis. What is their name?
Mr. Ratcliffe. First National Stores. Their contract just follows
ours.
Senator Curtis. Their contract follows A'ours ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 11429
Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes, sir; in a period of a month or 2 or 3 months.
Senator Curtis. Are tliere any more ^
Mr. Katcliffe. Well, let me see. There is Grand Union, and Food
Fair, and there are a lot more, but I am only giving you the large
ones. American Stores, now, I explained, I believe, in 1956 they went
from the 45-hour week to a 4()-hoar week to a 40-hour week with the
stagger.
Senator Cruris. Now, from your position as industrial manager or
whatever it is there, you come into knowledge as to wliat other stores
provide in their contracts generally, do you, so you know these things
to be a fact?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Oh, yes.
Senator Curtis. And what might be described as major food chains
during this last period in question. May 1955 roughly to 1957, the only
stores that had less than a 40-liour week were Safeway with a 40-hour
staggered week, and American Stores in the period went to 40 with
a stagger?
Mr. Ratcliffe. That is true. We were the first to go onto the
straight 40-hour week — the first in the industry.
Senator Curtis. Do you agree or disagree, and I might preface
this because there are a lot of things about this that I do not like from
the opposition of this union — but do you agree or disagree as to
vrhether or not A. & P. got an advantage over their competitoi*s so far
as hours per week to be worked, out of this contract, this whole period ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I do not agree to that. There was not an advan-
tage for the A. & P.
Senator Curtis. That is all.
Mr. Kennedy. I have just a few questions, Mr. Chairman.
TMio was your main competitDr in New York ? Is it Saf ewaj' ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. No, sir; we don't have any main competitor. We
are competitors against the rest of them.
Mr. Kennedy. I am sure everybod}^ is in that position.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Only in metropolitan New York.
Mr. Kennedy. Where is Safeway operating ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Safeway is principally in the Bronx and Manhat-
tan. They took over the old Daniel Reeve's Stores, and bought up
National and some others. Then they give us some competition out
in New Jersey.
Mr. IvENNEDY. Certainly at the time this contract was signed, ac-
cording to 3'our own survey, and the surveys from what we have seen
of the memos that came from your files, it appeared to A. & P. Co. that
this would be a great loss to them if they went to a 40-hour week.
Now, according to your own records — and Mr. Doyle, he knows the
answer — according to your own records it ranges from $12 million to
$60 million ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Those are not my records.
Mr. Kennedy. According to A. & P.'s record ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. No ; that is not true either, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Whenever you don't like something, you say it is not
the A. & P.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, he says it without the proper voice, and the
fact that you are reading something that someone without authority
11430 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
said, that was a statement that was certainly not part of manage-
ment's— it was not shown to management, and
Mr. Kennedy. All I know he is personnel manager in Paterson,
N. J., and these aren't figures that the committee had. This is a figure
from the personnel manager of A. & P. Co.
Mr. Ratcliffe. That is unfortunate, because it is no good.
Mr, Kennedy. You don't like it but it is there.
Senator Curtis. May I ask something here, Mr. Counsel ? Is this
statement that there was $10 million or $12 million advantage
Mr. Kennedy. Per year.
Senator Curtis. Per year. Is that comparing with competitor
or is that comparing with what they had or the contract terms they
had up to that time ?
Mr. Ivennedy. This is the situation. It says "the 40-hour reduc-
tion gave us quite a jolt." It would cost actually $12 million a year,
and the adjustment would be in next year. We have another
memorandum here from the A. & P., also, in which he quotes again
Mr. Vanlynten in a conversation that he had with Mr. Eatcliffe, in
which he points out that for a 5-year period, it would cost $7 per per-
son per week, for a 40-hour week, which figures out to $23 million.
Senator Curtis. But what I want to know is this : Whether or not
that is what it would cost compared to what it had been costing that
particular store, or whether it is comparing an advantage gained com-
pared to their competitors. I think that there is a vast difference.
Mr. Kennedy. This is how much money it would cost them to go
to a 40-hour week, and this is how much the A. & P. Co. based on these
figures would lose if they went to a 40-hour week.
Senator Curtis. Is there any allegation of any witness that by
what happened A. & P. got a $10 million or $12 million advantage
over their major competitors ?
Mr. Kennedy. According to these records, all I can say is that they
got a contract, keeping a 45-hour week, and according to their own
figures, that saved them, on the contracts, some $12 million a year.
Senator Curtis. If the union had demanded a 20-hour week, it
would have cost them many millions more than that. That does not
prove anything.
Mr. Kennedy. That is what I am bringing out.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Can I get into this discussion, too? The $12 mil-
lion figure is plainly a figure of Mr. Vanlynten's imagination. You
have or Mr. May picked up a record from our files that showed, and
I am drawing on my memory because I had to go back and look at it
only recently, and since you asked me at the last interview, the cost
of this reduction in the hours would cost the A. & P. approximately
$36,000 a week, for straight time, and roughly $6,000 for overtime, or
a total of $42,000 a week, or $2,084,000 a year. But now then that is
not a savings over what our competitors are doing, because certainly
if we go into a 40-hour week, as was shown in 195t, every time we go
into a new workweek then if we are all in the same union, the union
has got to deliver about the same kind of contract.
Senator Curtis. Are you all in the 40-hour workweek now ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. All except Safeway and American Stores, who are
still on a 40-hour week with a stagger.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11431
Mr. Kennedy. That, of course, is just the point, that the situation,
this continuing the 45-Iiour week with the A. & P., cost every other
employee, except the employees of Safeway, the right to go to a 40-
liour week, because of the fact that after they prolonged the 45-hour
week for you in 1955, they couldn't then go to one of your competi-
tors and say, "You are going to have to take a 40-hour week."
What A. & P. did with this secret agreement was costing every em-
ployee in the major food chains in New York the right to a 40-hour
week, because the union could not go to them and say that "We are
going to give you a 40-hour week," when you say and testify that the
union was not interested in going to a 40-hour week.
We had sworn testimony by Mr. Reape that he went all the way out
to Chicago to meet with Mr. Gorman, and said "We want to go to a
40-hour week, and Mr. Block is opposing us, and we understood that
there is a secret agreement."
Mr. Ratcliffe. If lie understood there was a secret agreement, then
there wasn't any.
Mr. Kennedy. Wliat do you mean by that ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. It was no longer secret, when somebody else knows
it.
Mr. Kennedy. That is how much they wanted to go to a 40-hour
week, and that is what it has cost everybody, all of the clerks in the
New York area.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Look what the customers profited by it.
The Chairman. Is there anything further ?
Mr. Kennedy. You had a card count in 1956 ; did you not?
Mr. Ratcliffe. In 1956, for the part-time clerks.
Mr. Kennedy. And did you ask the union at that time to go to
the National Labor Relations Board ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. It wasn't necessary at that time?
Mr. Ratcliffe. It wasn't necessary.
(At this point tlie following members were present: Senators Mc-
Clellan, Ervin, and Curtis.)
Mr. Kennedy. They did not threaten to strike at that time ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. No, sir; we were quite sure that there was a
majority of the part timers signed up.
Mr. Kennedy. So there was no statement that they should go to
a National Labor Relations Board, nor did they make an effort to
strike?
Mr. Ratcliffe. That is true.
Mr. Kennedy. They never said they were going to strike ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they say that they were going to exert economic
sanctions against you ?
]Mr, Ratcliffe. I don't remember any threats at all, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. This is a memo of April 17, 1956.
The Chairman. I hand you a memorandum, apparently from you,
dated April 17, 1956. I ask you to examine it and state if you identify
it.
(The document was handed to the witness.)
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
11432 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy, As I understand, without going into detail, what you
ask for there is a telegram from them ; is that right ?
Mr. Doyle. We agreed that upon receipt of a telegram so stating,
Mr. Lichtenstein would contact Mr. Cohen and arrange for an im-
partial third party to verify the card situation. He identifies the
signature.
The Chairman. Do you want that printed in the rex^ord?
Mr. Kennedy. Just an exhibit.
The Chairman. That will be exhibit 8.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 8" for refer-
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 11549.)
The Chairman. I hand you a telegram dated April 13, the year
not being indicated, addressed to you from Mr. Arnold Colien. at-
torney. It may be examined for purposes of identification.
( The document was handed to the witness. )
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
The Chairman. Do you identify that telegram?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. That may be exhibit No. 9.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 9" for refer-
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 11550.)
Mr. Kennedy. This says :
based upon the majority representation, the unions' i-ecognition is being made
for bargaining, and then kindly arrange with representatives of Local unions.
You worked out a stipulation?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes, sir. Well, we didn't work out a new stipula-
tion. We used the same stipulation that had been used some 5 or 6 or
7 times.
Mr. Kennedy. This stipulation is signed by you. In view of the
testimony you have given, I want you to listen very carefully. It
states, in paragraph 4 :
Whereas the company then advised the union that such recognition would be
granted only if the union substantiated its claim of majority representation by
a certification from the National Labor Relations Board.
That is untrue; is it not?
Whereas the company then advised the union that such recognition would be
granted only if the union substantiated its claims of majority representation
by a certification from the National Labor Relations Board.
Actually, you never did such a thing ; did you ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. No, sir ; we did not.
Mr. Kennedy. So that statement in the stipulation is incorrect?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes ; but I can't understand how it got there.
Mr. Kennedy. It is signed by you. And then in the next para-
graph:
Whereas the union then notified the company that it would not obtain such
board certification because of the delays involved but would demonstrate its
majority representation by a membership card count before an impartial party.
That is untrue also ; is it not ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Pardon ?
Mr. Kennedy. That is untrue also ; is it not ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. That is not untrue.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11433
Mr. Kexxedy. Wliere did the union ever notify the compjuiy that
it would demonstrate its majority representation by a membership
card count before any impartial party '{
Mr. Ratcliffe. This will take a little explainino-. When I was
first caught cold on this subject, I was told that Mr. Murphy, the
impartial card counter, had only evidence of a list of printed names.
That is true
Mr. Kennedy. That has notliingto do with this point.
Mr. Ratcliffe. It doesn't ?
Mr. IVENNEDY. No.
Mr. Ratcliffe. All right.
Mr. Ivennedy. The first paragraph you admit is incorrect. The
next paragraph that I am reading you is :
The uniou then notified the company that it would not obtain such board
certification because of the delays involved but would demonstrate its majority
representation by a membership card count before any impartial party.
There doesn't seem to be any evidence that that statement was ever
made by the union to the company. These are the stipulations, which
is a very important document.
"We find these statements that do not seem to be supported by the
record. Here is another one :
Upon tallying the signed membership cards of the employees of the above-
mentioned three units, and comparing such cards with the company's payroll
for such units, and the employees' signatures thereon, the arbitrator shall imme-
diately certify the result of the card count on the form annexed thereto.
Did you ever send in signatures of tlie employees so they could be
compared I
Mr. Ratcliffe, Yes, sir ; I do.
Mr. Ivennedy. Were they compared ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Were they compared ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Mr. Murphy will have to answer that.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know as a matter of fact that they were
not compared ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I have every reason to believe they were compared,
because after searching my records and investigating this thing —
and I am not changing my testimony, but I am correcting a misstate-
ment for tlie simple reason that I was told by the investigating com-
mittee that ]Mr. Murphy had checked only printed names. The
printed names M'as his copy of tlie list supporting the signed time-
sheets tliat I turned over to Mr. Murphy. He was supposed to do it
in 2 days, and when I called him, he said he had completed his count,
but he had not gotten it notarized. But he promised to have it the
next morning. I personally went up to pick up my timecards, be-
cause I was anxious to get them back in our files. And I picked up
my duplicate copy of the alphabetical lists supporting these cards.
Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't a typed list furnished to Mr. Murphy?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Two typed lists.
Mr. Kennedy. How was he to compare the signatures of two typed
lists?
Mr. Ratcliffe. By tlie supporting timecards. That was what I
took up to him and that is what I went back and picked up myself.
11434 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
We cannot leave the cards witli Mr. Murphy any more than we
could have left them with Mr. White, Mr. Lessing, or Mr. O'Grady,
or any of the other third-party arbitrators that affected card counts.
It was a lapse of memory, and you caught me cold on this thing, or
Mr. May caught me cold, whenever we first discussed it. But I have
since searched the records and I know positively that is what hap-
pened.
Mr. Kennedy. That you furnished the cards with the signatures?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Can you explain, then, why two of these paragraphs
are incorrect in this stipulation as to what facts occurred? Can
you explain that ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. May I see it ?
Mr. Kennedy. I have already read them to you.
Mr. Doyle. If you bear with me, Mr. Kennedy, I think I can save
time.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Doyle. Mr. Ratcliffe just tells me that those two facts are true,
that the company did ask them to go into NLRB, that the union re-
fused ; and that they said
Mr. Kennedy. That is what he is telling you.
Mr. Doyle. I was trusting my memory, and you were reading
something that I have gotten very hazy on.
Mr. Kennedy. I asked you several times to make sure your testi-
mony was accurate in view of the information that we had. You
testified very clearly that you did not tell them to go to the National
Labor Relations Board. I show you this stipulation, which is an
important document, which sets forth facts which appear to be in
contradiction of the testimony you have given before the committee.
Also, your memorandum of April 17, 1956, indicates differently,
that you never told them to go to the National Labor Relations Board.
It says, "We agree that upon receipt of a telegram." The only point
is that in this stipulation, where the facts appear to be incorrect, and
the company participating, it casts even more shadows on the agree-
ment that was made back in 1952, and the relationship that has existed
between the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and the A. & P. Co.
Mr. Doyle. Would you permit Mr. Ratcliffe to explain in his own
language, not the language of the stipulation, what his recollection of
the facts were prior to his executing the stipulation ?
Mr. I^nnedy. I asked him the pertinent questions. He had a
chance to make any statement at that time. I don't want to be un-
fair about it. If there is something further that bears on this par-
ticular point, as to whether he told them to go to the National Labor
Relations Board — well, do you want to change your testimony ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I cannot recall going to the National Labor Rela-
tions Board. But when you read this — and I have not seen this in a
long time, and I am hazy about it, the same as I was hazy about the
whole thing when Mr. Murphy led us down a blind alley by forgetting
that I had delivered these timesheets to him. But after checking with
the various people that supplied the cards, and then remembering
that I had to go down and take the cards there and then go back not
the second day when I expected them back but the third day and pick
them up myself, I know positively that Mr. Murphy checked the
cards, according to this.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11435
Mr. IvENNEDY. That does not answer this question at all.
Mr. Ratcliffe. So far as the NLRB, I don't remember.
Senator Cuktis. Plow long a document is it? How long is that
document you have been reading?
Mr. Kennedy. I just read one paragraph.
Senator Curtis. How long is the document ?
Mr. Kennedy. One page.
Senator Curtis. I would like to have him read it and tell us what
is in there that is not true, if anything.
The Chairman. Point out the paragraph to tlie witness from which
you read, and let tlie witness make any statement he cares to.
(The document was lianded to the witness.)
Mr. Doyle. I take it, Mr. Kennedy, you read the third paragraph
to him first and then you read the fourth paragraph ?
Mr. I\JENNEDY. Eight. Those are the only two paragraphs in
question.
The Chairman. Read for your information the third and fourth
paragraphs, Mr. Witness, and then make your comment.
Mr. Doyle. May I ask instructions from the Chair? Mr. Chair-
man, this is a legal stipulation, written in the language of lawyers.
I have had a lot of contact with this particular witness, and I find
that by explaining things to him not in the language of lawyers but
language he can understand, that the facts all oecome a lot clearer
to him.
The Chairman. Let him read it for his information, and then make
his comments on it. If he does not understand the question, or if he
gave wrong answers, he can make a comment.
Just read it for your own information. Read it and satisfy your-
self and then make your comment.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
Mr. Doyle. I will tell you what he told me. He said, "If the stip-
ulation says that we did this, that is what we did."
That is what he just told me.
The Chairman. Have you read both of them now ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Are there any comments you wish to make?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, I certainly pull a blank on this thing, but I
have to go by the record here that says that the union rejected going
to the NLRB and insisted on the card count. I have reconstructed
the procedure that was followed, and it was the same procedure that
has been followed with many other card counts that have been made
in the eastern division.
Upon this search, I did recollect that the cards were personally
delivered by me and they were picked up by me.
Mr. I\JENNEDY. That has nothing to do with it.
Mr. Ratcliffe. That is the three things you have checked here,
Mr. Kennedy.
:Mr. Kennedy. I will point out once again. On April 17, 1956, the
memorandum signed by you, part-time employees :
The union claims they have sufficient cards to show they represent the part-
time clerlvs, working 10 hours or more, but less than 20 hoiirs. We agree, upon
a receipt of a telegram so stating. Mr. Lichtensteiu would contact Mr. Cohen
and arrange for an impartial third party to verify the card representation.
11436 IMPROPER ACTR^ITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
In your testimony initially, when I asked you if you told them to
go to the National Labor Relations Board, you told me that you did
not. The memorandum would indicate that you did not. In here,
it would indicate that you did. I am just questioning the facts in
the stipulation ; that is all. They are contradictory to the testimony
you have given.
Mr. Ratcliffe. It is, definitely, a lapse of memory, and I don't
recall. But the stipulation definitely says that we did it. We fol-
lowed the procedure that has been established and proven to be a good
procedure.
Mr. Kennedy. I just have a couple more matters. Mr. Ratcliffe.
did Mr. Block approach you about giving his son-in-law some busi-
ness ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. When did he approach you ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I don't know.
Mr. Kennedys What Avas it ; the paper business ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. It was cellophane business.
Mr. Kennedy. How many times did he approach you ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Maybe 2 or 3.
Mr. Kennedy. Did j'ou make arrangements for him to get the busi-
ness from the A. & P. Co. ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Xo, sir. As a matter of fact, his request hurt his
son-in-law.
Mr. Kennedy. Did it hurt so badly you never gave him any busi-
ness ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. No, sir. As I explained to Mr. Block, and maybe
he would have requested it oftener, I pointed out that his son-in-law
was selling his own merchandise and Block would do better to let him
peddle his own cellophane. That Avas what happened, and I have
not heard from liim since.
Mr. Doyle. I might add, Mr. Kennedy, so that the record will be
perfectly clear, that the Comet Packaging & Paper Co. supplied bags
to the company in 1956 and 1957 at a price no higher than the lowest
priced suppliers of the company. The compilation shows that, from
1954 througli 1957, the company bought a total, outside of its pur-
chases from Comet, of over $6 million worth of bags, and Comet sold
to the company during that same period about $49,000.
Mr. Kennedy. $49,000. Starting wlien ?
Mr. Doyle. Through a period of 2i/2 or 3 years.
Mr. Ratcliffe. I wouldn't even hazard a guess.
Mr. Kennedy. This was after Mr. Block's approach to you?
Mr. Ratcliffe. It was after I got him off my back, let's say, be-
cause lie didn't sell any cellophane during tlie time that Mr. Block
was needling me to do something for liis son-in-law.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he stay off your back after you started buying
cellophane from him ? "
Mr. Ratcliffe. No, no, no. He didn't sell us any cellophane until
he got off my back.
Mr. Kenni:dy. He has been off your back since then, ever since you
started buying his cellophane?
Mr. Ratcliffe. No. AVe don't buy liis cellophane. If Mr. Block's
son-in-law or anyone else comes into our ])urchasing department, it
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11437
lias no beariu«r on our labor. "When iNIr. Block's son-in-law went to
onr purrhasin<r aiient, he made a verj^ *i()0(l impression on the buyer
of this merchandise. But his price Avasn't riolit, and he didn't sell
the merchandise, or he sold some, and he didn't sell any big carload
lots.
Mr. Kexxedy. "Sir. Katcliffe
Mr. Ratcliffe. May I tell it all ? "\Ve will save time that way.
Mr. Kexxedy. Go ahead.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Mr. Block suggested I ought to talk to the buyer.
I told him that I wouldn't do any good, but, if it would make him any
happier, I would talk to the buyer. I talked to the buyer and the
buver, in turn, talked to his boss and his boss told him to tell me to
tell Mr. Block to go to hell.
I went back and told Mr. Block exactly what the message was.
Then he insisted at a later date that his son-in-law wasn't doing so
well, and I said, "Well, when his price is right, he will be able to sell
his merchandise, because he is a personable young man and he can cer-
tainly peddle his own merchandise better than you can force it on
us. You are only hurting the kid instead of helping him."
That convinced him. Later on, Mr. Block's son-in-law did sell us
some cellophane, but, certainly, not through an}- efforts of Mr. Block.
Mr. Kexxedy. Did 3'ou meet his son-in-law ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I have met him ; yes, sir.
]\rr. Kex'xedy. Did Mr. Block introduce him to you?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I imagine so ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kex'xedy. Did you discuss the cellophane at that time?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Xo; never. No.
Mr. Kexxedy. Did the buyer tell you, later on, that he had been
able to give Mr. Zeitler a good order?
^fr. Ratcliffe. He doesn't give orders. He buys.
Mr. Kexxedy. Did he tell j^ou that they were able to make a very
good transaction ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. No. He told me at some later date that — what is
his name: Zeitler? — Zeitler had come in with the right price and he
had landed a contract for paper, but it had no bearing on my dis-
cussion Avith the buyer. As a matter of fact, it hurt Zeitler, if
anything.
Mr. Kexxedy. Has Mr. Block come to see you again about the
matter?
Mr. Ratcliffe. No, sir.
Mr. Kexxedy. He stayed off your back ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. He stayed off my back. I think I convinced him
that he was hurting, rather than helping, his son-in-laAv.
Mr. Kex-^xedy. Then his son-in-law got a contract?
Mr. Ratcliffe. No; he got no contract. He is a salesman. He
comes in and he meets competition.
Mr. Kexxj:dy. He arranged for it?
Mr. Ratcliffe. No; he didn't. He did it on his own.
Mr. Kex'xedy. You have said that three times,
Mr. Ratcliffe. I know, but you don't seem to hear me.
Mr. Kexx^edy. Did you agree, during the 1956 election, to release
certain employees to go down to the nomination meeting for Mr.
Block? ' ^ ^ ^
11438 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Ratcliffe. I don't remember.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, did Mr, Block telephone you, or any repre-
sentative of the union telephone you to allow certain of the employees
to get out of work early so that they could go down to the nomination
meeting ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I don't remember, but I imagine, if Mr. Block
made such a request, that that could be arranged or would have been
arranged.
Mr. Kennedy. Was it in tliis particular case?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I don't remember it, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. In the end of 1956 ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. What was the occasion?
Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Block was trying to get reelected or renomi-
nated.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes; I remember, and I did.
Mr. Kennedy. You wanted to help him any way you could?
Mr. Ratcliffe. I didn't want to offend the man. After all, that
was a very small favor to ask.
Mr. Kennedy. I see. You stated that the contract had been ratified
by the employees. Do you have any firsthand infonnation or knowl-
edge on that ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. Only heai'say evidence. Well, wait a minute. It is
pretty factual, whenever they rejected the welfare but picked up the
$5 increase.
Mr. Kennedy. Some of the employees, according to the testimony
before our committee, Mr. Ross, for instance, objected to that clause.
But, as far as the contract being read to the employees, he stated it
never was read.
Mr. Ratcliffe. I heard Mr. Ross' statement, but I don't think
Mr. Ross' objection alone affected the elimination or the substitution
of the welfare plan for the company plan again.
Mr, IvENNEDY, And then Mr. Ferguson, I believe, testified this
morning that the employees in his store hadn't known of the terms
of the contract.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, that is Mr, Ferguson's knowledge of the
thing. But it was my information that the contract was ratified,
and I don't see how they could reject the part of it and accept the
other part unless it was ratified.
Mr. Kennedy. Maybe they never got to approve all of it, or some
of the officials learned of this clause, which was bad. But there is
nothing in the union records, either, that indicates that the contract
was read to the employees or ratified by the employees.
Mr. Ratcliffe. No one objected to the $5.
Mr. Kennedy. Just answer tlie question, Mr. Ratcliffe. Accord-
ing to the testimony before the committee, and according to our study
of the union records, tliere is no indication that the contract was ever
ratified by the employees. Do you have any firstliand knowledge?
In answer to a question by Senator Curtis, you stated that you knew
the contract was ratified. Can you state, under oath here, that the
contract was, in fact, ratified by the employees ?
Mr. Ratcliffe. It was my understanding that the contract was rat-
ified.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11439
Mr. Kexnicdy. But you had no firsthand information ?
Mr. Ratclu^fe. No, sir.
Senator Curtis. Mr. Counsel, will Mr. Block be called on that
point?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
The Chairman. Is there anything further?
The committee will stand in recess until 10 : 30 m the morning. We
will resume in room 318.
(Whereupon, at 4 : 50 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at
10 : 30 a. m., Wednesday, May 21, 1958.)
21248— 58— pt. 29 17
INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE
LABOR OR 3IANAGEMENT FIELD
WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 1958
UxiTED 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 Resolu-
tion 221, agreed to January 29, 1958, in the caucus room. Senate Office
Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select com-
mittee) presiding.
Present: Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Senator
Barry Goldwater, Republican, Arizona; Senator Carl T. Curtis, Re-
publican, Nebraska; Senator Frank Church, Democrat, Idaho.
Also present : Robert F. Kenned}^ chief counsel ; Walter R. May,
investigator; George H. Martin, investigator; John Cye Cheasty,
investigator ; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
(Members of the committee present at the convening of the session
Avere : Senators McClellan and Curtis.)
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
Call your hrst witness.
Mr. Kennedy. ]Mr. Zorn.
The Chairman. You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give
before this Semite select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Zorn. I do.
TESTIMONY OF BUETON A. ZORN
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your
business or profession.
Mr. Zorn. My name is Burton A. Zorn. I reside at 91 Central
Park West, New York City. I am a lawyer with offices at 300 Park
Avenue, New York City.
Mr. Doyle. Mr. Chairman, as the record indicates here at your
hearings, I have appeared as counsel for the Great Atlantic & Pacific
Tea Co.
At this point, your committee has now called and sworn as a witness
Mr. Zorn, who acts as the labor-law adviser to the Atlantic & Pacific.
Your staff has completely reviewed this attorney's files and has in-
terviewed him in great detail. When the request was originally made
to us, as general counsel for the A. & P., to interview their labor law-
yer and to review their labor lawyer's files, we were faced with the
most serious question, and w^e had to resolve it, which was whether or
11441
11442 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD
not the Atlantic & Pacific should waive its historical, classic, and
sacred attorney-client privilege.
After a full review and a complete consideration, and in the interest
of fullhearted cooperation with this committee, and feeling no doubt
about the caliber of the professional advice received by the A. & P.
from Mr. Zorn and his firm, we advised the A. & P. to waive the priv-
ilege, which the A. & P. did, and we are happy that your committee
win have all opportunity to make full inquiry, although we would like
to point out again that this is a most unusual situation.
I am not here as Mr. Zorn's counsel. He will represent himself.
At the close of his examination, I may ask the Chair to ask him 1 or 2
questions by way of clarification.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The Chair was going to say to you, Mr. Doyle, if
you have any questions, just write them out and send them to the
Chair. We will pass upon them then. No doubt they will be asked.
Mr. Doyle. So far, Mr. Chairman, you have been most kind to me
in that respect, and have asked all of the questions I have passed up.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Zorn, I believe you have a prepared statement, have you ?
Mr. Zorn. I have, sir, but with your permission, I would like to say
this : I have a prepared statement which has been submitted in accord-
ance with the committee's rules, , .
I realize, having been at these hearings, the urgent time limit which
this committee is under. I am prepared to read the statement or I
can summarize it in not more than 3 minutes, whatever your desire
may be. . « „ . , j
The Chairman. Let the statement be printed m full m the record
at this point.
Senator Curtis. Which is being referred to as the one he will read,
the smaller document ?
Mr. Zorn. Senator, I had, sir, just to explain it, in my formal
written statement which I had prepared, I had at the end of that state-
ment asked the permission of this committee, in view of certain dis-
cussions about the state of law, to add to the record and not to read
here a statement or memorandum of law which we had prepared in
connection with certain legal questions which have arisen here.
I would like, if possible— I don't know what your rules are on that—
to have that document, the second document, made part of the record,
sir.
Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, his statement is only seven pages.
I would like to hear it.
The Chairman. All right. The Chair will be very glad to have
you read your statement, Mr. Zorn.
Mr. Zorn. My statement, the accuracy of which I swear to, sir, is
as follows : , .
I express my appreciation to the committee for permitting me to
make a short statement in advance of my testimony. I recognize not
only the importance of the work this committee is doing, but the
formidable problems it faces.
I have been labor counsel for the eastern division of the Great At-|
lantic & Pacific Tea Co. since 1941. During that period I have at-
tempted, to the best of my ability, to give legal advice to the company 1
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11443
when requested, and to advise them of the legal consequences of their
acts.
I do not form the company's basic labor policies, nor do I implement
those policies within the company's organization. I am a lawyer, not
a labor consultant.
My interest in labor law covers a span of more than 20 years.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to avoid blowing
my horn and skip a few pages so as to save time. It is all in the writ-
ten statement.
The Chairman. Without objection on the part of the committee •
Senator Curtis. Xo objection.
Mv. ZoRx. I simply want to say that on my legal background, I
have been a lawj-er for 31 years. I have specialized in labor rela-
tions law for better than 20 years, and I have been a member of a
distinguished law firm in New York City for nearly 20 years.
Now to the crux of the matter before this committee, the October
1952 contracts between the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. and the
Amalgamated Metal Cutters Union, I have reviewed the background
of these labor agreements with members of your staff and have af-
forded them complete access to our files, records, intraofFice memo-
randa, and time sheets.
Late in the summer and early fall of 1952 I was informed that the
eastern division of the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. was faced with
a critical problem resulting from a demand by the Amalgamated Meat
Cutters for recognition as collective bargaining agent for the com-
pany's retail clerks in the stores in the Greater New York area.
The Amalgamated had Avon the right to represent the meat depart-
ment employees in National Labor Board elections held in 1947 and
1950. The existing labor contracts covering these employees were to
expire on October 4, 1952.
I was advised that during the negotiations for a new contract for
the meat department employees, the union had announced that it was
signing up a majority of the grocery clerks and would demand recog-
nition for these clerks.
It, the union, took the position that it would brook no company
opposition to its organizing campaign, and insisted that the company
make no attempt to influence the employees against joining the
Amalgamated.
I was further informed that the union also insisted it be permitted
to establish its majority status by a check of union membership cards
signed by the emploj^ees — without a Labor Board or other secret
ballot election.
It was indicated that if the company refused to go along, the Amal-
gamated would strike all the Greater New York stores upon the expira-
tion of the Butchers' contracts in October 1952.
Two elections had been held by the Labor Board for these grocery
clerks early in 1952 in which two separate Retail Clerks' unions had
been defeated.
One of these unions, Retail Clerks Local 1500, AFL, had thereafter
filed objections to the election held on January 9, 1952, which the
regional director in New York dismissed in March 1952, on the basis
of controlling Board precedent.
11444 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
An appeal from that decision liacl been pending in Washington since
April 1952. Under the Board's 1-year rule, there could be no new
election for the Bronx and Brooklyn units until March 1958.
The Amalgamated Meat Cutters Union refused to wait. It de-
manded that the company recognize it as bargaining agent for the
clerks in October of 1952 and not in March of 1953.
If not, no new contract would be signed for the Butchers, and with-
out a contract, the company would face a strike.
In the face of these threats the company asserted that recognition
for the grocery clerks would not be granted to the Amalgamated
without an election, and suggested secret ballot elections be conducted
either by the American Arbitration Association or the New York State
Mediation Board.
The Amalgamated flatly refused and repeatedly offered to demon-
strate its majority only through the production of signed membership
cards.
I was asked to advise the company whether it would be legal to
recognize the Amalgamated as collective bargaining agent for the
clerks if the union could prove its right to recognition by a count of
employee membership cards.
I advised the company that it could legally recognize the Amal-
gamated for the clerks on the basis of a card count which would
demonstrate its majority status.
The reasons for my decision were these : There was no question that
an employer could recognize a union if the union represented a ma-
jority of its employees in an appropriate bargaining unit.
In fact, there was a legal duty to recognize a union which could
demonstrate its majority status. It was equally clear that such proof
could be demonstrated bv means other than a Labor Board election.
One of the methods which had been recognized traditionally by
reputable unions and leading companies was through a count of signed
membership cards.
Another question I had to determine was whether there existed a
conflicting claim of representation of these employees by another
union, which prevented the use of this procedure.
I was satisfied on my knowledge of the law that no real question
of representation by the two Retail Clerks' unions existed.
In the first place they had been defeated in elections in January
and March of 1952. Secondly, the objections local 1500 had filed to
the January election had been dismissed in April by the regional
director of the Labor Board. His dismissal was based on well-estab-
lished Board precedents. {Denton Sleeping Garment Mills, Inc., 93
NLRB 329, and similar cases.)
Although an appeal had been taken to Washington, it had remained
dormant for over 5 months. The fact that in December 1952, almost
a year after the election, the Board expressly reversed its own well-
established rule only adds wisdom to liindsight. And the company
letter which the Board held, without any hearing, to constitute inter-
ference with the election was essentially an exercise of free speech
approved bv the courts. {Bonwit Teller, Inc. v. NLRB (197 F. 2d 640
(2d Cir., 1952), certiorari denied, 345 U. S. 905).)
Having concluded that no "real" question of representation by the
Retail Clerks' union was present, I advised the company that if it
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 11445
<chose to do so, recognition of the Amalgamated through a card count
was legal.
In tJie meantime and before it committed itself to the card count
procedure, the company did explore with the union the possible terms
of a contract which would cover the grocery clerks if the union were
eventually recognized.
These preliminary explorations were legal, and I so advised the com-
pany. (./?//^^^s•/?e.w^V■^^//^c., 86NLRB38.)
Finally, when early in October 1952 the company was convinced
that the Amalgamated was not bluffing and a strike was imminent, it
agreed to the card-counting procedure.
A reputable labor attorney and arbitrator was chosen to conduct
the card count and to certify the results. When he certified that the
Amalgamated represented a majority of the gi'ocery clerks, the com-
pany negotiated a collective bargaining agreement with the Amalgam-
ated covering these grocery clerks.
I was completely satisfied that the company could legally recognize
the Amalgamated, provided that a card check demonstrated that the
Amalgamated represented a majority of the employees.
As a matter of fact, the company had the alternatives either of
agreeing to a legal method of resolving the majority status claim of
the Amalgamated or facing economic retaliation against which the
■company had no legal remedy whatsoever.
One primary legal fact was and is absolutely clear. Had the Amal-
gamated carried out its threat to engage in a strike or picketing for
the purpose of forcing the company to recognize it, the company
ivould have had no legal remedies available to it.
Strikes and picketing for the pui-pose of organization or recog-
Tiition were and are protected activity under the Taft-Hartley Act as
administered by the National Labor Relations Board.
I can supply you gentlemen, if you like, with a full list of cita-
tions on that ix)int, including a statement by one of the Senate com-
mittees, the "watch dog" committee, which makes that abundantly
•clear.
For that reason, it was not necessary for us to have research con-
-ducted in the area of the company's remedies in the event it resisted
the demand of the Amalgamated for recognition. There were no
remedies.
In that event, I knew that the company's only right was to engage
in an economic struggle which its officials estimated might shut
•down hundreds of stores at a loss of over $700,000 a week.
I might add that the questions may bring out that the company
had had two disastrous strikes in previous years, but I do not want
to depart from my statement.
Therefore, wlien I was asked for legal advice, research was re-
quired only in the event that the company bowed to the Amalga-
mated's ultimatum.
Even here, not all the issues required research. I knew of my own
knowledge and experience that a card count would be legal. There
were, however, two mattei's as to which research was necessary be-
cause the National Labor Relations Board had been evolving new
rules:
(1) The effective duration of the contract-bar principle in
the grocery industry ; and.
11446 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
(2) The effect of petitions filed by rival unions prior to con-
tract execution.
On the basis of this research plus my own knowledge, I gave legal
advice to the company on the total situation facing it.
If the law had prohibited strikes and picketing for recognition
only after a Labor Board election and certification, the company
would have been in a position to resist the Amalgamated ultimatum.
Unfortimately that was not the law in 1952 and it is not the law
today.
Over the years I have been called upon to advise other clients
faced with strikes and picketing by uncertified unions seeking recog-
nition. Consistently, I have had to advise these clients that there
was no legal remedy available to solve their problems.
There is no question in my mind that, on the facts and the law as
I laiew them at the time, my advice to the Great Atlantic & Pacific
Tea Co. was sound, responsible and proper.
As to the legal issues involved in that advice, we have prepared a
memorandum which I shall not take the committee's time to read but
which I have appended to this statement for inclusion with your per-
mission in the record of your inquiry.
On these or any other questions within my competence, I am at the
service of this committee.
Mr. Chairman, if you will permit just one short statement on the
basis of the testimony adduced in this record, I tell you under oath
that I knew nothing about and never participated in in any manner,
shape or form, in the private agreement which was made after the
October 11 agreement with respect to the 45-hour week being con-
tinued for an additional 33 months.
I am ready to answer all questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
This legal document, the Chair will make an exhibit. I do not think
we will need to print it in the record, but it may be made exhibit No.
10, for reference.
(Document referred to was marked exhibit 10, for reference and
may be found in the files of the select committee. )
The Chairman. Just for my own information, on page 5 of your
statement you refer there and say —
Although an appeal had been taken to Washington, it had remained dormant
for over 5 months.
The fact that in December 1952, almost a year after the election, the Board
expressly reversed its own well-estaWished rule, only adds wisdom to hindsight.
What action of the Board was it that reversed its previously well-
established rule ?
Mr. ZoRN. I can explain that very quickly, sir.
The Chairman. I did not quite understand that.
Mr. ZoRN. When the regional director in March of 1952 dismissed
the objections of local 1500, he did it on the basis that a company letter
which had been sent out 3 weeks before the election, and which, in
effect, notified all the employees that by reason of competitive condi-
tions and in accordance with its established policy the company was
going to grant a $3 increase to all employees in the eastern division,
some 13,000, and explained to the employees in the Brooklyn unit that
by reason of the pendency of the election, legally they were not free to
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 11447
irive the increase to those employees at that time. The Denton Gar-
ment case, which is set forth in my brief memorandum, Mr. Chairman,
was an established rule of the Board which provided that where a
union proceeded with an election with knowledge of facts on which
the}' could subsequently claim a basis for an objection, they, in fact,
waived any right to object thereafter. That was a thoroughly estab-
lished rule of the Board at that time.
That is what Mr. Douds, the regional director, relied upon when he
dismissed tlie objections of local 1500, based upon this letter. This
letter, incidentally, the type of letter Avhich was issued there, has
actually been supported by the courts as a proper and complete exer-
cise of free speech. But in December of 1052, when this appeal was
sitting for all these months, the Board here in Washington decided
that it was going to expressly reverse its whole policy, and held that
it would no longer apply the waiver or the estoppel rule. This was
at least 3 months after the Butchers contract had been entered into.
The Chairman. Did that have the effect of certifying local 1500
as the bargaining agent ?
Mr. ZoRN. No, sir; because on the testimony in the record, local
1500 had been overwhelmingly defeated in the January election. I
don't have the figures, but they were very badly beaten. The only
effect of the Board's decision was to say that another election should
be run. As a matter of fact, another election was run, which local
1500 subsequently won after the contract with the Butchers was
signed.
The CiiAiR]MAX. The effect, then, was just to reverse the case and
have it tried over, so to speak ?
Mr. ZoRx. Well, I think one of the Supreme Court Justices recently
said "A Supreme Court decision is like a railroad ticket. It is only
good for one trip." That apparently is what happened here.
The Chairman. That is what I had in mind. The effect was to
declare the other election void and order a new election.
Mr. Zorx. If you are at all interested in the legal aspects of that
The Chairman. No ; I don't believe so. But in doing that, they had
overruled their previous precedents ?
Mr. ZoRN. Expressly so, sir. Expressly so.
Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman ?
The Chairman. Senator Curtis.
Senator Curtis. On that point, did the Denton Garment case hold
in effect that if an employer sent a communication pending an elec-
tion, that was objectionable, that the remedy for the union was to
call off the election ?
Mr. ZoRN. That the remedy of the union, sir, was either to call
off the election or withdraw it and file an unfair-labor practice charge,
or to proceed with the election and waive any basis for objection.
Senator Curtis. And to proceed with the election was estoppel to
claiming that the communication prejudiced their election?
Mr. ZoRN. That any action of an employer which could be used as
a basis of an objection to the election was waived, or the union was
estopped from raising it ; that was it, sir.
Senator Curtis. There is one other point in that election that I am
not familiar with, because this type of law practice is entirely foreign
to me.
11448 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
How lon<T does it take to prosecute an appeal ordinarily in a case
of this kind?
Mr. ZoRN. At that particular period, sir — I am just relying- on my
memory — this was an unusually long dela3\ The action of the Board
depends on its caseload at a particular time. As I recall it back in
1952, the Board normally never waited as long as it did in this case.
I don't know the reasons for it, but it may have been staff problems
and so forth.
Senator Curtis. Based on your years of experience, you are con-
vinced that it was an unusually long time ?
Mr. ZoRx. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. On what basis did you regard that when you ad-
vised your clients ?
Mr. ZoRN. On two bases, sir. I believed that this was a completely
frivolous appeal. First, on the basis of the Denton case, which was
established Board policy and affirmed by the Board in other cases —
it was known as the Denton doctrine but affirmed in a series of cases —
the union was waived or estopped. Secondly, in June of 1952, the
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sir, took a letter, almost
identical with the kind of letter which the A, & P. wrote in this case,
and held that that type of letter was a complete and proj^er exercise
of the right of free speech. So on either ground I regarded the appeal
as a frivolous appeal.
Senator Curtis. You say the Denton doctrine was upheld in a series
of decisions. "Were there any decisions that had thrown an}' doubt
on the Denton doctrine prior to that time or that had construed it
to mean something other than
Mr. ZoRN. No, sir, that rule was absolutely clear until this com-
pletely unexpected reversal of basic Board policy came in the A. & P.
case in December of 1952.
Senator Curtis. It is somewhat the position of the young lawyer
where the legislature repealed his legal knowledge.
Mr. ZoRX. "Well, we run into that in the practice of law, sir. I guess
you know.
Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Zorn, the legality or morality of your whole
argument is based on the fact that there was in fact a legal or genuine
strike threat at that time. Starting with this memorandum of August
25, and the testimony that we had before the committee, it indicates
quite to the contrary. In the first place, let's go back to this question
of the signing of the contract originally, and the Midwestern Piping
case, when you advised your client that they could go ahead and sign
the contract, you were ignoring the legal decisions that existed at that
time. There was an appeal going on to the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, by 1500. You say it was frivolous, but based on the legal
decisions at the time, you had no right at that time to go ahead and
advise your client to sign the contract. As it turned out, it was not
frivolous, because the National Labor Relations Board upheld the ap-
peal. That is No. 1. No. 2, according to your own testimony, it took
4 or 5 months already that had passed. If it was such an academic
question, certainly the National Labor Relations Board could have
given an answer right away. But already there was a delay of 4 or
5 months.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11449
It must liave given you some indication tliat tliey were giving this
a serious thought, and might sustain the appeal, which, after all, they
(lid do.
Mr. ZoRN. Mr. Kennedy, you have a lot of questions rolled in there.
I will do my level best to answer all of it as I can remember it.
Mr. Kexnedy. That is all right. I will come back to each of them.
Mr. ZoRN. Since you have asked the question in that form, I would
like, if you don't mind, to talk first about the Midwest Piping doctrine
which some witnesses have testified to in this case.
The CiiAiRMAx. Midwest what?
Mr. ZoRN. Midwest Piping doctrine. If you have not already done
so, if you will look at the memorandum we have already submitted,
sir, you will lind that the Midwest Piping doctrine applied, and the
lases decided after that applied, to a case where there was a live,
;ictive, competitive rival organizing campaign with actual petitions
on file for elections before the Labor Board. When you ask me, Mr.
Kennedy, why I did not regard that as being a cause for thought,
in my own mind then and now I saw a vital and a vast distinction be-
tween a situation in which the union had been overwhelmingly de-
feated in an earlier election, where under controlling Board prece-
dent at that time there was no legal basis for the appeal, and a situa-
tion such as ^Midwest Pipe, in which there were active, live, represen-
tation petitions pending before the Board for an election, when the
company signed a contract with one union as against the other.
Mr. Kexxedy. I will just point out two things on that. Xo. 1, the
Board held that it was not a frivolous appeal. They sustained the
appeal. No. 2, when it came to an election, you say they were soundly
defeated, but when it came to a legitimate election, after the Board
sustained the union, the local 1500 won the election overwhelmingly.
This was within 2 or 3 months of the time you had advised this
client to go ahead, that they could sign the contract. On this other
point
]\Ir. ZoRx. Would you like an answer to that, sir ?
Mr, Kennedy. I think you have given your answer, and I have
given Avhat the answer to that is.
Mr. ZoRN. Well, you are committee counsel, Mr. Kennedy; go right
ahead, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. This memorandum of August 25, 1952, says nothing
of a serious strike threat, at least at that time. All this memorandum
does is to recite facts and try to figure out a way in Avliich the com-
pany can go ahead and sign a contract with the Meat Cutters, with-
out having any action by the CIO local in upsetting the contract and
without liaving the National Labor Relations Board take any action.
That is the point of tliis memorandum. That is in August of 1952.
It does not recite anything in here about the union threatening them
with a serious strike.
I say, Mr. Zorn, that it would appear that you are building up a
Strawman of a serious strike and then going ahead and saying, "Well,
■we could not do anything else. We had to sign the contract." In
fact, based on the testimony that we have had, there was a good deal
of argument in favor of the company, from their own personal posi-
tion, to go ahead and sign this contract. I think that is borne out
by this memorandum of August 25, 1952.
11450 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman. Has that been made an exhibit?
Mr. Kennedy. No, it has not.
Mr. ZoEN. Mr. Kennedy, I know you want to be fair. You have
thrown a lot of questions into one. I have told your investigators
the complete detail as best I could recall it, of how this whole situa-
tion evolved and how it developed. As Mr. Ratcliffe testified yester-
day, from a little wind to a very strong wind.
NoAV, this memorandum, and I want to make this very clear because
it has been used in this testimony before, and sitting in your position,
Mr. Kennedy, I would probably interpret this memorandum the way
you have interpreted it, without a precise knowledge of the back-
ground facts. But in order to understand this memorandum, let me
say this to you : The opening paragraph in this memorandum is not
a statement of actual existing fact at the time it was written.
Nor is it a statement, sir, of any intention on the part of anybody.
This is something which is done in every law office every day of the
week, in which a client comes in, tells you certain facts, and then, as
a lawyer doing a job, you attempt to project those facts into what
might develop in the situation, and you prepare legal advice on that
basis. If you want, sir, I will tell you in detail exactly what I was
informed prior to the time this memorandum was written, and I will
tell you in detail, sir, exactly what I learned after the memorandum
was written. I realize I am testifying under oath and as an officer of
the court.
Mr. Kennedy. It would seem to me that a memorandum written at
the time was the best possible evidence as to what occurred. It does
not say anything in there that the Meat Cutters have come to the
company and have said, "We are gomg to strike unless you sign a
contract with us."
This is a memorandum which sets forth some facts dealing with
what we can do if we go ahead. Then it sets forth a question as to
whether a 5-year contract would be a legal contract.
Why, if they wanted to avoid a contract with this union, would you
be making a study to find out if a 5-year contract with this union
was proper ?
Mr. ZoRN. If you would permit me, sir, and I know you want to be
fair, I will tell you, and I will tell you what the facts were.
Mr. Kennedy. I thought you had been making quite a few state-
ments here, and I thought we should get the whole thing in perspective.
Mr. ZoRN. I will be very happy, Mr. Chairman, to give you the
whole story on this, under oath.
The Chairman. The Chair wants to get this memorandum into the
record. I will ask you to examine it and identify it.
(The document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. Zorn. This is an intraoffice memorandum of my law firm, pre-
pared by one of my younger associates, Mr. Lester Block, to me, as
an intraoffice memorandum, and I so identify it, dated August 25,
1952.
The Chairman. It may be made exhibit No. 11, for reference only.
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 11" for
reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.)
The Chairman. Now we will know what we are referring to when
you are interrogated about it. Do you have some statement you wish
to make?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11451
Mr. ZoKN. I would like to present the facts, if I may, sir, as I stated,
and I repeat, this is a summary statement made by an associate of
mine with respect to a conversation I had with him on the basis of
which he proceeded to research some questions.
The CiiAiRMAX. That was the statement made at the time? Were
those notes you are testifying from made at the time, or are they from
recollection since ?
Mr. ZoRN. The actual memorandum, of course, you have now^ marked
in evidence. The first paragraph, sir, of that memorandum, reflects
my young associate's understanding of a problem which I presented
to him, and I think it would be fair if you would permit me to give
the basis of the information I had at the time, what I knew at the
time.
The Chairmax. As I understand you, in this memorandum the first
paragraph is the miderstanding that Mr. Block had from you of what
the facts were; is that correct?
Mr. ZoRN. Not of what the facts were, sir. That is exactly the
point I am making. Of Avliat the facts were, plus how I thought this
situation would develop. We do that in a law ofSce every day in the
week, projecting the facts in a potential situation.
The Chairman. Now I think I get it. Based on the factual infor-
mation your client had given you with respect to its relations and
negotiations with this union, and what you anticipated, as a lawyer,
might develop or evolve from the issue between the union and the
company, your client, you gave that state of facts to your associate,
upon which he made the research and submitted^ to you this
memorandum ? ?
Mr. ZoRx. That is correct, sir.
The Chairmax. If you want to state what it was at that time, and
the information that you gave him, and how it developed, that is all
right.
Mr. ZoRx. As I already told your staff people, Mr. Ratcliffe came to
me within a day, 2 or 3 or prior to the time I had this conversation
with my associate, Mr. Block, and in essence, Ratcliffe told me the
following. I think as he testified yesterday he may have approached
me about this earlier. I didn't recall that until he brought that to
my attention, on the validity of the card count. But just prior to
August 20, Mr. Ratcliffe said to me that he had been having a series of
negotiations, in which I never participated, with the Meat Cutters,
with respect to the Meat Cutters' contract ; that Mr. Max Block of
the ]\Ieat Cutters had informed him some months prior to that that he,
the butchers, were going to organize the clerks, because the other
unions were out of the picture and had been defeated in elections.
He told me further that Block took the position with him that know-
ing the practices of the company in the past, with respect to what they
claimed were antiunion activities or hostility to unions, that Block
would not sit still for any propaganda campaign, nor Avould he sit
still and wait until March of 1953 for an overall election under the
Board's rules. Ratcliffe told me then that Block had made it clear
to him— he didn't say that at that point there was a real threat of
strike. As I recall it, as he put it to me, there was a sort of veiled
threat or an intimation of a strike, when the butchers' contract expired
m October.
11452 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
It was then Mr. Ratcliffe said to me "This is a matter that our
top management is taking seriously. They want no part of any union
for the clerks, but they want to be prepared with legal advice in case
this situation develops."
Ratclifl'e said to me at that time that "If we ever get hooked or
forced into a situation of this kind, I would like to make the best
deal I can for the company, and what I would like to do is try to
get myself a 5-year contract with a 45-hour week for both the butchers
and the clerks."
He was then negotiating the butchers' contract. Both at that time
and I think at one prior time I told him that in my legal judgment if
the company ever agreed to a card count, that that, in my opinion,
would be legal.
The Chairman. Agreed to what ?
Mr. ZoRN. A card count instead of a Labor Board election, which the
union was rejecting. And then, Mr. Chairman, there were subsequent
discussions and I participated as a lawyer in 2 or 3 further discussions
with the union, with Mr. Ratcliffe. If you would like me to tell you
about those, I will be glad to, or if Mr. Kennedy wants to inquire
about those I will be glad to answer the questions.
The Chairman. What your client was actually doing was in the
process of negotiating a contract with the Meat Cutters, with whom
they already had a contract and who were already organized.
Mr. Zorn. That is correct, sir.
The Chairman. That was a renewal contract, or a new contract to
take effect at the expiration of the old one.
Then the question arose in the course of their negotiations, where
either they wanted to include the clerks or the question arose whether
they could legally make a contract, with the clerks.
Mr. ZoRN. That is correct, sir.
The Chairman. That is, in the event they got a majority of the
signers, according to the card count; that is correct?
Mr. ZoRN. That is right.
The Chairman. What was the urgency? Here is the thing that I
cannot understand : What was the urgency about getting a card count
that caused the company to assist in getting the card count, to assist in
getting its own employees to sign up ?
(At this point, Senator Church entered the hearing room.)
The Chairman. We have testimony to that effect, and it is pretty
convincing testimony. There was something that motivated the com-
pany at the time to get out there and help get these clerks into this
Meat Cutters ITnion.
Mr. ZoRN. ]\Iay I answer that, sir ?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. ZoRN. So far as I was concerned, I made it abundantly clear
that in this card count — and Block had been, as I understood it, ask-
ing not for active assistance during this period but for a position of
neutrality on the part of the company and no opposition — I made
it abundantly clear to the company that if they ever agreed to a card
count, and if there \vere, in fact, coercion, they would not have a valid
agreement. "WHiat happened subsequent to that, some portions of that
are in the record, and I did not know, sir, until Labor Board charges
were filed, probably in the early part of 1953, as I recall it, and we
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11453
had certain investigations made, that some managers were alleged
to have given assistance to the Butchers in the signing of the cards.
But that I had absolutely no knowledge of prior to the execution of
this contract, and it was contrary to my advice.
The Chairman. Here is another thing in that connection. Block
was claiming he already had a majority, and it was upon that premise
that he was insisting that they negotiate a contract with the clerks.
Mr. ZoRN. Correct, sir.
The Chairman. He was taking the position that he already had a
majority.
Mr. ZoRN. Yes.
The Chairman. Well, he had to take that position in order to sup-
port his demand for a contract.
Mr. ZoRN. Of course, but we thought he was moving at certain stages
of this, sir.
The Chairman. Obviously he was, and obviously, from the testi-
mony here, the company knew it, and then they capitulated and went
out there, hurriedly, in 3 or 4 days, and helped him get enough cards
to make the majority. That is the way it looks on the face of it.
Mr. ZoRN. I think the record is clear at this point, that there was
some assistance, no question about it, on the part of the managers. The
extent of that I don't think has ever been fully ascertained. All I
am suggesting to you is that if that were done, it was not done on
the basis of top management policy because all through this situa-
tion, Mr. Chairman, I knew the attitude of top management in the
eastern division was that they would have been a lot happier without
the clerks under agreement that they would have been with the clerks
"unionized.
The Chairman. That is is. That is what is so convincing about
it.
Heretofore the company had had rigid, firm policy of resistance.
Here in the twinkle of an eye, almost, they change their policy and their
managers go out and help get these cards before the 4th of October,
so that they can make a contract.
Mr. ZoRN. I think, Mr. Chairman, the real question before your
committee is whether or not there was a strike threat, and whether
the top management of the comj^any genuinely believed there Avas a
strike threat. I personally participated in a couple of meetings in
September and in October. When I was asked by tlie company
w^hether Max Block meant business at that time, whicli was consid-
erably after August 20, I was frank to say that I thought that he did
mean business, and that he was not bluffing on a strike threat.
There is a difference between that, sir, and what the company people
thought on the basis of their surveys, as to whether he had actually
signed up a majority. But on the strike threat I was convinced bv
October that that was serious.
The Chairman. What I cannot understand is that he was going to
call the strike on the basis of the fact they had refused to ne«y)tiate
■with him, notwithstanding he had a majority of the employees ^-igned
up for his union. If he didn't have, he would be in an untenable
position to call a strike. It was easy to determine, just to have a card
count on the basis of his representation, to say "All right, let's count
your cards."
11454 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
(At this point, Senator Curtis withdrew from the hearing room.)
Mr. ZoRN. May I cLarify that?
The Chairman. Instead of doing it, they enter into obviously, or
apparently so, enter into an agreement with him and say "all right,
we wouldn't resist, we will help you get the cards, so we will be sure
you do have a majority, and, therefore, we will be safe in entering
into a contract with you."
Mr. ZoRN. May I clarify that? I think there is some confusion in
the record on that. The Butchers' contract for the meat department
employees was due to expire, as I recall it, on October 4. The threat
was, as it developed and became greater as time went along, "If you
don't go along with the card count and recognize us for the clerks,
and we claim we have a majority, we are going to strike the butchers."
The union had a perfect right to refuse to renew the contract and
strike the butchers. That was primarily the problem the company
was facing, if it actually in fact believed that he was serious about a
butchers' strike in order to get the clerks.
(At this point, Senator Goldwater entered the hearing room.)
The Chairman. But I still think they could threaten to call a strike,
so far as the butchers were concerned, but I cannot understand why
the company could get so exercised in helping and assisting them to
get the cards, the required number of cards, to make a majority of the
employees.
You say top management didn't.
Mr. ZoRN. That is correct.
The Chairman. That is a matter of opinion, maybe, and you may
be correct. But certainly they must have condoned what went on,
because it is so obvious it is bound to be known. They Avere even setting-
aside a space for the representative of the union in the place of busi-
ness and going around and selecting employees and sending them over
there to talk to union men on company time. That just doesn't ring
true to a company that is actually resisting.
Mr. ZoRN. Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, that your reference to
setting space aside is based on certain evidence as to what occurred
in New Jersey, which came after the New York situation, and which
was not involved in the strike threat. The evidence does show, at least
the evidence I have listened to during the course of these hearings,
that certain managers had coerced. I would like to say one thing in
answer to your question. I will try to respond to all of these questions
as frankly as I can. The company, on my advice in 1947, had refused
a closed shop demand for its butchers' union in its Los Angeles stores,
as a result of which they had a 5-month strike.
We filed charges at the Labor Board. We had long hearings before
the Labor Board. It took 4 months to get the Labor Board to apply
for an injunction, and these stores were out for a period of 5 months.
Finally, as a result of that scrapj the men went back to work witliout
the illegal contract. In 1945, sir, and I was in these situations, in
the Newark unit of the stores, tlie Teamsters had put an organizing
picket line around the Newark warehouse and Newark stores and we
took a 7-week strike and rejected a demand by the Teamsters for rec-
ognition. The company was gunsliy of strikes, and they, the top man-
agement, ultimately believed in this situation. There were other con-
siderations, and I am frank to admit that. But the compelling con-
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 11455
sideration, wliich in my judgment motivated the agreement for the
card count, and I am not defending the coercion at all, was a genuine
belief that the Butchers would walk out of the stores on the expiration
of the butchers' contract if something weren't done.
The Chairmak. Let me ask one question. This is not the testimony
I am seeking, but taking your approach to this as being correct, would
you regard that kind of pressure that was applied, on the basis of
your theory, the threat to strike, claiming to have a card count, but
not having at the time, and threatening not to sign up or to negotiate
the other contract, would you regard that as an unfair labor practice ?
Mr. ZoRX. Clearly not, under the existing law then and now. That
would still be legal in my judgment today, and I can give you citation
after citation for that.
The Chairman. I am asking for information. Do you think it
should be decelared by law to be an improper labor practice ?
Mr. ZoRx. Mr. Chairman, for 15 years, in various capacities, I have
done my level best to try to persuade this Congress, and to try to
persuade the New York State Legislature, to adopt a law which would
make it illegal to strike or picket in the absence of a secret-ballot elec-
tion and a labor board certification, and thus far I have gotten nowhere.
The Chairman. I did not base my actions on your viewpoint, but
I did introduce a bill which has a provision in it which might tend
to correct it, from my viewpoint. I am thinking in terms of the
employees. I doubt seriously that the employees at the time this
contract was made for them, I doubt that the clerk employees would
have selected the Butchers' Union as its bargaining representative,
if they had had a free choice. I have serious doubts that they would
have. I can't laiow, but I have serious doubts, and I think this sort
of a practice, this kind of pressure is calculated, often, to deny the free
expression of the men, the employees themselves, as to the represen-
tation they want.
Mr. Zorn. Mr. Chairman, I couldn't agree with you more, per-
sonally and on the record that I have heard. I do not think that
the companies should be put in the position of being helpless against
this kind of threat.
People who haven't lived in labor relations law may take one view
of it. I have had any number of situations where even without a
contract, employers have been forced to deal with a miion under
threat of strike or destruction of their business, and I can implement
that when you want me to.
The Chairman. I think a company ought to be prohibited and there
ought to be some way to protect the men from company collusion
that delivers them into a union without their consent.
This thing here, the way it was handled, on the face of it, looks
to me like the company and the union made some kind of a deal, and
the company went out and helped deliver these men into the Butchei's'
Union against what I believe were their wishes at the time. Then
we go further and they make a secret contract of some kind that these
emplovees never heard of, either from the union or from the com-
pany that affected their rights and affected their liability for a period
of 5 years. Those kinds of secret deals between management and
union leaders just ought not to occur. They ought to be prohibited.
21243— 58— pt. 29 18
11456 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
It is an outrage. It is a disgrace, to use a workingman as a pawn
for the financial, mutual advantage of labor leaders, either to increase
their power or for personal gain, and for profit on the part of the
employer.
It looks to me like we have that situation here where these people
did not know what their contract was, they were never told the secret
agreement was made. They were placed under a contract for 5 years,
and in a union that I doubt they would have selected if they had had
a free choice.
Mr. ZoRN. Senator, just one statement, and I will be very brief.
At that time, and even today, the law did not protect the employer
against that kind of a strike threat or strike, nor did the law protect
the employees against the kind of things you have been talking about.
I think that is an area of great importance that something should
be done about.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Zorn, you participated actively, and if you
thought it was so reprehensible as it appears you are now taking as
your position, as far as the union is concerned, you certainly could
have taken some steps at that time to prevent it. You were an active
participant in it. Certainly it was upon your advice, was it not, Mr.
Zoni, that the card count was kept secret ?
(At this point. Senator McClellan left the hearing room.)
Mr. ZoRN. No, sir.
]\rr. Kennedy. Did you have any role in that ?
Mr. ZoRN. The only role I made in that, Mr. Kennedy, was that
I was given the information. As a matter of fact, if you check back
with your staff I told them that when I was first pulled into this pic-
ture for any direct discussion with the union and its attorney, and
I came
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Zorn, if you will be able to keep your answers
down, we will be able to keep the questions down.
Mr. ZoRN. All right, fair enough. The answer is that as I under-
stood the situation the union would have no part either of a Labor
Board election, would have no part of a suggestion I made with
respect to another type of election, and they insisted on keeping this
thing quiet, and if we didn't keep it quiet, 1 understood the situation
to be that we were going to be in trouble. That is what I was told.
Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you advise them at that time that if they
wanted to have a legal contract, or a contract which would not be
subject to action by the CIO union or by the NLRB, that they would
have to keep the card count secret?
Mr. Zorn. No, sir, I did not. What I said was, and the memo-
randum makes it veiy clear, the internal memorandum to which you
are referring makes it very clear, that my advice was, which I re-
peated— the company never got a copy of this memo — my advice was
that if i)rior to the time the recognition was established by a card
count and a contract was signed, if auotlier union, and I was not
thinking of the CIO or AFL, if another union started another peti-
tion and started an active campaign, any contract that the company
signed would be in jeopardy.
Mr. Kennedy. Therefore, they would have to keep it secret or the
CIO union could come in and throw it out. It was in jeopardy.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11457
Therefore, it was bused on this meinorMiicluni with your recommenda-
tion that there be a secret card count and the contract be signed in
secret. You also pointed out that if it was known to the other unions
that the contract was being signed, they coukl tile a petition and the
Xational Labor Eelations Board could throw that out.
Mr, ZoRN. The secrecy was not the result, Mr. Kennedy, of my
advice. I will go over that memorandum in detail, if yon permit me
to answer that. The secrecy, if you call it that, was based upon the
fact that the Butchers Union had made it very clear that they were
conducting this card signing campaign, and if any notorietj' was
given by the company in any manner to that, the company would
be in trouble. That is what I was told.
Mr. Kennedy. That is what you found out yourself. Your law
tirm made a study and found out that if any notoriety, any public
knowledge was made of this, then the company would be in trouble.
On that the only alternative was to make it secret. That is back
on August 25.
Mr. ZoRN. Mr. Kennedy, the question I Avas addressing myself to,
or that I asked my associate to research, w^as the effect of a petition
filed by another union, a live petition filed by another union, and we
were projecting, as I clearly stated before, prior to the time. The
secrecy or the failure of the company to make announcement to its
employees, I understood throughout. That was not based on my
advice, and I am testifying under oath and I know it. That was not
based on my advice. That was based upon a state of facts where
the company believed that if this thing were given notoriety, and the
other unions moved in, they would still face a strike, and there was
no legal defense or no legal remedy available to it.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Zorn, would you answer the question as to
whether you made a study, initially, and this is back on August 25,
1952, as to what would be the legal results if the CIO was able to file
a petition while this organizing drive of the A. F. of L. was going on^
(At this point. Senator McClellan entered the hearing room.)
Mr. ZoRN. The answer is "Yes."
Mr. Kennedy. As an answer to that, you found out that the A. F.
of L. union could be in difficulty, the company could be in difficulty,
and the National Labor Relations Board could move in, isn't that
right ?
Mr. ZoRN. That it would jeopardize any contract which they
signed, that is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. The second alternative w^iich you studied in this
memorandum was if a petition was signed after the company rec-
ognized the union? Isn't that the second alternative that you
studied ?
Mv. Zorn. There were three, Mr. Kennedy. That was one, that
is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And you also found that the National Labor Rela-
tions Board could move in successfully on that contract?
Mr. Zorn. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. The third alternati^'e that you studied was if the
contract was signed prior to the petition of the CIO being filed, if a
contract was signed immediately after the card count, the card count
not being known, and the contract signed immediately, and a petition
11458 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD
being filed then by the CIO, that was the third alternative that yoii
studied ; isn't that right ?
Mr. ZoRX. Well, the net effect of all those alternatives
Mr. Kennedy. Just give me an answer to the question. Isn't that
the third alternative that you studied ?
Mr.ZoRN. That if
Mr. Kennedy. I will read it to you. The CIO would file a peti-
tion after the company had already recognized and entered into a
complete collective bargaining contract with the A. F. of L. That
is No. 3.
Mr. ZoRN. In other words, if the contract had been consummated
prior to the filing of a petition, the contract in my judgment then
would have been legal. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. All right. So, therefore, the result of that was —
that is exactly what the company did. The first two alternatives
would have thrown the contract out. The third alternative could be
successful, it could be a successful contract, and that is Avhy the card
count was kept secret and that is wliy the contract was kept secret,
so that you could move in and sign this contract.
Mr. ZoRN. But, Mr. Kennedy, that was not decided by top manage-
ment until October. It was not decided in August, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You were 3 montlis ahead of them, Mr. Zorn, be-
cause you were giving them these recommendations back in August
of 1952, 2 or 3 months before. Everything that you suggested came
true.
Mr. ZoRN. That isn't quite so. Everythin<r I suggested did not
come true, because so far as I am concerned this memorandum refers
to Eatcliffe's suggestion to me that he might, if forced to the wall,
get a 5-year contract with yearly wage reopening provisions; that
never happened. Secondly, to the best of my knowledge, when it
came to a showdown on October 11, 1952, and I made it clear I knew
nothing about any subsequent private agreement when it came to
October 11, 1952, the company had a 22-month contract and not a
5-year contract.
Mr. Kennedy. Then you make a study in here also, Mr. Zorn.
about the right to sign a 5-year contract. If the company was under
the threat of a strike, why would they be so anxious to have a study
made of signing a 5-3^ear contract? Why would they even be inter-
ested in a 5-year contract? I would think that a 2-year contract
would be all that they would want.
Mr. ZoRN. Mr. Kennedy, in labor relations it is always advanta-
geous to the company to get a longer term contract than short term,
and that is what French Eatcliffe told me, that if forced to the wall,
they would try to get, and to my knowledge they did not get it.
Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you find out here in your study that you
made, that a 5-year contract would not be a bar to a petition by an-
other union?
Mr. ZoRN. That is correct. That is what happened. There Avas
another election.
Mr. Kennedy. Isn't that why a 2-year contract was signed with
the secret agreement on the side, because a 5-year contract would not
have been a bar ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 11459
Mr. ZoKN. iSIr. Kennedy, let me say agcain, and let nie say again as
seriously and under oath as I can say it, with full realization of the
nature of my testimony here
Mr. Kennedy. You said that a number of times.
Mr. ZoRN. I appreciate that very seriously.
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. ZoRN. That so far as I laiew at any stage of this whole situa-
tion, the H-year proposal was what I would call a hope on the part of
Mr. Ratcliffe, which we studied, which was never consummated, and,
to my knowledge, all that we ever got was a 22-month contract.
JNIr. Kennedy. That doesn't answer the question. The reason that
the contract was signed for 2 years was based, again, on your study
that a 5-year contract would not have been a bar to another union.
Mr. ZoRN. That is definitely not so. I will tell you exactly what
happened there. We were pressing to the very last moment, and I
will explain it, if you give me the opportunity. I will explain it.
What I said was that a 5-year contract would not be a bar to a sub-
sequent petition or Labor Board election after 2 years, but if tlie com-
pany had been successful in getting a 5-year contract, and if the
Butchers had won a subsequent election, the Butchers would legally
have been bound to that 5-year contract if it were a contract openly
arrived at.
There is a vast distinction between the two,
Mr. Kennedy. Why did you also go into some detail in this memo-
randum of the company's assisting the union in signing up the em-
ployees ?
Why, back in August of 1952, were you considering that point?
]Mr. ZoRN. Mr. Block, Lester Block, was making a research of the
problem. He was on his own. One of the considerations in connec-
tion with all of the possibilities that might develop here was a definite
caution that in the event there was active company aid or assistance
the contract would be illegal, and I have so stated here. That is what
I advised the client.
Mr. Kennedy. You were studying that back in August of 1952,
and you say that you are surprised, before the committee, to find out
that that occurred. But you are studying it back in August of 1952.
It seems to me more than a coincidence that you devote 2 or 3 pages
as to what the legal ramifications of the company assisting the union
in signing up the employees are, and then combing before the conmiit-
tee and saying this is all a shock to you.
Mr. ZoRN. JNIr. Kennedy, I don't know whether you understand
what a lawyer's role is in a situation of this kind in this sense. We
canvass the possibilities.
Mr. Kennedy. If this is it, I am learning something.
Mr. ZoRN. If you are suggesting, sir, if you are suggesting, that I
or my office advised this company to go out and coerce employees, I
tell you flatly that that is not the fact.
Mr. Kennedy. No; you told them there that they would get in
difficulty if they did. All I say is that you knew all along that this
matter was coming to fruition, and knew what the facts were, and
knew and advised the company into what has been developed, here
before the committee. That was your role.
Mr. ZoRN. Those are your assumptions, Mr. Kennedy.
11460 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kenxedy. I am basing tlieni on a memorandum that was writ-
ten in Auoust of 1952.
Mr. ZoRX. Tliat memorandum, as I explained very clearly, was
based upon the projection of a possibility of a situation which was
undetermined. I think the testimony here is, and you w^ill get more
testimony, that the policy decision was made not by Mr. Ratclifte,
not by Mr, Schimmat, not by myself, but was made by the two top
officers of the company, who, until early October, had taken a definite
position that they would not go along with any arrangement with
the Meat Cutters.
Mr. Kexxedy. You talked to me about the fact that perhaps I
don't know the role of an attorney in matters such as this. Let me
read this to you and see if this possibly would be of help to me, on
page 12.
Sir. May, would you read that ?
Mr. JMay. It is as follows :
This memorandum will not discuss any unfair labor practice aspects of the
possible activity under consideration since at least a 2-year period would be in-
volved in processing the unfair labor practice charge before a final consideration
was reached.
This length of time makes the consideration of that problem academic since
the maximum period of a contract as a bar is 2 years, as has been pointed out
above. It should be noted, however, that acti^"ely assisting one of rival uuion.s^
or entering into a collective bargaining —
it says union —
while a proceeding is ijending before a labor board constitutes Illegal inter-
ference under the act.
Mr. Kenxedy. That first part of the paragraph, is that your atti-
tude toward the laws of the United States and the National Labor
Relations Board, the fact that it is going to take 2 years to process
a grievance against the company, with that you can go ahead and
commit unfair labor practices?
Mr. ZoRX. Mv. Kennedy, it is definitely not my idea, and I have
never, in my whole experience, advised any client to connnit any
unfair labor practices. This statement by lister Block I consider
an unfortunate statement in the sense that I did not ask him for that,
because I knew perfectly well how long it would take, and the only
reason I can think of why he put it in here Avas that in any litigation
a client invariably asks "Well, now, if we are wrong about the thing,
how long is it going to take for a board to make a determination f'
But I personally, Mr. Kennedy, did not advise the Tea Co. nor
have I ever advised any client to commit any unfair practice or il-
legal act.
Mr. Kexnedy. This attorney in your office evidently reached these
conclusions or made this research based on the facts that you gave
him, and this is the memorandum. It is your document. Then :
It should be noted, however, that actively assisting one of rival unions or en-
tering into a collective bargaining —
I guess it is contract —
While a proceeding is pending before a labor board constitutes illegal inter-
ference under the act.
Mr. ZoRN. That is correct. It would.
Mr. Kennedy. That is exactly what the A. & P. did.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 11461
Mr. ZoRX. If it were done, Mr. Kennedy, it was certainly done
( ontrary to my advice because if tliis coni[)any wanted to make an
arrangements with the Butchers under a tlireat of strike and a card
count of the kind that has been developed here, 1 certainly as a lawyer
would never have advised them to do it in such a way that it would
bo subsequently upset, and 1 advised them very clearly of the dangers.
That is one reason a statement like this is in this memorandum, the
dangers of the coercion or active assistance of the Butchers.
;^Ir. Kennedy. It states here also on page 12 :
It should also be noted that any apparent submission by the company to
economic pressure, such as signing a contract with the A. F. of L. upon the basis
of a strike threat might pervade dangerously A. & P.'s relations to other unions,
such as the Teamsters.
Mr. ZoRx, If you want an explanation of that, I think I can give
it to you, ]\Ir. Kennedy. "What was in Lester Block's mind at the
time was that if the company departed from its more or less tradi-
tional policy of insisting upon elections, and as I said before this was
a potential situation, then, in fact, once having done it for one union*
the company would then be required to do it for other unions, and he
was thinking particularly of the company's warehouses most of which
were unorganized at that time.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you finally advise the company that they could
enter into this contract if they were forced into it?
Mr. ZoRN. I have said that repeatedly ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. If thej" were forced into it; is that right?
Mr. ZoRN. If they decided to go into it; yes, sir. That was their
decision, not mine.
Mr. Kennedy. We have read into the record the letter of Septem-
ber 30, 1952, and then Mr. Ratcliffe forwarding that letter of Sep-
tember 3 from ]Mr. Cohen to you. and then j'our letter in response
of October 7, 1952. Are you familiar with that letter ?
Mr. Zorn. Yes, sir ; I am ; very familiar to it.
Mr. Kennedy. It is written to Arnold Cohen, Esq.
Dear Mr. Cohen :
I think this is an important letter —
We represent the above-named employer. We have been informed of your
letter dated September 30, 1952, wherein you have transmitted the demand of
your client, the Butchers' District Council of New York and New Jersey, to
negotiate ^-ith the employer as collective bargaining agent of its employees
in the grocery, dairy, and produce departments of its sui^ermarkets and service
stores in its Brooklyn, Garden City, and Bronx units. If your client represents
a majority of such emi)loyees as evidenced by certification of the National
Labor Relations Board, the employer, of course, will negotiate with it. Until
such time, we do not believe that any useful purpose will be served by any
conferences as suggested by you.
This letter was written, dated October 7, 1952. It was 1 day after
you had already set up the card count, at least 1 day, and the con-
ferences that you speak of in this letter that you do not want to par-
ticipate in, have been taking place for approximately 3 or 4 months.
What was the possible reason for you writing such a letter?
Mr. Zorn. I will be glad to tell you, Mr. Kennedy. I had had
a meeting with ]\Ir. Ratcliffe and the union's attorney, Mr. Arnold
Cohn, and Block, on September 19. As Mr. Eatcliffe indicated yes-
11462 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
terday, the union was getting to tlie point where tliey complained
that we were stalling, and they were going to take action.
At that meeting we had an emphatic statement that unless we got
a commitment and very quickly on the card count, there would be a
strike. Mr. Ratcliffe and I were instructed to stall at that point,
because top management still was not sure that Block was not
bluffing.
During that meeting, Mr. Arnold Cohen said :
We are going to get this thing moving, and moving in the proper shape, and
1 am going to send you fellows a formal demand for recognition.
That is what we call in this field the boilerplate type of letter, a
formal demand for recognition in writing. On October 7, 1 had this
information, I had tallied to French Ratcliffe on about October 1 or
2 after his receipt of Cohen's letter demanding formal recognition.
I had been told by Ratcliffe at that time that the company, on their
surveys, had some doubt as to whether or not the union had a
majority. I wrote this letter for two purposes.
I wall be glad to explain them. The first was that we had requested
from the beginning a Labor Board election and that had been flatly
rejected, and I wanted a written record on that.
My second motivation in writing this type of formal letter was
that at that particular point we were making a last-minute, desperate
effort to try to smoke the situation out and find out whether these
men were actually serious about a strike threat, because in this game
there is a lot of poker played and although we had every reason to
believe that the strike threat was serious this was a last, desperate
effort to smoke them out as to the seriousness of it, and I found it
out the next day with Cohen's telegram.
The Chairman. You found out what tlie next day ?
Mr. ZoRN. Found out they were darned serious when we got the
telegram the next day.
Mr. Kennedy. You had already set up the card count.
Mr. ZoRN. I had not, sir.
Mr. IvENNEDY. The company had set up the card count. It had
been set up the day before. It was written just for the record, was
it not?
Mr. ZoRN. I don't recall, Mr. Kennedy. If you can refresh my
recollection — I don't recall that the card count was set up, actually
set up, until October 8.
Mr. Kennedy. The card count was set up at least by October 6.
Wasn't this letter written just for the record in case a proceeding
took place at a later time ?
Mr. ZoRN. Mr. Kennedy, it was written for the two reasons that I
have just stated.
Mr. Kennedy. Was it written for the record? Can you answer
that question ?
Mr. ZoRN. Partially for the record and partially for another reason.
Mr. Kennedy. I know that when our investigators first came in to
interview you, and asked for your documents, tlie documents that we
received were the September 30 letter, tlie forwarding of tliat, the
communication from Ratcliffe to you, this letter of October 7 of yours,
and then this telegram of Arnold Cohen, which gives a person wlio is
I
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 11463
looking over the documents an entirely false picture as to what had
taken place.
Mr, ZoRN. Mr. Kennedy, I tliink we gave your people a lot more
tlian that. I have a record here of a stack of stutf that we sent to
them right from scratch.
Mr. Kennedy. Not initially.
Mr. ZoRN. I will be glad to show you what our records show as to
how much we submitted to your staff people when they first came in.
Tlie Chairman. Has this document been made a part of the record ?
INIr. Kennedy. No.
The Chairman. Mr. Zorn, you received in reply to that letter, did
Aou, a telegram from Arnold Cohen?
Mr. ZoRN. Yes, sir ; dated, as I recall it, October 8.
The Chairman. Is this a photostatic copy of the telegram you
received ?
(The document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. ZoRN. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. That telegram may be printed in the record at this
point.
Mr. Kennedy, Mr. May can read it in.
Mr. IVIay, The telegram is dated October 8, 1952.
Burton Zorx : Letter received, council emphatically rejects company pro-
posal. Will not subject members to procedural delays and company dilatory
antiunion tactics as experienced in prior campaign. Council represents more
than majority each unit and insists upon immediate recognition or will im-
mediately invoke economic action.
Arnold Cohen,
The Chairman. Am I correct about this correspondence? There
was a letter first from the union to INIr. Ratcliffe, and then Eatcliffe
transferred that letter to you, and you, in turn, wrote the union as of
October 7, the letter that has been read into the record, and you re-
ceived this telegram on October 8,
I am trying to get this for the record. Did all of this transpire
after the company had given its assistance, company supervisors and
managers had given their assistance, in procuring the cards?
Mr. ZoRN. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, and I may
be in error, the evidence here indicates that the principal claim of
company assistance by managers occurred on October T and 8, as I
recall it.
The Chairman. My recollection is it had occurred
Mr. ZoRN. I am not certain, sir.
The Chairman. The 6th and the 7th were the days of the drive,
as I recall. Am I right about that ?
Mr, Kennedy. Some of the affidavits we received say that it started
the end of December and others say it was the first week of October.
Mr. ZoRN. I don't know, sir. I just don't know.
The Chairman. It occurred to me that these matters that have
just been made part of the record all took place, the letterwriting
and the wire and so forth, after the company, or at least after its
managers and supervisors, had lent their assistance to the union in
getting the people to sign the cards.
Mr. Zorn, Mr. Chairman, I made' it clear to the company that any
action of that kind would invalidate the contract. How that did
11464 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD
happen, I still don't understand. But tlie evidence here indicates
that something like that did happen.
The Chairman. Somebody higher than a supervisor or manager in
the company, in my judgment, is bound to know whether that was
going on. The company before had had experience in building up
resistance and finding means to resist efforts to unionize its employees.
This looks like where they were giving their utmost cooperation
Avhile the shadowboxing was going on on the outside, building up a
record.
]\Ir. ZoRN. That is very strange to me, Mr. Chairman, for one
reason.
The Chairman. I am just elaborating.
Mr. ZoRN. I would like to say this. As late as October 1, Ratcliffe
w^as telling me that on the basis of company surveys, they didn't think
that even at that point Block had gotten a majority. So it just is as
mysterious to me as it is to you.
The Chairman. It does create an interest and curiosity to know
just what happened.
Mr. ZoRN. And a very natural one, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And it was these letters, this exchange of corre-
spondence, starting September 30, the letter of October 7 and the
telegram of October 8, which are listed in the stipulation ?
Mr. ZoRN. Yes, sir. Well, not necessarily, no. I would not quite
agree with that.
Mr. Kennedy. The substance of these communications ?
Mr. ZoRN. I think the stipulation, if we look at it carefully, reflects
a situation that existed not merely with these letters, but a situation
which had existed long prior to these letters, and which these letters
simply put in record form.
Mr. Kennedy. In letter form at this period of time.
Mr. Zorn. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. The stipulation is dated October 9, 1952.
The Chairman. Has that been placed in the record ?
Mr. Kennedy. No, it has not, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Zorn, I hand you what purports to be a photo-
static copy of the stipulation referred to. Would you identify it,
please, sir?
(The document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. Zorn. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. The stipulation may be printed in the record at
this point.
( The stipulation is as follows : )
STIPfLATION BY AND BETWEEN THE BlTCHEKS DISTRICT COT'NCIL OF NeW YoRK
AND New .Jersey, Affiliated With the A^rALGAMATED Meat Cutters and
RtTTCHKR Workmen of North America, A. F. of L., Acting on Behalf of its
Memp.er Locals :!42, 4()0 and 4S9 (Hereinafter Keferued to as the Union),
AND The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Eastern Division (Hereinafter
Referred to as the Company)
Wlipreas the union asserted that it represents a majority of the employees in
the grocery, dairy, and produce departments of the company's supermarkets
and service stores in
(1) the company's Brooklyn unit,
(2) the company's Garden City unit, and
(.'',) the company's Bronx unit (excluding supermarkets and service
stores located in Connecticut)
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11465
ami accordingly demanded recognition as collective bargaining agent for such
cini>lo.vees in each of said three units, and
Whereas the company then advised the union that such recognition would be
granted only if the union substantiated its claim of majority representation by
a certification from the National Labor Rehitioiis Board, and
Whereas the union then notified the company that it would not obtain such
Board certification because of the delays involved, but would demonstrate its
majority representation by a membership card count before any impartial party,
and
Whereas the union further notified the company that in the absence of im-
mediate agreement to such membership card count the union would exert eco-
nomic pressure and sanctions against the company : Now, therefore, it is agreed
that:
A membership card count will be conducted by Hon. Joseph E. O'Grady (here-
inafter referred to as the arl)itrator) on October 10, 1952, at a time and loca-
tion mutually agreeable to the parties.
Upon tallying the signed membership cards of employees in the above-men-
tioned three units and comparing such cards with the company's payrolls for
such units and the employees signatures thereon, the arbitrator shall immed-
iately certify the results of the card count on the forms annexed hereto.
In the event of any dispute with re.spcn^t to the card count, such as matters
pertaining to eligibility of employees, validity of membership cards, etc., such
dispute will be taken up by the arbitrator, Arnold Cohen. Esq., as representa-
tive of the union, and Burton A. Zorn, Esq., as repre.sentative of the company.
If such i>ers(ms cannot agree, then the determination of the arbitrator shall be
decisive and binding.
The Great Atlantic & Pacufic Tea Co.
By Burton A. Zorn, Attorney.
Butchers District Council of New
York and New Jersey, Affiliated
With the Amalgamated Meat Cut-
ters AND Butcher Workmen of
North America, A. F. L., Acting on
Behalf of Its INIember Locals 324,
400, AND 489.
By Arnold Cohen, Attorney.
New York, N. Y., October 9, 1952
Mr. Kennedy. Tliis stipulation says :
A membership card count will be conducted by Hon. Joseph E. O'Grady on
October 10, 1952, at a time and location mutually agreeable to the parties.
"When was the card count conducted ?
Mr. Zorn. The card count actually was conducted on October 9 and
10, as I recall it. It was a 2-day job.
iNIr. Kennedy. The records of Mr. Lester Block show that he was
workiiio- on the wording; of the stipulation on October 10. This was
a day after the card count had started.
Mr. Zorn. Mr. Kennedy, my own records indicate on these time-
sheets — and I think that the Senator should know what the time-
sheets are as we write them — we frequently don't put down what we
do in particular situations until some time later, when we are busy.
The purpose of timesheets is for the purpose of billing clients. I
am reasonably certain we worked out the first rough draft of this stip-
ulation in theconference I had with xVniold Cohen on October 9, which
was the date of his telegram, and I talked to him, and the strike dead-
line was set for Monday, the loth.
My records, I believe, Mr. Kennedy, reflect the fact that the stipula-
tion Avas prepared on the 9th. If Mr. Lester Block's time record
shows it was the 10th, I think he was in error.
]Mr. Kennedy. When did vou submit it to Mr. O'Gradv ?
11466 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. ZoRN. To the best of my recollection, my record shows it was
submitted on the ninth. But we had talked to Mr. O'Grady on the
eighth.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. O'Grady will be a witness, but he indicates, at
least to us, that the stipulation did not arrire in his hands until the
10th, the day after the card count began, and, of coui-se, Lester Block,
and there have been statements made about Mr. Block before this,
was working for you, and he says he was working on the stipulation
during that period of time.
Mr. ZoRN. ]Mr. Kennedy, that could have happened. All I am say-
ing is that Mr. O'Grady was made fully familiar with what our agree-
ment was on October 8, before he started it.
Mr. Kennedy. Wliy did you say the card count was going to occur
on October 9 and 10, instead of just the 10th ?
Mr. ZoRN. Frankly, I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. What about the 1956 stipulation? Did you draw
that up ?
Everything is funny, Mv. Zorn.
Mr. ZoRN. No. That is very funny. If you will listen, I will tell
you why it is funny. No, I didn't. I will tell you why.
At that point, Mr. Batcliffe was telling us that the company was
complaining about our legal bills, so he was going to become a lawyer
and handle things on his own. We did not draft that stipulation.
Mr. Kennedy. I am talking about the part-time card count. Did
you draft that ?
Mr. ZoRN. To the best of my knowledge, our office did not prepare
that particular stipulation. French Eatcliffe adapted that from the
earlier stipulations.
Mr. Kennedy. The one in 1956 you did not?
Mv, Zorn. To the best of my knowledge, we did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any discussion with Mr. Cohen re-
garding the wording of the stipulation ?
Mr. ZoRN. The 1956 stipulation on the part-timers' card count?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. ZoRN. As I recall it, Mr. Kennedy, I didn't personally partici-
pate in tliat situation at all. My partner, Mr. Lichtenstein, may have
had some ; I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. This is of particular interest on Avhat occurred in
1952. We have a letter from Mr. Max Block, signed by Arnold
Cohen, who was the attorney for the Meat Cutters, dated May 19,
1956, which, of course, this witness cannot identify. But I would like
to read some parts of it here and then ask a question based on it.
The Chairman. You can ask him questions based on the letter, if
you have it. You can introduce the letter later ?
Mr. Kennedy. That is right.
The Chairman, All right. "Wlien you have a witness
Mr, Kennedy. In fact, Mr. May can identify the letter as coming
from the records of the Meat Cutters.
The Chairman. Well, we will get another witness. You may read
from it and interrogate the witness about it.
Mr. May. The letter is dated May 19, 1956, and reads as follows :
Dear Max : I received a copy of the proposed stipulation and agreement for
a card check. After receiving this stipulation, I immediately called Bert Zorn
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11467
and informed him that the stipulation mailed to me differed from the stipulation
drafted in bis office.
The change is one of substance and not interpretation, and I indicated to him
that I would discuss this matter with you and advise you that the stipulation
should be signed as drafted in his office and not with the proposed change.
There are contiiined in the letter three unrelated paragraphs, not
pertinent paragraphs. Then it reads :
The stipulation for the card check is similar to the one drawn in 1952 when we
had the previous card check. I informed Bert that now that we are the certi-
lied collective bargaining agent, I do not believe that it is necessary to recite
matters referred to, such as the union demand for recognition for part-time
workers who work 10 hours or more, and the company's insistence upon recog-
nition after a National Labor Relations Board election, and, further, that the
union refused a Board certification because of the delays involved and demanded
a card check, and in the absence of such an agreement to a card check the
union would exert economic pressure.
I informed Bert that these recitals are unnecessary, and that we should
merely say we notified management that we represent a majority of the part-
time employees working 10 hours a week or more ; that we request bargaining on
their behalf ; and that the company requested proof of representation and both
parties agree that such proof should be substantiated by a card check conducted
by an impartial third party.
After this letter was dictated and typed I received a telephone call from Bert
in which he agreed that the position I took on the stipulation was a proper one.
He also agreed that the stipulation providing for checkoff of part-time
workers should be modified and to eliminate any recital that the union would
exert economic pressure and sanctions against the company if they would not
agree to the card check.
With this modification, I believe the union can sign the stipulation for the
card check.
Very truly yours,
Abnold Cohen.
Mr. ZoRN. Mr. Kennedy, I may be in error. I was speaking from
recollection, and not having looked at that for a long time. There
were, as I recall it, two separate stipulations involved in that situa-
tion. One was dealing with checkoli' and some other matters, as I re-
call it now, though if I had it I would be more accurate, and dealing
with store hours.
My recollection still is, subject to checking my records, that the
initial stipulation with respect to the card comit was probably not i^re-
pared by our,' office but was submitted to the union by Ratclitfe and
then in turn Arnold Cohen called me. That is my best recollection,
sir.
Mr. IvENNEDY. It would indicate in the stipulation, from this let-
ter, not only that it was prepared in your office — that is clear from the
letter — but the second part is that you were reciting matters in the
stipulation as were recited back in the card count in 1952 which just
were not true, and that Mr. Cohen pointed this out to you, that it
wasn't necessary to put all of these things in the stipulation.
How can you possibly explain that?
Mr. ZoRN. Only this way, Mr. Kennedy, that I have no personal rec-
ollection, and I am fairly certain that I personally did not prepare
that stipulation. It could have been handled by somebody else in tlie
office, but I was under the impression that it had originally been sub-
mitted by French Ratcliffe. But I personally was not involved in that
transaction, except to the extent of Arnold Cohen's telephone call to
me.
11468 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. Well, it will speak for itself. Do you know Mr.
Block very well yourself, Mr. Zorn ? Have you ever represented Mr.
Block? After the 1952 card count did you represent Mr. Blocks
Mr. Zorn. Max or Louis Block ?
Mr. I^nnedy. Max or Louis Block.
Mr. Zorn. I have never represented ISIax Block. Somewhere in
1955, I think, I was asked by Louis Block to represent him in an in-
vestigation w^hic]) was then being conducted by the State insurance de-
partment regarding welfare funds.
As a matter of good will, I appeared for him, I think, during 1 or
2 interviews during that investigation.
Mr. Kennedy. Good will for whom ?
Mr. Zorn. For the company.
Mr. Kennedy. You didn't charge him ?
Mr. Zorn. To the best of my recollection, I didn't charge liim a
nickel.
Mr. Kennedy. That was 1954?
Mr. Zorn. I don't remember the exact year.
Mr. Kennedy. You were representing the A. & P. Co. at the time ?
Mr. Zorn. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. I just have this one letter I want to ask about, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. The Chair hands you a photostatic copy of a letter
dated November 11, 1952, apparently written by you to Amalgainated
Meat Cutters and Butchers. Will you examine it and state if you
identify it?
( A document was handed to the witness. )
Mr. Zorn. Yes; that is a photostatic copy of a document given to
the committee from our office files.
The Chairman. The letter may be read into the record.
Mr. May. The letter is dated November 11, 1952, directed to local
400, Meat Cutters, attention of Mr. Albert De Prospero, the president.
In connection with contract executed today between your organization and
the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., covering the meat department employees
in the stores of the Bronx unit of the company, it is understood that this agree-
ment is subject to ratification by the membership of your organization.
The company understands that such ratification meeting will be held some
time within the next week, and this contract will not become effective unless
and until it is ratifie<l by the membership.
Very truly yours,
Burton A. Zokn.
Mr. Kennedy. This letter is dated November 11, 1952.
Mr. Zorn. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. What is the explanation of this letter ?
Mr. Zorn. When your committee asked me about it, I couldn't recall
any explanation for it, because the contract was signed on October 11,
and there was no contract signed November 11. I have tried to check
with the company people on what the possible occasion for that letter
could be, and I frankly, honestly, don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. Why were you asking for ratification of that con-
tract in the meat department and not the clerks' contract?
Mr. Zorn. If you want me to speculate on the thing, I will. I
just have no memory in the sense that I don't know what that was-
related to, Mr. Kennedy, because we didn't have a November 11 con-
tract. The contracts were both dated October 11.
I
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11469
Mr. Kennedy. Did you make ratification a condition in the grocery
clerks' contract ?
Mr. ZoRN. "We did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you this: Could this letter have been
dictated on the date of the contract and then not typed until the
11th?
Mr. ZoRN. No, sir; because that letter is on my office stationery
and the contract was signed, ]\Ir. Chairman, negotiated and signed,
on October 11, at the Tea Co.'s offices. So I quite honestly, as I told
the investigators, just have no memory of why that letter was written
or for what purpose.
(At this point, Senator Goldwater left the hearing room.)
The Chairman. What would be the reason for insisting on ratiti-
cation of the contract with the meatcutters who already had a con-
tract, this being a new contract that had been negotiated, and not
having ratification by the membership of the clerks who were being
brought in ?
Mr. ZoRN. As I said to Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Chairman, I can only
speculate, and my speculation on that is that first, as I stated, we did
not make either the butchers' contracts, the series of them, or the
clerks' contracts, subject to ratification. "VVe didn't do it formally in
the contract.
But now, on this one, the only speculation I can give you, and it
is pure speculation, is that I might have had a call from one of the
Bronx union officials in connection with some meeting they were
having, and this I don't know but I am speculating, saying "We are
having some difficulty in having this contract ratified, and I would
like a letter from j'ou saying if it is not ratified it is ofi'.
I think that is probably the only explanation that comes to my
mind.
The Chairman. In neither contract did you require ratification,
in the contract proper ?
^Ir. ZoRN. "We did not.
The Chair^ian. This was something outside
Mr. Zorn. This is a special situation of some kind.
The Chairman. You don't have any idea what it was ?
Mr. ZoRN. Except for my speculation.
The Chairman. I cannot understand how that would not be im-
portant or a condition with a union you had been contracting with^
where the employees already had a contract with them over a period
of years, and this was just a renewal or negotiation of a new contract,
to require ratification of that, and not require ratification of a new
one, where you are bringing in a complete new group, the clerks, into
the union.
Mr. ZoRN. I think. Senator, what I say in speculation is probably
what hap]3ened, though I don't recall it. I think local 400, in the
Bronx unit, was apparently having some difficulty in getting the
butchers' contract ratified and they wanted a letter to the effect that
if it Avasn't ratified, it was oft'.
The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock.
("Whereupon, at I'i : 25 p. m., the committee recessed to reconvene
at 2 p. m., the same day.)
(Members of the connnittee present at the taking of the recess
were Senators McClellan and Chui'ch.)
11470 IMPROPER ACTWITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
AFTERNOON SESSION
(At the reconvening of the session the following members were
present: Senators McClellan and Church.)
The Chairman. The committee will come to order. Call the next
witness.
Do you want to recall Mr. Zorn ?
Mr. Kennedy. I believe theie are questions from some of the
members.
TESTIMONY OF BURTON A. ZOEN— Resumed
The Chairman. Senator Church, have you any questions?
Senator Church. Mr. Zorn, you, in your law practice, have dealt
with labor law in the matter of management and labor relations for
a period of years, have you not ?
Mr. Zorn. Yes, sir.
Senator Church. We had testimony earlier in the hearings with
regard to the efforts that were being made by Local 1500, the Retail
Clerks Union, to organize a certain division of the A. & P. stores.
You recall that, do you ?
Mr. Zorn. Yes, sir.
Senator Church. In the spring of 1952 we had testimony to the
effect that an election was held, one of a kind that had been held in
the stores before, but that in this election the unions involved, includ-
ing the Eetail Clerks Union, made a rather substantial showing, a
much more substantial showing than the unions had theretofore made
in such elections.
Do you recall that ?
Mr. Zorn. That, sir — I assume you are referring to the March
Bronx unit election ; yes, sir.
Senator Church. In the Bronx unit ; yes, sir.
Mr. Zorn. Yes, sir.
Senator Church. Following that election, charges were filed with
the NLRB by the Retail Clerks Union, is that correct, charging im-
proper practices in the election ?
Mr. Zorn. I don't recall objections to the March Bronx election.
You may be right. I do recall very vividly the objections that were
filed in the Brooklyn election which was held in January 1952.
Senator Church. In any event there were proceedings that involved
this election before the NLRB during the ensuing months, during the
spring and summer months of 1952 ?
Mr. Zorn. In respect to Brooklyn local 1500 and 474 election, yes,
but I don't believe, sir, that there were any charges filed in the Bronx
or that there were any proceedings pending with respect to the Bronx
unit election of March 1952.
Senator Church. As a result of these proceedings at a later date,,
another election was held in the Bronx unit, as a result of which the
NLRB certified local 1500 as the bargaining agent for the clerks, is
that correct ?
Mr. Zorn. To correct the record, sir, I think you are referring to
the Brooklyn election, not the Bronx election. The Brooklyn election
which was originally held in January 1952.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11471
Senator Church. Following that, ultimately, the NLRB, on the
basis of a subsequent election, designated the local 1500 as the bar-
gaining agent ?
Mr. ZoKN. That, as I recall it, was in, I think, March 1953. I may
be in error on the month. I have a chronology here. No, it was in
February of 1953, sir.
Senator Church. In the late summer and fall, in August of 1952,
these proceedings were before the NLRB, and the A. & P. Co., in the
area concerned, was faced with a situation in which at least two
unions other than the Meat Cutters were attempting to gain recogni-
tion as the bargaining agent for the clerks, and they were attempting
to gain this recognition through legal proceedings pursuant to Fed-
eral law before the NLRB, is that correct ^
Mr. ZoRN. Not entirely, according to my best recollection. We had
pending an appeal from the regional board, from the regional direc-
tors dismissal of local 1500's objections in the Brooklyn situation,
and, to the best of my recollection, there were no proceedings pending
involving the Bronx situation at that time.
Senator Church. But generally what I have said is substantially
correct, that you had these two unions seeking recognition and you
had proceedings then pending before the NLRB ?
Mr. ZoRN. We had one proceeding pending in the sense that there
was an appeal from the regional director's dismissal.
Senator Church. In such a situation, it seems to me, as I have
listened to this testimony, that for the Meat Cutters, who were not
parties to this proceeding, to become the bargaining agent for the
clerks in place of either of the other unions who were involved in
proceedings before the NLRB, might be a little difficult to do. The
one way that apparently was open was a course of action of the kind
that was covered in the memorandum that our counsel Mr. Kennedy
dwelt on at some length this morning. In other words, in order for
the Meat Cutters to be recognized in the place of either of these other
miions that were involved in proceedings before the NLRB, it would
be necessary, under the law, for them to demonstrate that they had
the support of a clear majority of the workers; is that not correct?
Mr. ZoRN. Yes. They would have to have a majority, demonstrate
a majority.
Senator Church. So the only way that they could become the bar-
gaining agent, and thus the only way that the company could recog-
nize them as such, would be on the basis of a card count that could
establish the fact that the majority of the clerks had, in fact, desig-
nated them as their bargaining agent ?
Mr. ZoRN. That was my advice, sir.
Senator Church. That was your advice?
Mr. ZoRN. Yes, sir.
Senator Church. So the very assumptions of fact that are included
in this memorandum represented the one legal course of action that
the company could take, or, let me say, the one legal course of action
available to both the Meat Cutters' Union on the one hand and the
company on the other, to end up with the Meat Cutters as the bargain-
ing agent rather than either of these other two unions that were
involved in the proceedings before the NLRB ?
21243—58 — pt. 29 19
11472 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. ZoRN. May I correct one thing, Senator?
kSenator Chtjkch. Surely.
Mr. ZoKN. That nieinoranduni is not addressed to the problem of
the validity or legality of a card connt, I think as I exi)lained
earlier 1 did not need any researcli on that, because I was pretty well
satistied that that was all right.
Senator Church. That was not entailed in my question. I recog-
nize that. But, you see, I pi-acticed law- for a number of years, and
this memorandum, to me, in the context of the situation, suggests just
one thing: It suggests a company which is faced with a proceeding
before the NLRB, and what appears to be a bona tide attempt on the
part of two unions to organize the clerks, that would like to know
how to proceed in order to get another union in and recognized as the
bargaining agent for these clerks, and wants to know how to proceed
in such a way as to avoid the legal pitfalls that might otherwise con-
front them.
I just can't see any other reason for such a memorandum to have
been prepared at that time, nor for such assumptions to have been
made the bases of that memorandum. In other words, it suggests to
me very clearly that the company was looking for a legal way to pro-
ceed in order that it might recognize a union that was not presently
involved in proceedings before the NLRB. This, to me, suggests an
effort to find a Avay to circumvent proceedings that ultimately resulted
in an oflicial designation by the NLRB of local 1500 as the bargaining
agent for the employees in at least one sector of your operations.
That is just part of this whole picture. It seems to me to be an
effort, a knowledgeable effort on the part of management as well as
the Meat Cutters Union, to come to terms with one another.
I realize I am giving you my opinion of the situation.
Mr. ZoRN. Would you like me to answer that, sir? I would be
happy to.
Senator Church. Surely.
Mr. ZoRN. The situation that I was confronted with, as I think I
explained this morning, Avas at that particular time, in August of
1952, information I had received was that there was the possibility
that the butchers might strike for i-ecognition.
1 didn't need, Senator Church, because I have been in the field for
a long time, to have researcli conducted on what the company's legal
rights were, because I had been through that year after j^ear, and I
knew that the company could not stop a strike, and I so advised them.
Therefore, the course of research was in connection with 1 of 2 al-
ternatives: Either the company could have taken the strike or it
could have found a legal way to meet this situation.
That was the jiurpose of the memorandum.
Senator Church. 1 think, Mr. Chairman, that when the end re-
sult is looked to, we ought not to lose sight of the fact that the clear
beneficiaries of the final arrangement, the company on the one hand
and the Meat (.utters on the other, and the enjj^loyees involved did
not even know tlie terms of the contract that had been signe<l, but in
additi(m to the employees, there were other clearly established vic-
tims of the operation. One of those was local 1500, and another was
the other (TO union that was involved in proceedings before the
NLRI^, attempting to, through legal channels, win i-ecognition as
the bargainijig agent for these very same employees.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIKS IX THK LABOR FIKLD 11473
I Imve no further questions.
Mr. ZoKx. Thank you, sir.
The C^HATRMAX. Are tliere any further questions?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I believe you stated this mornin*;- that you recognized that at least
some of the company representatives had assisted the organizers of
the clerks in getting the emplo^'ees to sign the cards?
]Mr. ZoKX. Yes, Mr. Kennedy. You have a memorandum from
my file, which I think is in the handwriting of Lester Block, some
- time, I don't recall the date, well after October, in which he points
out, and I think it is in evidence here, that he had been infcn^med, I
think the language was, that many managers — I forget the exact
language — were assisting in getting cards, I think, on October 7 and 8.
Mr. Kexxedy. I think it is pointed ont in this memorandum of
October 25, that such assistance in circumstances such as this would
make a contract illegal ?
Mr. ZoRX. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kexxeoy. "Would you say now that the contract that was
signed between the A. & P. Co. and the Meat Cutters on October 11,
„ 1952, Mas an illegal contract (
Mr. ZoRN. I think, Mr. Kennedy, that would depend on the extent
of the coercion and assistance, and I have no personal knowledge.
All I can say to you is that the contract, after extended labor board
investigations and proceedings was, in fact, validated.
Mr. Kexxedy. Let us go back then. You did state, and you have
information in your tiles, that the company rei)resentatives assisted
the union in having individuals sign these cards?
^Ir. ZoRX. Just that memorandum, yes.
Mr. Kex-^xedy. You got that, and then you had this contract which
was signed at the same time there was an appeal to the National Labor
Relations Board.
Now, these two facts in and of themselves, in accordance with this
memorandum of August 25, and with your own testimony, makes that
contract of October 11, an illegal contract, does it not?
Mr. ZoRx. Well, I didn't know anything about this prior to signing
the contract.
Mr. Kexxedy. I am not saying you were responsible for it. I am
saying as you sit here now at this time, that what occurred makes this
contract an illegal contract ?
Mr. ZoRX. No. sir; 1 wouldn't say that, because if we had gone into
an extended litigation, I think the questions would have been to what
extent these managers acted pursuant to company instructions and
policy or to what extent they acted on their own. I don't know.
The Chairmax*. "Would it make any ditiereuce whether they acted
on their own oi- under comi^an^- instructions since they were repre-
senting the comjjany ?
Mr. ZoRX. I think it would make only this dift'erence, Mr. Chair-
inan, that it would also depend very largely on the extent as to whether
it was in fact coercion or whether it was something less than coercion.
Those are complicated legal questions.
Mr. Kknxedy. It is not very complicated up to this time. You have
answered the questions very freely and then when I asked you whether
the coiUract was illegal you start backing down on it.
11474 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Block has in his memorandum of August 25, 1952 —
It should be noted, however, that actively assisting one of the rival unions or
entering into a collective bargaining contract while a proceeding is pending
before the Labor Board constitutes illegal interference under the act.
It is very clear.
Mr. ZoRN. Mr. Kennedy, I can't argue with you about that.
Mr. Kennedy. You admitted it all up to now.
Mr. ZoRN. That is right. All I am saying to you is that that would
be subject to litigation as to the extent of actual coercion. We never
litigated that question.
Mr. Kennedy. In the vast experience that you stated that you have
had, would you say that this contract as it was signed on October 11,
1952, in view of the facts that have been developed before this com-
mittee and in view of the facts that you have been aware of inde-
pendently, would you say this was an illegal contract ?
Mr. ZoRN. No, sir ; I wouldn't, without a lot more information than
I now have.
The Chairman. The question resolves itself, as I see it, upon the
testimony that we have heard, and assuming that testimony to be true,
and if those facts are established, then it would be an illegal contract.
Mr. ZoRN. If all of those facts were established, sir, I think it would
be.
The Chairman. If we just accepted the testimony we have had
about it as true, then I think there would be no question but what it
would be an illegal contract.
Mr. ZoRN. I think you are probably right.
The Chairman. For you to say it is, without knowing what might
be offered to refute the testimony before us, you might hesitate to say
it, but assuming that testimony before us is true, it would be an il-
legal contract. I think you would agree to that.
Mr. ZoRN. If all of that testimony were true, I think that you are
right.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Call the next witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Casale.
The Chairman. Is Mr. Casale here? The witness does not seem to
be present. We will be at ease for a moment to see if we can find the
witness.
(A brief recess was taken.)
The Chairman. We will proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Andrew De Santis.
The Chairman. You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall
give before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. De Santis. I do.
TESTIMONY OF ANDREW DE SANTIS
The Chairman. State your name, and your place of residence, and
your business or occupation, please.
Mr. De Santis. Andrew De Santis, 6225 Broadway, office manager
for a well-known New York firm of attorneys.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11475
Do you waive counsel or are you a lawyer ?
Mr. De Santis, No, sir ; I am not.
The Chairman. Do you waive counsel ?
Mr. De Santis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. De Santis, you participated in a card count in
1952?
Mr. De Santis. I did.
Mr. Kennedy. And you were retained to do that work by whom,
sir
Mr. De Santis. By Mr. Joseph E. O'Grady.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you working with Mr. O'Grady at the time
in question ?
Mr. De Sanits. He was a partner of the firm at the time that I was
one of the employees of.
Mr. Kennedy, What was the name of it ?
Mr. De Santis. Goldwater & Flynn.
Mr. KJENNEDY. When did he speak to you about helping in the card
count ?
Mr. De Santis. I believe it was about 5 p. m., on the evening of
Wednesday, October 8.
Mr. Kennedy. When was the card count to start ?
Mr. De Santis. On the morning of October 9.
Mr. Kennedy. "Wliere did the card count take place ?
Mr. De Santis. The card count took place, I believe it w\as at 420
Lexington Avenue, in the executive offices of the A. & P.
Mr. Kennedy. What time did you arrive ?
Mr. De Santis. I arrived there about 9 : 20 or thereabouts.
Mr. Kennedy. About 9 : 20?
Mr. De Santis. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. What did you do when you got there ?
Mr. De Santis. Well, I believe they had a private elevator leading
to the executive offices, and as I stepped out I walked toward the
entrance to the executive offices themselves, and at that point Mr.
O'Grady was walking out with one of the employees, I believe, of the
A. & P. Co., with some boxes or cards wrapped around with an elastic
band.
Mr. Kennedy. Once you started in the card count, what did you do ?
What function did you perform ?
Mr. De Santis. Well, my function was more or less mechanical.
I had cards which I believed were the union cards before me.
Mr. Kennedy. What were you supposed to do with the union cards?
Mr. De Sanits. To the best of my recollection, I believe Mr. O'Grady
would call out a name, and I would try to find a corresponding card
in the batch I had.
Mr. Kennedy. You would have to look through the cards to find it ?
Mr. De Santis. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. What was he reading from ?
Mr. De Santis. I do not know. He had a set of cards, I believe, and
they were employee cards of the A. and P., I assume, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you look at this.
The Chairman. I present to you exhibit 2 before the committee, and
ask you to examine it and state if you recognize it as one of the cards
or the form of cards that you were counting ?
11476 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LyVBOR FIELD
Mr. De Santis. Yes ; I believe that this is one of the cards.
The Chairman. You believe that is a photostatic copy of it^
Mr. De Santis. Yes, sir, a photostatic copy of it.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know what he was reading from?
Mr. De Santis. I do not.
Mr. Kennedy. He would just read out names and then you would
look for one ?
Mr. De Santis. I would try to find the corresponding card, to the
best of my recollection.
Mr. Kennedy. What would you do?
Mr. De Santis. I would turn the card over to him.
Mr. Kennedy. Would the card be marked, or would it be marked on
the list?
Mr. De Santis. I don't believe that he marked the card, and now I
don't know, and he made some notations on some yellow foolscap pads
which he had before him.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you compare the signatures on the cards?
Mr. De Santis. I compared nothing, and I just handed him the card
and he looked at the card, and some he retained in a batch on his side
of the table and the others he handed back to me.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if he over looked at the signatures
on the cards ?
Mr. De Santis. I don't know what he was looking for.
Mr. Kennedy. How long would it take you to look at a card through
this method ?
Mr. De Santis. I have no idea.
Mr. Kennedy. How many cards could you do in a mhiute ?
Mr. De Santis. I have no idea of knowing that, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any instructions that you were sup-
posed to look at cai'ds or compare the signatures of the cards?
Mr. De Santis. To the best of my recollection, no.
Mr, Kennedy. And as far as you were personally concerned, you
never compared any of the signatures on the cards?
Mr. De Santis. No, sir; I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. How long did you stay there that day?
Mr. De Santis. We started, I would say, about 9 : 30 or there-
abouts, and I was there until close to 1 o'clock, when we recessed
for lunch, and Ave got back a little before 2, and I continued until
about 20 to 6.
Mr. Kennedy. Just going through the same procedure?
Mr. De Santis. The same mechanical procedure.
Mr. Kennedy. You don't know how many cards vou wont through
then ?
Mr. De Santis. I don't recall, and 1 have no idea how many cards
I went through, nor do I liave any idea how many cards I had before
me.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you come back the next day?
Mr. De Santis. I did.
Mr. Kennedy. What time did you arrive ?
Mr. De Santis. At about the same time.
Mr. Kennedy. And you worked until what tune ?
Mr. De Santis. Until a little before 1, when we wont out to lunch.
Mr. Kennedy. And you went out for huicli for an hour?
niPKOPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11477
Mr. De Saxtis. Well, approximately an hour.
Mr. Kennedy. And then yon came back and started to work a<rain?
Mr. T)e Santis. And 1 stayed until about 20 to 6 again.
A[r. Kenxkdv. And yon stayed until about. 20 of (> ?
Mr. I)k Sax 1 is. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kexxkdy. Had all of the cards been processed by that time?
Mr. De Saxtis. Which ni<j:ht are you talkin<jj abont i Friday night,
no, the cards had not all been processed at that time, and there were
some left in the box, a small batch were still left.
Mr. Kexxedy. IIow many weie left?
Mr. De Saxtis. I have no idea.
Mr. Kexxedy. You wouldn't leave before the job was finished
would yon ?
Mr. De Saxtis. I had to leave becanse it happened to l>e my wed-
ding anniversary and I had to get home on time.
The Chairman. You had a good excuse.
Mr. De Santis. Thank you.
Mr. Kexxedy. Did you iigure they were almost all finished, though?
Mr. De Santis. Yes ; I would say for Mr. O'Grady to do the job
alone, it would have taken him maybe another hour.
Mr. Kexxedy. You at least felt that your work had all been
completed?
Mr. De Saxtis. That is right, with the time limitation that I had.
Mr. Kennedy. Were there any additional cards submitted after you
began your card count ?
Mr. De Saxits. I believe that on the second day, about 11 o'clock,
there was a rap on the door, because we were in a sort of a conference
room, just the two of us, and they had one of these frosted windows
in the door, and ISlr. O'Grady answered the rap on the door, and he
came back with another batch of cards.
Mr. Kenx'edy. "\^^lat time Avas that ?
Mr. De Santis. I would say that that was about 10 : 30 or quarter of
11, or it may have been 11 o'clock.
Mr. Kennedy. That is the first day or the second day ?
Mr. De Santis. The second day, to the best of my recollection.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know where those cards came from, what
area ?
Mr. De Sanits. Xo.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you know actually what you were doing in this
whole matter ?
Mr. De Santis. No, sir ; I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. You were completely confused ?
Mr. De Santis. I was just a machine that could read a name, that
is all.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you know what your function was at all?
Mr. De Santis. Just that, to find the card corresponding to the
name that Mr. O'Grady had called out.
^Ir. Kex^nedy. You didn't receive any written instructions as to
what procedure you were to follow ?
Mr. De Sanctis. I assumed Mr. O'Grady knew what procedure to
follow.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever see the stipulation as to what procedure
you were to follow ?
11478 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. De Santis. No ; I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if that ever came to your office?
Mr. De Santis. Which stipulation are you referring to?
Mr. Kennedy. The stipulation which gave the instructions as to
how the card count was to be conducted ?
Mr. De Santis. I never saw it, and I don't know if it came to the
office or not.
Mr. KJENNEDY. Now, the stipulation states that the comparison of
signatures should be made. You never compared any signatures?
Mr. De Santis. I did not, but Mr. O'Grady, as I said, held the card
sufficiently long enough to be able to look at the signature, if neces-
sary. I assume that that is what he was doing, and I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. How long, then, would it take you to process some
of these cards, and how many cards would you process in an hour.
for instance ?
Mr. De Santis. I have no idea, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know anything about what you were doing
there?
Mr. De Santis. No, sir ; I do not.
Mr. Kennedy. This was a complete mystery when you were there,
and it is a complete mystery now ?
Mr. De Santis. The only function that I thought I was perform-
ing was cutting down the time element for Mr. O'Grady to complete
the job, and that is all.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you get paid for this work ?
Mr. De Santis. Mr. O'Grady did pay me.
Mr. Kennedy. How much did you get ?
Mr. De Santis. $100.
Mr. Kennedy. For the 2 days' work ?
Mr. De Santis. Well, I don't know whether it was for the days'
work or not or just because I was helping him cut down his own time.
Mr. Ivennedy. Did you know what it was for, why you were check-
ing cards ?
Mr. De Santis. On the afternoon of the second day, Mr. O'Grady
said that the job had to be completed because of the fact that there
was a possibility of a strike the following morning, which was a
Saturday morning.
Mr. Kennedy. Had you ever done any work like this before ?
Mr. De Santis. I never did any before that, and I haven't done any
since.
Mr. Kennedy. When we discussed this with you before, you sum-
marized your work on this matter by saying, "I didn't know what the
hell I was doing" ?
Mr. De Santis. That is it exactly.
Mr. KJENNEDY. O. K.
The Chairman. Are there any questions?
Thank you very much.
Call the next witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Casale.
Mr. Kaminsky. Mr. Chairman, may I say I am the attorney for
Mr. Casale, and my name is George Kaminsky, K-a-m-i-n-s-k-y, 200
West 57th Street, New York, and Mr. Casale is on his way over here
by taxi from the Statler Hotel, and he should be here within 5 min-
utes. I am sorry about this.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11479
The Chairman. Would you just have a seat then.
Tlie committee will be in recess for 5 minutes.
(A brief recess was taken.)
(After the recess, the following members were present: Senators
McClellan and Church.)
The Chairman, The committee will come to order.
Do you solemnly swear tlie evidence you shall give before the
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Casale. I do.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM CASALE, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL
GEORGE KAMINSKY
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your
business or occupation.
Mr. Casale. William Casale, 1 Cherrywood Lane, Port Washing-
ton, Long Island, N. Y., secretary-treasurer of the Amalgamated
Meat Cutters and Retail Food Store Employees of Greater New York,
Local 342.
The Chairman. Counsel, will you identify yourself for the record,
please ?
Mr. Kaminsky. The name is George Kaminsky, 200 West 57th
Street, New York 19, N. Y.
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel.
Mr. Kennedy. You are secretary-treasurer of local 342?
Mr. Casale. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And you have held that position for how long?
Mr. Casale. Since August 7, 1940.
Mr. Kennedy. You have been elected to that position, have you?
Mr. Casale. I have.
Mr. Kennedy. And you have had opposition during that period
of time ?
Mr. Casale. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Wlien were you last elected ?
Mr. Casale. In December 1956.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you receive a salary ?
Mr. Casale. I do.
Mr. Kennedy. How much ? What is your salary ?
Mr. Casale. $355 a week.
Mr. Kennedy. $355 a week ?
Mr. Casale. That is right, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. ^Yliat about expenses?
Mr. Casale. No expenses.
Mr. IvENXEDY. Do you ever receive any money other than $355 a
week?
Mr. Casale. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Just that ?
Mr. Casale. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you receive an automobile ?
Mr. Casale. To use?
Mr. IvENNEDY. Yes.
Mr. Casale. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat kind of an automobile do you have now ?
11480 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Casale. Buick.
Mr. Kennedy. When did you receive that?
Mr. Casale. Last year.
Mr. Kennedy. And your responsibilities as secretarj- -treasurer are
what ? To sign the cliecks ?
Mr. Casale. Sign checks, run the office.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you keep the books ?
Mr. Casale. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You Avere secretary-treasurer when this card count
was held back in 1952 '?
Mr. Casale. Yes, sir.
Mr. ICennedy. And did you participate actively in tliat card count ?
Mr. Casale. To what extent?
I\Ir. Kennedy. Did you keep tlie cards ?
Mr. Casale. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ivennedy. You were in charge of the cards ?
Mr. Casale. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Where were they kept ?
Mr. Casale. In the office.
Mr. Kennedy. In a box ?
Mr. Casale. In the file.
Mr. Kennedy. In the file. Did Mr. Block or anj'body else know
aibout the cards and where they were kept ?
Mr. Casale. I can't truthfully say.
Mr. Kennedy. What about your secretary ? What was her name at
the time?
Mr, Casale. Miss Hassler.
Mr. Kennedy. Did she know about the cards ?
Mr. Casale. She knew wiiere tliey were, sure.
Mr. Kennedy. When these cards were being collected, you would
keep them, and then wlien the card count was held did 3'ou bring
those cards down and deliver them to Mr. O'Grady ?
Mr. Casale. I don't remember handing tliem to Mr. O'Grady. I
delivered them to an office on Lexington Avenue, in New York City.
Mr. Kennedy. To whom ?
Mr. Casale. I don't know to whom. I delivered them
Mr. Kennedy. You brought them to an office?
Mr. Casale. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Whose office was it ?
Mr. Casale. I don't recall wluit Hoor I went up to, but I was met
by someone at the infonnation desk, and they took me into a room
wliicli was locked. They opened the door and I put them on the table
that was in that room.
Mr. Kennedy. At whose instructions did you bring them up to that
room?
Mr. Casale. I believe Mr. Block's.
Mr. Kennedy. What was tlie address that you brought them to?
Mr. Casale. I don't know the address, but it is the Graybar Build-
ing, on Lexington Avenue.
Mr. Kennedy, That is where the A. & P. has their offices?
Mr. Casale. The A. & P. offices.
Mr. Kennedy. So you were to bring them to tlie A. & P. offices;
were you not ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11481
Mr. Casale. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kenxedy. Tlie card count, I understand, was held October 9
and 10. When did you make delivery of the cards ?
Mr. Casale. Early in the morning.
Mr. Kexxedy. Of October 9 ?
Mr. Casale. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kenxedy. Did you make any deliveries after that?
Mr. Casale. No, sir.
Mr. Ivenxp:dy. That was the last delivery you made ?
Mr. Casale. That was the last delivery I made.
Mr. Kexxedy. Do you know of any other deliveries made to the
Graybar Building?
Mr. Casale. I do not.
Mr. Kexxedy. Did you instruct anybody else to bring any other
cards up ?
Mr. Casale. No, sir.
Mr. Kexxedy. You would know about any other cards?
Mr. Casale. I would, from my office, yes.
Mr. Kexxedy. Do you know if any cards were brought from any
other office ?
Mr. Casale. This I can't say.
Mr. Ivex^xedy. "Well, do you know?
Mr. Casale. No, I don't know.
Mr. Kexx'edy. You don't know of any.
Nobody informed you that any other cards were being brought up ?
Mr. Casale. No, sir.
Mr. Kexxedy. And jon didn't instruct anybody to bring any other
cards up ?
Mr. Casale. I did not.
Mr. Kex'x^edy. Were any of the names on the cards forged on ?
Mr. Casale. Pardon ?
Mr. Kexxedy. AVere any of the names on the cards that you deliv-
ered to the Graybar Building — were any of the names forged?
Mr. Casale. Not that I know of, sir. Not to my knowledge, sir.
Mr. I^xxEDY. Not to your knowledge ?
Mr. Casale. No, sir.
Mr. Kexxedy. Did yon give instructions to anyone to fill out these
cards with the names of employees of the A. & P. Co.?
Mr. Casale. I did not.
Mr. Kexxedy. Do you know if any of these cards that the em-
ployees of your union filled out, these cards with the names of A. & P.
employees, so that they could be furnished to the A. & P. Co.?
Mr. Casale. Would you repeat that, Mr. Kennedy, please ?
Mr. Kexxkdy. Are >oii awai-e of the fact that any of the employees
of the Meat Cutters filled out tliese caixls, forging the names of" the
individual employees of the A. &. P. Co. ?
Mr. Casale. What do you mean, employees in the stores?
Mr. Kexxedy. 1 am asking whether any of the employees of your
union, any of the business agents of the Butchers" ITnion, filled in
these cards with the names of the employees of the A. «& P.?
Mr. Casale. I wasn't aware of that ; no.
Mr. Kexx'edy. Do you know if that ever occurred?
Mr. Casale. Not to mv knowledge.
11482 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. And you did not give any instructions ?
Mr. Casale. I certainly did not.
Mr. Kennedy. You don't know of any false or fictitious cards ?
Mr. Casale. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Let me see if I understand you. You are the one
that had the cards in custody ; they were in your control and under
your superv^ision from the time they were delivered to the union?
Mr. Casale. That is right; they were in the file.
The Chairman. In other words, when the cards came in from the
people who signed them up, they were turned over to you?
Mr. Casale. And they were filed away in the general file in the
general office ; that is right.
The Chairman. And you kept control of them ?
Mr. Casale. You could say that; yes, sir.
The Chairman. Well, they were under your jurisdiction.
Mr. Casale. Under my jurisdiction.
The Chairman. I don't mean you held them in your hands all the
time, but you had them under your control, and you were custodian
of the cards as they came in from the people who signed them up.
Mr. Casale. That is right, sir.
The Chairman. And when j^ou delivered the cards that morning
to the office where you say you delivered them, did you deliver all of
the cards that had come to you up to that time ?
Mr. Casale. I did, sir.
The Chairman. Did any more cards come to you after that first
delivery ?
Mr. Casale. After that first delivery ?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Casale. I don't know what you mean.
The Chairman. You delivered all that you had ?
Mr. Casale. All that I had ; yes.
The Chairman. Did any more come to you for delivery ?
Mr. Casale. I don't recollect. I don't remember.
The Chairman. You know whether you made a second delivery
or not?
Mr. Casale. I did not.
The Chairman. You made no second delivery ?
Mr. Casale. I certainly did not.
The Chairman. At the time the card count started, you delivered
all the cards that had come into your possession ?
Mr. Casale. At that particular time ; yes, sir.
The Chairman. No others came to you during the period of the
card count, as I understand you ?
Mr. Casale. No, sir.
The Chairman. So, if there were other cards delivered, other than
those that you delivered, you know nothing about them ?
Mr. Casale. I do not.
The Chairman. And you made no second delivery ?
Mr. Casale. I did not.
The Chairman. And you had no cards with Avhich to make a second
delivei-y ?
Mr. Casale. That is right, sir.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11483
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Kennedy. I have a couple of last questions. The union had
some organizing drives with tlie King Kullen stores; is that right?
Mr. Casale. I believe at one time thej did.
Mr. IvENNEDY. About this same period of time, and, also, the Kill-
ner stores ?
Mr. Casale. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you know of any fictitious or false cards that
were made up in connection witli the King Kullen stores ?
Mr. Casale. No, sir.
Mr. IvENNEDY. Did you give any instructions that false or ficti-
tious cards be made up in connection with the King Kullen stores'
drive ?
Mr. Casale. I certainly did not, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. As far as the Killner stores are concerned, did you
know of any fictitious or false cards with reference to the Killner
cards ?
Mr. Casale. No, sir.
Mr. Ivennedy. Did you instruct anyone to make up false or ficti-
tious cards with respect to the Killner stores ?
Mr. Casale. I did not, sir.
The Chairman. All riglit. Thank you very much.
Call the next witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, this witness, Mr. Casale, will be re-
called at a later time. We will need him back at some time.
The Chairman. I understand that counsel desires to recall you for
further testimony, so you are not permanently excused.
Mr. K^minsky. Will that be today ?
Mr. Kennedy. I do not know, but some time.
Mr. Kaminsky. I would like to know whether the witness is free
to go back to New York or to stay over.
Mr. Kennedy. I think he had better stay over.
Fred Cornelius.
The Chairman. Mr. Cornelius.
You do solemnly swear the testimony you shall give before this Sen-
ate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Cornelius. I do.
TESTIMONY OF FEED CORNELIUS
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your
business or occupation.
Mr. Cornelius. My name is Fred Cornelius. I live at 22 Harkin
Lane, Hicksville, N. Y. I am a bakery-route salesman
The Chairman. You are a bakery salesman now ?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You waive counsel, do you ?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right; Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Cornelius, you have known Mr. Max Block since
1938?
Mr. Cornelius. That is true.
11484 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. And he appointed you, or was responsible for your
appointment, as a business a^ent of local 342 in early 1941 ; is that
right?
Mr. Cornelius. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And you were subsequently elected a business agent ?
Mr. Cornelius. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And you remained in that capacity until 1946?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You left the union in 1946 ; is that right?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You went into various businesses after that period
of time ?
Mr. Cornelius. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Then, as I understand it, you met IMr. William
Casale, who was secretary-treasurer of local 342, in 1950 ?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
Mr. I^nnedy. And he suggested at that time that you return to the
local ?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And that you help in the organizing of the A. & P.
butchers ; is that right ?
Mr. Cornelius. That is right.
Mr. IvENNEDY. Did you then return and help and assist in the
organization of the butchers ?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
Mr, Kennedy. You were assigned to cover the company stores in
the Brooklyn area ?
Mr. Cornelius. Brooklyn and Garden City.
Mr. Kennedy. During that period of time, after 1950, you at-
tempted to get these cards signed ; is that right ?
Mr. Cornelius. The grocery clerks ; yes.
Mr. Kennedy. The grocery clerks after 1950 ?
Mr. Cornelius. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you meet with much success during the period
1950, 1951, early 1952?
Mr. Cornelius. It wasn't too bad. We received a couple hundred
cards in the mail.
Mr. Kennedy. Then you had some conversations with ]\Iax Block?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir. He didn't know anything about it.
Mr. Kennedy. And he emphasized to you that he was also inter-
ested in trying to get these employees organized ?
Mr. Cornelius. That is right.
The Chairman. We are talking about the clerks now ?
Mr. Cornelius. The clerks.
Mr. Kennedy. The clerks. Did he intensify or request an intensi-
fication or order an intensilication of the drive to organize the clerks
in 1952?
Mr. Cornelius. In 1952, yes, sir. That was after the election with
local 1500.
Mr. Kennedy. And he ordered an intensification of the drive ?
Mr. (^ORNKLius. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you get the butchers in the various stores to
help and assist in obtaining the cards?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11485
Mr. Cornelius. Well, I did that before the election with local
1500. I was the only business u*2:ent in the A. & P. Tea Co. at the
time taking care of butchers, and I was not allowed to talk to grocery
clerks at the time, so I gave the cards to butchers, and they gave
them to them on the side. The cards were self-mailing cards.
The postage was paid in the union office. They would just drop
them in the mailbox, and we got them in the office. Then he ordered
the campaign stopped because Mr. Kennedy, of local 1500, claimed
jurisdiction over the clerks, and Mr. Block ordered us to stop working
on clerks until after the election, and then he intensified the drive
again.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have success in 1953 trying to get these
cards signed 'i
Mr. CoRNEi^ius. Not as good as in 1951.
Mr. Kennedy. So, what did you decide to do, or what was decided
to be done 'i
Mr. Cornelius. Well, toward August, we were ordered to go out
and get names, if we could not get the cards to get the names, and
bring the names into the office. In other words, there are various
ways of doing tliat. You can get them from the butchers, or you can
get them off timecards in A. & P. stores. Each employee has a time-
card with his name on it. So, we just jot down a couple of names in
each store and bring them into the office.
Mr. Kennedy. What would be the point of getting the names? If
you couldn't get the signatures, why would you be getting the names
of people ?
Mr. Cornelius. Tlien the names were put onto application cards in
the union olHce.
The Chairman. Do you mean now that you just got names and
turned them in to the union office and then someone there supplied
the signature ?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You know that to be a fact?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And that is the way a number of cards were
obtained ?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
The Chair^ian. Then they did not have the signatures of the
parties whose name appeared on them ?
Mr. Cornelius. No, sir.
The Chairman. Was that a pretty extensive practice ?
Mr. Cornelius. Well, I know of a few hundred cards like that.
The Chairman. You know of a few hundred like that?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right; Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you, pei-sonally, participate in writing these
cards, transferrnig tlie names that you brought in to the cards?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir. Everyone in the office participated.
Mr. Kennedy. What office was this?
INfr. Cornelius. In tlie union office.
Mr. Kennedy. This is local 342's office?
Mr. Cornelius, Local 342 ; that is right.
11486 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. KJENNEDY. Everybody in the office would participate in signing
the cards ?
Mr. Cornelius. Filling them out and signing them; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Who instructed you to do that '(
Mr. Cornelius. Local 342 is a two-man organization. Max Block
is the big boss, and Billy Casale is his second in command. Every-
body else does what they tell them to. Casale was the one that di-
rectly told us. That is the business agent.
Mr. Kennedy. To fill out these fictitious and false cards ?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Is that the same man who testified here a few
moments ago?
Mr, Cornelius. That is right.
The Chairman. You said all those in the office, the union office,
participated. Was that so that the signatures would be different?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir. The signatures were written backhand
and left-handed and every other which way so that they would appear
different.
The Chairman. That was an effort to conceal them ?
Mr. Cornelius. That is right.
The Chairman. And that occurred on several hundred cards?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. And you participated in it?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. What was the purpose; to build up a big card
count?
Mr. Cornelius. Well, they had a card count. They wanted to
win it.
The Chairman. They wanted to win a card count ?
Mr. Cornelius. That is right.
The Chairman. This went on just before the cards were delivered
over there for counting? How long had this gone on, this practice?
Mr. Cornelius. For a few weeks before.
The Chairman. For a few weeks before ?
Mr. Cornelius, Yes, sir.
The Chairman. As you could get names, if you could not get them
to sign, or whether you tried or not, you simply transferred the names
and wrote them on a card ?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
The Chairman, And that became a vote, in effect, from that per-
son, who was not consulted, who had no knowledge of it, that became
his vote to get in the Meat Cutters' Union?
Mr. Cornelius. That is right.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Kennedy ?
Mr. Kennedy. We have had, of course, Mr. Chairman, the testi-
mony of Mr. Woisin, who testified several days ago, that he Avas in-
structed, also, to go out and get the names off the timecards, and he
said that he delivered a number of these to the Butchers' Union. So,
that supports tlie testimony of tliis witness.
When you were signing these cards, did you, also write them upside
down and with your left hand ?
Mr. Cornelius. Any way that they would look different; some
with pencils, some with pen.
f
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11487
The Chairman. Some with what?
Mr. Cornelius. Some with pencil and some with pen.
Mr. Kennedy. AVliat about the information that you had to put on
the cards, as far as the addresses of the employees and the social se-
curity ?
Mr. Cornelius. Well, that took a lot of doing. We didn't know
their address; we didn't know their social security number; so, we
put down anything.
Mr. Kennedy. You just made those up ?
Mr. Cornelius. Just made sure it wasn't a fictitious address. I
mean that the house stood where the number was that we gave.
Mr. Kennedy. You made up the address, but you just made sure
that there was an address ?
Mr. Cornelius. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And you had a purely fictitious social-security
number ?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You say that this was all directed by Mr. Casale,
himself ^
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And this took place just within the few weeks prior
to the card count ?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. How many cards like this did you fill out, per-
sonally ?
Mr. Cornelius. Approximately 50.
Mr. Kennedy. How many of you were there working on it?
Mr. Cornelius. There were a number of girls in the office, and all
the business agents ; about 6 or 7 at the time.
Mr. KJENNEDY. Was there any way of keeping the fictitious cards
apart from the real cards ?
Mr. Cornelius. Well, I did not know the way they were kept apart,
but I overheard a conversation between Miss Hassler and Mr. Casale
regarding some sort of a mark which was put on them.
But, in the confusion, I don't know whether they knew which were
fictitious and which were not.
Mr. Kennedy. But, at least from the conversation that you over-
heard, it was indicated that they were able to tell them apart, but
you don't know how it was done; is that right?
Mr. Cornelius. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. The filling out of these cards; did that end after
the card count began on October 9 and 10?
Mr. Cornelius. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you fill out any cards on October 10 ?
Mr. Cornelius. On October 10 we were in the office in the after-
noon, still filling out cards, and there was a telephone call that came.
I don't know who it was from, but after that there was renewed ac-
tivity in the office to get as many cards as possible filled out.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you mean there was an intensive drive on the
afternoon of October 10, after the card count had been going on a
day and a half, to get some more cards signed?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. So, a number of you were signing cards then?
21243 — 58 — pt. 29 20
11488 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. In the same maimer you described?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy, Was Mr. Casale there at that time?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir. I was filling them out at his desk, along-
side of him.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr, Casale just testified before the committee that
he knows nothing about this.
Mr. Cornelius. I testify that he does.
Mr. Kennedy. Under oath?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy, What did you do with those cards that you filled out
on October 10?
Mr. Cornelius. That evening, Mr. Casale and I — I drove Mr Ca-
sale over to 50th Street in New York. We parked at a parking lot
on 50th Street. We went over to the Berkeley Hotel and saw Mr.
Block.
Mr. Kennedy. AVliat is at the Berkeley Hotel ?
Mr. Cornelius. Mr. Block had a suite there.
Mr. Kennedy. Is that across the street from the Black Angus
Restaurant ?
Mr. Cornelius, Yes, sir,
Mr. Kennedy, He keeps a suite there, doesn't he ?
Mr. Cornelius. Well, he did at that time. I don't know what he
does now.
Mr, Kennedy, It is the Beverly Hotel, is it not ?
Mr, Cornelius. The Beverly ; that is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if the union paid the bill on that hotel
suite?
Mr. Cornelius, I would not know.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you go in the hotel ?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Describe what happened.
Mr. Cornelius. We sent u{)stairs and Mr. Casale spoke to Mr.
Block, I didn't hear the conversation. We had a shoebox almost
full of cards, I would say it held maybe 400 or 450 cards. He had a
conversation with Mr, Block, and directly after that we took them
over to the Graybar Building, Mr, Casale went upstairs and I waited
for him downstairs. When he came back, he did not have the box
any more.
Mr. Kennedy. Were these cards that he brought over there phony
cards ?
jSIr. Cornelius. Every single one of them.
Mr. Kennedy. And they were delivered the evening of October 10?
Mr. Cornelius. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. About what time were they delivered?
Mr. Cornelius. Well, it was still late when I left Jamaica to go into
New York. It took me approximately 40 or 45 minutes to get over
there. So it was still late. I don't recollect the time, I would say
about 7 or 7 : ;>0, something like that,
Mr. Kennehv. AVliat did you do tliat evening? Did you learn
of the results of the card count that evening?
Mr. CoRNFiius, No, sir, I went back to my car and went home.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 11489
Mr. Kkxnedy. Did you Icani that they had been successful in
the. card count tlie followinty day ^
Mr, Cornelius. I had no doubt of it, so I didn't woriv too mucli
about it.
The Chaiujian. You what?
Mr. (^OKNELirs. I had no doul)t that they would l)e successful.
Mr. Kennedy. He had no doubt that they would be successful.
Were there any steps taken then to replace the phony cards that
had been used with legitimate cards after the card count had taken
place?
Mr. CoRNi-xius. Yes, sir. After the «ird count had taken place,
all the agents were put on to the A. & P. to go out and get applications,
legitimate applications, signed by the employees. That was an in-
tensive drive for a coui)le of days. Those cards were used to replace
any phony ones that they had.
Mr. Kennedy. Did the company assist you in that drive?
Mr. (^ORNELius. We had no trouble getting them signed up.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you go to the stores?
Mr. ( 'oRNELius. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you assisted by any of the company personnel
at tJiat time?
Mr. (Cornelius. Well, people were sent into the back room for us,
and they just signed the cards like sheep. It was never so easy to
get applications.
Senator Church. That had never been your experience in your
previous contacts with these employees, had it?
Mr. Cornelius. No, sir. Usually it is a pretty hard job to get peo-
ple to sign an application. But this was a new experience, to say the
least.
Senator Church, The attitude was very different? They just came
in an<i'^*igned up, is that it?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir,
Mr. Kennedy, Did you do any of the work over in New Jersey?
Mr, Cornelius, Yes, sir.
Mr, Kennedy, This was after the contract had been signed October
11, 1952, in New York, and there was still no contract for New Jersey.
Wliat was the situation there ?
Mr. Cornelius, Well, one morning all the business agents from
local 342 were sent over to Mr, Kaplan's office in Jersey, and we were
all assigned a different territory, to go out and get applications from
the A. & P. workers. It was explained to us that the way had been
paved. All we had to do was go in and the people would sign
them. That is the way it turned out.
The Chairman, The way had been paved?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir. I didn't even have to talk in Jersey. The
people were sent back to me and I just handed out cards and they
signed them.
Mr. Kennedy. Who introduced you? Who made the arrangements
once you got over there ?
Mr. (^oRXEr.ius. Well, I myself traveled alone,
I had the east shore of New Jei'sey, All I did was introduce myself
to the manager of the store and then things started popping. He
«ent people back and kept me in continuous supply of personnel to
'^ign cards. It went over very fast and very thorough.
11490 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. What would you say to the employee when he came
back?
Mr. Cornelius. I don't remember anybody asking me anything.
They just took the cards and signed them.
Mr. Kennedy. They were all sent back there by the management?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. So the way was completely paved for you, is that
right?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You were talking about these fictitious cards. Have
you, in any other cases that the Meat Cutters, the Butchers were
interested in, known of any other instances where fictitious or phony
cards were used ?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir. They were used in the King KuUen
and — —
Mr. Kennedy. King Kullen ?
Mr. Cornelius. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. What is the other store ?
Mr. Cornelius. Kollner.
Mr. Kennedy. Kollner?
Mr. Cornelius. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you participate in that also ?
Mr. Cornelius. I may have filled out a couple. I don't recollect.
Mr. Kennedy. How did you know that fictitious cards were used
in those cases ?
Mr. Cornelius. Well, I saw them being filled out.
Mr. Kennedy. In both cases, both situations ?
Mr. Cornelius. That was one operation. They had sort of a com-
pany union.
Mr. Kennedy. What do you mean by that ?
Mr. Cornelius. I mean the 2 outfits were together in 1 union.
Mr. Kennedy. They had one union servicing both ?
Mr. Cornelius. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And the Meat Cutters were trying to replace this-
union ; is that right ?
Mr. Cornelius. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if Mr. Casale knew of the filling out-
of these cards in these cases ?
Mr. Cornelius. There is nothing in that office that happened that
Mr. Casale and Mr. Block didn't know personally.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know personally that Mr. Casale knew ?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. How do you know that?
Mr. Cornelius. Because, as I said, there is nothing that happens —
the cards were filled out in front of him.
Mr. Kjsnnedy. Do you know whether he filled out anv cards him-
self?
Mr. Cornelius. In Kollner, I don't know.
Mr. I^nnedy. But they were filled out in front of him; is that
right?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. That is all on this particular subject. I am goin^
to another subject.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11491
The CiiAiRMAx. Have yon any questions, Senator Church ?
Senator Church. No. I think this testimony has been very hicid.
I have no questions.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you know during this period of time any strike
threat that was being given to the A, & P. stores ?
Mr. Cornelius. Are you talking about the time of the card count ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Cornelius. No, sir. That is part of their imagination. We
could not have pulled a strike of the Urocery Clerks at that time any-
how, and the A. & P. knew that as well as we did.
Mr. Kennedy. You never discussed it ?
You never discussed the strike threat? It was never discussed with
you, that you were to strike ?
Mr. Cornelius. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. There was never a general discussion among the busi-
ness agents that you were going to strike the A. & P. stores ?
Mr. Cornelius. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You say you could not have struck them successfully
at that time ?
Mr. Cornelius. No, sir.
The Chairman. Why?
Mr. Cornelius. Because we didn't have the people. If we had the
people we wouldn't have had to make out fictitious cards.
Mr. Kennedy. You mean they wouldn't have paid any attention
to the strike ?
Mr. Cornelius. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Going on to a different subject, did you have any-
thing to do with the pension fund, the welfare fund?
Mr. Cornelius. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you working on the welfare fund in 1953 ?
Mr, Cornelius. Yes, sir. In 1953, 1 believe it was, for about 5 or 6
months.
Mr. Kennedy. Was Mr. Zeitler, who was Mr. Block's son-in-law, a
member of the union at that time ?
Mr. Cornelius. No, sir. He never has been, as far as I know.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he receive any of the benefits from the welfare
fund?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. When was that? 1954?
Mr. Cornelius. That was the time his first child was born. He
received, I think, $50 for the hospital and $50 for the doctor.
Mr. Kennedy. And that was out of the welfare fund ?
Mr. Cornelius. The welfare funds of the union.
Mr. Kennedy. And he was not part of the welfare fund ?
Mr. Cornelius. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Not a member of the union ?
Mr. Cornelius. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you protest about it ?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. To whom?
Mr. Cornelius. To Mr. Casale. He was in charge of welfare.
Mr. Kennedy. What did he say ?
11492 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Cornelius. He just signed the application, and put it through,
and Mr. Zeitler got his check, as far as I know.
Mr. Kenxedy, AVe have had some testimony before the committee
which briefly touched on some annuities for the Blocks. Are you
familiar with that ?
Mr. Cornelius. A little bit, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. AVlien did you first learn about these ?
INIr. Cornelius. I first learned about it by accident. "We had a sec-
tion meeting of my section, and Mr. Casale read off the minutes of the
executive board meeting to have them accepted. Of course, they were
accepted as read. Then he was talking to the membership about
something else, and he laid his paper down that contained the men-
tion of the pension fund for Mr. Block and for himself. I scanned
over the paper and I come across this. I had heard rumors of it be-
fore, but notliing concrete. Here it was in the minutes. But he had
never read it to the membership.
Mr. Kennedy. What was it that was in the minutes, the fact that
Block and Casale and several others were to receive pensions from the
union?
Mr. Cornelius. As far as I remember, it was just Block and Casale.
Mr. Kennedy. Block and Casale were to receive pensions from the
union ?
Mr. Cornelius. That is right, from 342.
Mr. Kennedy. And this was contained in the minutes ? '
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. But yet when Mr. Casale read the minutes to the
membership, this section dealing with the approval of the pension for
Block and Casale was not read to the membership ?
Mr. Cornelius. No. He conveniently forgot to read that.
Mr. Kennedy. That part was skipped over ?
Mr. Cornelitts. Yes, sir.
INIr. Kennedy. So the membei*ship never knew of it ?
Mr. Cornelius. No, sir ; but they approved it.
Mr. Kennedy. But they never knew about it ?
Mr. Cornelius. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know how much Max Block was to receive ?
Mr. Cornelius. No. I don't remember, sir. It was a substantial
amomit.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, if I could call Mr. George Martin,
he could ]iut the figures in on this subject.
The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you shall
give before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the tnith, so help you God ?
Mr. Martin. I do.
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE H. MARTIN
The Chairman. Mr. Martin, state your name, your place of resi-
dence, and your present occu])ation.
Mr. Martin. George H. jNIartin, 1 Thurston Avenue, Trenton, N. J.
Present occupation is investigator for this committee.
The (/irAiRMAN. "Wliat is your ])revious experience?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11493
Mr. Martin. I have been employed by congressional coiinnittees
since 1950.
The CiiAiRMAX. In what capacity? Are you an accountant?
Mr. Martin. Xo, an investigator.
The Chairman. As an investigator. Have you made an investiga-
tion of this matter AviUi respect to tlie minutes of this local, local
342?
Mr. Maritn. I have.
The Chairman. All right, Mr, Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. I would fii'st like to find out, Mr. Martin, whether
you or someone under your direction have made a study of the books
and records of local 342 and of the other locals of the Butchers to
determine Avhether Max and Louis Block received a special pension
arrangement from the Meat Cuttei"S.
INIr. Martin. I personally examined the niinure books of local 342
which reflect that in November of 1955, jirovision was nuide foi- an-
nuities for Max Block, president, and William Casale, .secretary-
treasurer. The minutes reflect that the suggestion to the executive
board was made by Max Block himself, and that the executive board
approved the arrangement and also submitted it to the membership
for ratification.
Mr. Kennedy. What were the amounts involved ?
Mr. Martin. The face amount of the annuity, and we later con-
firmed this by examination of the policies themselves, was $70,000
in the case of ]\Iax Block, and $50,000 in the case of Casale. The
general provisions of the annuity policies would have paid Max Block
$700 per month at age 60, and would have paid Casale $500 a month
at age 60.
The minutes of local 640 reflect that a similar arrangement was
made in the case of Louis Block, the face amount of the annuity
being $70,000, which would liave paid $500 a month at age 55, and
in the case of Harold Lapel, secretary-treasurer, who is a brother-in-
law of Louis Block, $500 a month at age 60.
I might say in addition that at the time the annuity was voted
for Louis Block he was not an officer of the union. He was a former
president of Local 640, and was director of the Labor Health Insti-
tute, which is maintained by the welfare funds of the two locals.
The Ch^virman. Did you find what premium was paid for these
annuities ?
Mr. Martin. The premiums in the case of Local 342
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kopecky might be able to give us those figures,
unless you can do it.
Mr. Martin. Approximately $15,000 in the case of local 640, $15,000
a year.
The Chairman. If you don't have the exact figures, do we have
another witness ?
Mr. Kopecky, will you be sworn ?
Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Kopecky. I do, Mr. Chairman.
11494 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE KOPECKY— Resumed
The Chairman. You are a member of the committee staff ?
Mr. KoPECKY. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. How long have you been with the committee?
Mr. KoPECKY. With this particular committee, since approximately
February of 1957.
The Chairman. Have you examined the records of local 242 and
other locals in the Meat Cutters' Union, to determine the facts re-
garding payment of premiums for annuities ?
Mr. KoPECKY. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right, you may make a statement of what
you found.
Mr. KoPECKY. The payments of premiums for these 4 retirement
income policies began in 1955. In 1955, a total of $31,891.80 was paid
by the 2 local unions for these policies, for Max Block, William
Casale, Louis Block, and Harold Lapel. Identical amounts were
also paid in 1956 and 1957 for a 3-year total of $95,675.40.
The Chairman. What is that total ?
Mr. Kopecky. That is a 3-year total for the 4 policies. r
The Chairman. $95,000? 4
Mr. Kopecky. Yes, $95,675.40. That is through 1957. f
The Chairman. '\'\riiat fund was it paid out of ? ^
Mr. Kopecky. It was paid out of the general treasury.
The Chairman. Out of the general treasury, money collected from
dues and initiation fees ?
]Mr. Kopecky. Monthly dues and initiation fees, yes.
The Chairman. $95,675.40?
Mr. Kopecky. There is an anticipated annual payment in the
future of approximately $32,000 each and every year.
The Chairman. Aromid $32,000 that the local will be obligated
for if they keep up these annuities ?
Mr. Kopecky. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, the individuals that received it from 342 were
Max Block and William Casale ?
Mr, Kopecky. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And from 640, Louis Block and Harold Lapel ?
Mr. Kopecky. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy^. Let me ask you this : You say Louis Block at that
time was not even a member of local 640 or was not an officer of local
640?
Mr. Martin. He was a former president of 640 who took leave of
absence from that position in 1953, and \Yho subsequently was suc-
ceeded by Max Block, his brother, as president. Louis never returned
to the union but continued to be the director of the Labor Health
Institute, which is maintained by the health and welfare funds of the
two locals.
Mr. Kennedy But he was not an officer of local 640 at the time that
he received the benefit of this pension or at the time the decision to
give liim this pension was made ?
Mr. Martin. He was not.
Mr. Kennedy'. How much of the funds have been paid for Louis
Block alone, Mr. Kopecky ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11495
Mr. KoPECKY. During the 3-year period that the policies have been
in existence, a total of $30,834.
Mr. Kennedy. All right.
The Chairman. That is paid for someone not now a member of the
union ?
Mr. KoPECKY. Not now an officer of the union.
The Chairman. Do you know whether he is a member or not ?
Mr. KoPECKY. I believe Mr. Block is still a member of the union.
The Chairman. He is just a dues-paying member and not an officer ?
Mr. KoPECKY. That is correct.
The Chairman. Is there anything further ?
TESTIMONY OF FRED CORNELIUS— Eesumed
Mr. Kennedy. You said it wasn't approved by the membership,
but was the contract that was signed by the A. & P. on October 11,
ever submitted to the membership for ratification ?
Mr. Cornelius. Xo, sir.
Mr. Ivennedy. They never had a chance to go over the terms of
that contract and approve it, is that right ?
Mr. Cornelius. No, sir.
The Chairman. Did you know what was in the contract ? Did you,
yourself, know the terms of it ?
Mr. Cornelius. I only knew what I was told, and I was given a
printed sheet, and that was supposed to be the contract.
The Chairman. But the rank and file membership never knew any-
thing about it ?
Mr. Cornelius. They knew the same as I did. They got the same
printed sheet.
The Chairman. You don't know whether it was correct or not?
Mr. Cornelius. No, sir.
The Chairman. But there was never a meeting where it was dis-
cussed, and where the rank and file voted to approve, to accept it ?
Mr. Cornelius. No, sir. I know the grocery contract would never
have been accepted because they had reduced the scale for men going
up the scale, and they would have wound up with $5 less than they
had before tlie union.
The Chairman. They would have wound up with $5 less?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You mean less in wages ?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir. We were on what they called "progres-
sion" and they would wind up with approximately $5 a week less
than what we would have gotten if there was no union.
The Chairman. I don't understand that. I thought a union
Mr. Cornelius. I couldn't understand it at the time either, but that
is the way it was.
The Chairman. You mean they actually made a contract for less
pay for some of the workers than they were then receiving ?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir, not what they were receiving at the time,
but before the contract they had a chance to go up to that salaiy, and
after the contract they stopped at $5 less than what they would have
gotten.
The Chairman. They didn't give them less wages, but they gave
them less opportunity than they had before to increase their wages?
11496 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir. So you coiildirt expect that to Ije ratified.
The Chairman. This may have some bearing on it.
I hand you a photostatic copy of what I understand the union dis-
tributed to the men as being the contract agreed upon. Will you ex-
amine that and state if you recognize it.
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. CoRNf:Lius. Yes, sir.
The CiixViRMAN. Do you recognize it?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. What is it?
Mr. Cornelius. That is a copy of the grocery contract.
The Chairman. That they distributed among the membership?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir. That clearly shows that tliey got less.
The Chairman. It shows right on the face of it ?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. So therefore the employees were informed of this
provision of the contract ?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You said they wouldn''t ai)prove of the contract
if they had know about this provision?
Mr. Cornelius. They didn't approve of it. T was in the A. & V.
Stores at the tiuie, and I caught plenty about it.
The Chairman. What is that?
Mr. CoRNELii's. I caught plenty about it from tlie grocery clerks,
and they wanted to know liow we could sign a contract like that, and
I had no answer for them.
The Chairman. Well, this may be made exhibit No. 12.
(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 12" for reference
and may be found in the files of the Select Committee.)
Mr. Kennedy. Now, were there any other instances that you knew
of where Block or Casale left out pertinent information from the
minutes when they were read to the members of the union?
Mr, Cornelius. I wasn't a member of the executive board, sir, so
I wouldn't know.
Mr. Kennedy, Were the members of the unions always informed
as to the expenditures of money and hoAV the money was being used?
Mr. CoRNELii's. No, sir. It was a general accounting, and nobody
ever knew how the money was spent. They spent so much of it and
for what nobody knew. One year they had an experience, there
was $38,000 down for cars, and they almost had a riot, and after that
they omitted detailed expenditures.
Mr. Kennedy. They read out the fact that $38,000 had gone for
automobiles, and the imion members were so upset they never read
that out again?
Ml-. CoRNELTi^s. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. They never read out about how much was spent for
automobiles after that?
Mr. CoRNEi^TTTS. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. What about the financial accounts of the union?
Was that distributed to the members as it is supposed to be done under
the National I/abor Relations Act?
Mr. CoRNELH's. The lirst financial account of that union that I
ever saw, and I was there for 12 years, was in December of 1956,
during the campaign for reelection.
IMPROPER ACTIMTIKS LV THF. LABOR FIELD 11497
Mr. Kexnedv. Prior lo that time that iiifoinuition wasn't distrih-
nted to members {
Mr. Cornelius. I never saw it.
Ml". Kennedy. Did you know, while you svere working' around the
union, if any of the checks were iilled out in bhink? Was tliat [)ro-
cedure followed^
Mr. (^orneIxIus. Yes, sir, that was a general practice.
Mr. Kennedy. W\\o would lill <iut the checks?
Mr. Cornelius. INIr. Bliss was the trustee of the union, and from
the time that I started in the union until 1941, until the time that I
left, Bliss would sit down once or twice a week and fill out 10 or 12
pages of blank checks, and IVIr. Casale would use them as he saw jit.
That practice continued until the time I left.
Mr. Kennedy. What about petty cash slips? Did you ever see
those filled out ?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir. During- the time of the Howard Johnson
strike in 1956, 1 went into Mr. Casale's office and we had voucher pads.
If you have an unusual expense, you fill out a voucher pad, and they
reimburse you. I saw- three pads of vouchers with approximately 50
vouchers in each pad, that had been signed by three of the business
agents, blank ones.
Mr. Kennedy. Who were the business agents that had signed them ?
Mr. Cornelius. Abandota, Patrecco, and Coletti.
Mr. Kennedy. Abandota, Patrecco, and. Coletti ?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever speak to them about the fact that they
filled out these petty cash slips in blank ?
Mr. Cornelius. No, I don't think so.
Mr. Kennedy. You never talked to them about it ?
Mr. Cornt5lius. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, you were suspended from the union yourself,
were you not ?
Mr. Cornelius. Sir ?
Mr. Kennedy. You Avere suspended from the union ?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. "V^lien was that ?
Mr, Cornelius. In November of 1956.
Mr. Kennedy. What w^ere you suspended for ?
Mr. Cornelius. Well
Mr. Kennedy. What did they tell you you were suspended for. and I
want to get the record straight ?
Mr. Cornelius. They told me that I hadn't been taking care of my
territory, and that people weren't getting the salaries that they were
supposed to have been getting. However, I had spent the previous 6
months on the Howard Johnson strike, and someone else was taking
my territory.
The people that they claimed weren't getting the salaries they Avere
supposed to be getting were mostly the managers of the Walburn
stores. It wasn't only mj- territory that the}'- weren't getting their
salaries, and in fact I brought it to their attention quite a few times.
Mr. Block himself knew Mr. Walburn, and so what was in the con-
tract didn't mean anytliing and the people didn't get it.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they also accuse you of trying to stir up some of
the business agents against Max Block ?
11498 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD m
Mr. Cornelius. Yes. sir. I thought it was time Max Block got out,''
Mr. KJENNEDY. So that was true, that part of it ?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you in fact work up a slate to rim against Max:
Block in December?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that about the time you were suspended ?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
Mr. I&NNEDY. Wlien you were getting ready to run against him
and the rest of the officers of the union ; is that right ?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You were suspended ?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you retain the services of a lawyer to try to
help you, that is Mr. Keating ?
Mr. Cornelius. A lawyer, yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. William J. Keating ?
Mr. Cornelius. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, at the nomination meeting, we have had some
testimony to the effect that at this nomination meeting there was some
discussion about whether there would be a 1-year term for officers or
a 4-year term for officers.
Mr. Cornelius. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And at that time it was put to the vote of the mem-
bership ?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
Mr, Kennedy. And according to the previous witness, the member-
ship voted overwhelming for a 1-year term ?
Mr. Cornelius. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us what happened at that meeting,
as far as the 1 year and the 4 years were concerned?
Mr. Cornelius. Well, Mr. Schacter was in charge of the meeting,
and he was vice president of the international union.
Mr. Kennedy. Leon Schacter ; is that right ?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes ; and when the question of the length of term
for the new slate was brought up, he took a vote on it. First there
was a show of hands and then a standing vote, and both times it was
overwhelmingly in favor of a 1-year term. But Mr. Schacter thought
otherwise. But there was such a riot, stamping of feet, and so forth,
that he said, "Well, it will be put on the ballot," but it never appeared
on the ballot.
Mr. Kennedy. So you never got a right to vote on it ?
Mr. Cornelius. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Or a vote legitimately, after you voted it down at
the meeting? It was moved out of order and didn't count and they
said it would be put on the ballot and it Avas never put on the ballot ?
Mr. Cornelius. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Your slate got beaten in the election ? ,;
Mr. Cornelius. Well, that is what they said, and I think we got
robbed of it.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, you had the Honest Ballot Association.
Mr. Cornelius. I found out about that.
Mr. Kennedy. The election came out against you anyway?
k
i
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11499
Mr. Cornelius. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. After that was over, or after the election was over,
did you have any difficulties with the union ?
Mr. Cornelius. Not myself, no. sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did any of your family?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. What happened i
Mr. Cornelius. My two brothers who were also candidates for
office on the slate were fired from their jobs.
^Ir. Kennedy. Where were they working ?
Mr. Cornelius. They were working for the Hill's Super Markets
on I^ng Island.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know why they were fired?
Mr. Cornelius. Well, the excuse was that they had spent too much
time on the election.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if the A. & P. Co. helped or assisted
Mr. Block in any way in the election ?
Mr. Cornelius. Yes, sir; the A. & P. Co. let shop stewards from
every store, along with two or three of their friends, come to the
meeting, to get into the front of the meeting, and sort of pack it.
They paid them for the time.
Mr. Block got sort of a surprise when some of our candidates
turned up with the people who were there.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that a big help or would it have been a big
help to let all of these people out early and pay them during the
tune ?
Mr. Cornelius. It didn't turn out it was any help because we got
robbed of it anyhow.
Mr. Kennedy. Potentially it might have been ?
Mr. Cornelius. The people were in an uproar over it, and they
showed it at the nomination meeting.
Mr. Kennedy. Are you familiar with this ?
The Chairman. I hand you here what may be a campaign docu-
inent, and I don't know. I will let you examine it and tell me what
it is, if you can.
Mr. Cornelius. I have seen it here and I will identify it.
The Chairman. Wliat is it ?
Mr. Cornelius. It is a campaign document that was sent out by
the union for their members.
The Chairman. Sent out by whom ?
Mr. Cornelius. By the union. It was sent to every member of the
union.
The Chairman. By the union officials?
Mr. Cornelius. Well, nobody else would have the names and ad-
dresses of all the members of the union, and I don't know exactly who
sent it out, but it was sent to every member of the union.
The Chairman. It came from the local headquarters?
Mr. Cornelius. Evidently. There is nobody else has their names
and addresses.
Mr. Kennedy. Just before I get into this, to clarify a matter that
I was just discussing with you, when the employees got out of A. & P.
early and went to tlie meeting, who paid the employees?
Mr. Cornelius. A. & P.
11500 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kkxxedy. While they were at the luiioii meeting-, isn't that
right?
Mr. CoRXELii !s. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kexxedy. As a favor to Max Block ?
Mr. Cornelius. Max Block gave them frankfurters.
Mr. Kennedy. I am not going into the frankfurters. But on the
poiut as to who paid them while they were at the meeting, they were
paid by the A. c^ P. isn't that right?
Mr. CoRNELivs. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And according to the testimony we received ye.ster-
day, it was from a request from Max Block to ]Mr. Ratcliffe.
You say this was put out by the union, and I point out this state-
ment where it says :
So who wants to wipe out Santa Clause,
and —
It is in the bag, a 40-hour week.
It says here :
Our purpose in rushiuj; the emergency coinmnnication tu your home is
prompted by very serious consideration. We, a group of your fellow members,
pooled our own few bucks to get this letter out to your homes. We spent all of
Saturday and Sunday and Monday addressing envelopes to all of the members
whose addresses we could locate.
So evidently this must have been a spontaneous committee that was
operating out of the union, and they all got their money together.
Mr. Cornelius. No doubt.
Mr. Kennedy. Despite the statement that union paid for it.
Mr. Cornelius. It didn't fool me for a minute, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Could I ask Mr. Kopecky, have we made any study
to find out who paid for this or Mr. ^lartin ?^
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE H. MAETIN— Resumed
Mr. Kennedy. Did you make a study to tind out who i)aid for the
literature put out, where it says :
We, a group of your fellow members, pooled our own few bncks to get this
letter out to your homeV
Mr. Martin. The files of local ^42 show a bill from World-Wide
Press syndicate for the circular in question, and billed to the union
for $890, and subsequently paid for by check No. 2077.
The Chairman. This document m\iy be nnide Exhibit No. 13.
(Document referred to was marked ''Exhibit No. l.')." for refer-
ence, and may be found in the files of the select connnittee.)
The Chairman. Is there anything further ? x
i
TESTIMONY OF FRED CORNELIUS— Resumed ^
The (Chairman. The Chair has beeen requested to ask a question.
The re(]uest comes from flic coiniscl of the A. c<t P. The question is
as follows :
Did you personally negotiate with any A. ct P. official in l^.VJ on
the renewal of the A. & P. Butchers' contract ?
Mr. Cornelius. No, sir.
IMPROPER ACTIVITFES IX THE LABOR FIELD 11501
The CiiAiRMAK. You had no part in the ne<^otiations for the re-
newal of the Butchers' contract with A. & P. ?
Mr. Cornelius. No, sir.
The CiiAiKMAx. All right.
Are there any other questions ?
Mr. Kexxedy. Did you ever heai' there was a secret agreement in
connection with that?
Mr. Cornelius. No, sir.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much.
Call the next Avitness.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Cole.
The Chairman. Mr. Cole, will you be sworn, please.
You do solemnl}' swear that the evidence 3'OU shall give before this
Senate select committee shall be the truth, tlie whole truth, and notli-
ing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr, Cole. I do.
TESTIMONY OF NORMAN A. COLE
The Chairman. State your name, and your place of residence, and
your business or occupation ?
Mr. Cole. My name is Norman A. Cole, C-o-l-e, and I reside at
10212 Fleetwood Drive, Tampa, Fla., and I have been an examiner
with the National Labor Relations Board since 1944. I am presently
stationed at its region 12 located in Tampa, Fla.
Prior to February 1, 1957, I was stationed in the region 2 office,
located at 2 Park Avenue, New York City.
The Chairman. All right, you waive counsel, I assume?
Mr. Cole. I do.
The Chairman. Mr. Kennedy, you may proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. I would like to have Mr. Walter Ma}' conduct the
interrogation of this witness.
The Chairman. All right, Mr. May, you may proceed.
(At this point, the following members of the committee were pres-
ent: Senators McClellan and Church.)
Mr. May. Mr. Cole, you were associated with the NeAv York re-
gional office of the National Labor Relations Board for what period?
Mr. Cole. My association with the New York regional office began
in September 1944, and Avith the exception of about 11 months during
1946 and 1947, Avlien I Avas temporarily stationed in the Atlanta office,
which is region 10, I continued at the New York regional office until
February 1, 1957.
Mr. May. In connection with your duties as examiner, did you be-
come quite familiar with card checks in connection Avith certain rep-
resentation proceedings ?
Mr. Cole. I became familiar Avith card checks in the sense of check-
ing cards in connection with the submission of proof of intei-est in
support of petitions filed.
Mr. May. In 1952, shortly after the A. & P. signed a contract Avith
the Meat Cutters Union on behalf of the grocery clerks in October
of that year, did I^ocal 342 of the Meat Cutters Union bring certain
petitions before the National Labor Relations Board in connection
with other groceiy chains?
11502 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Cole. That is correct. Under date of December 12, 1952, there
were six petitions filed on the same date, all filed by Local 342 of the
Amalagamated Meat Cutters, all of which were assigned to me for
processing.
Mr May. Those six firms were H. C. Bohack, Inc., King Kullen
Grocery Co., Inc., Kollner, Inc., Mid-Island Markets, Super Market
Meats, and Supreme Sunrise Food Exchanges; is that true?
Mr. Cole. That is correct.
Mr. May. Did the regional director then forward a communication
to the union regarding these petitions ?
Mr. Cole. That is correct. These petitions, when filed, were not sup-
ported by the authorization cards or applications for membership as
is required under the Board's rules and regulations.
Accordingly, the telegram was dispatched to the petitioner with
respect to all six petitions, bringing this to their attention and giving
them a deadline for submitting such proof of interest.
Mr. May. After the union received this request for authorization
cards, did they withdraw the cases in connection with Bohack and
Super Market Meats and Supreme Sunrise ?
Mr. Cole. That is correct. Those three were withdrawn and no
cards were ever submitted in comiection with them.
Mr. May. Local 342 then did submit cards in the remaining three
cases ?
Mr. Cole. That is correct.
Mr. May. What was your experience in the King Kullen case ?
Mr. Cole. Well, my first observation was, upon receipt of the pay-
roll list submitted by the employer, which lists the employees within
the unit covered by the petition, was the fact that, numerically speak-
ing, the number of cards submitted did not amomit to 30 percent.
Mr. May. About 66 employees were involved in the particular unit ?
Mr. Cole. That is correct. To the best of my recollection, there
were about 66 in the King Kullen unit.
Mr. May. Since the union had filed an insufficient number of cards,
did you request that additional cards be forwarded ?
Mr. Cole. That is correct. I phoned, I believe it was, Mr. Cohen's
office, Arnold Cohen, who was counsel for local 342, and I informed
him of the fact that there were some cards short of the 30 percent.
At that time, I also informed him that I had noticed some discrep-
ancies with respect to certain information as related on the cards
already submitted by the union, and the information which appeared
on the payroll list submitted by the employer.
At that time I did not state the exact nature of such discrepancies.
Mr. May. Thereafter, the union submitted additional cards ?
Mr. Cole. That is right. I did tell him at that time that if the
union submitted the additional cards, to bring the showing numer-
ically, to at least 30 percent, that because of such discrepancies it would
be necessary for me to make a check in connection with that phase of
it.
Mr. May. This is a situation that occurred some 2 or 3 months
after the A. & P. card count. After you closely checked the cards
submitted by local 342, what did you determine ?
Mr. Cole. In checking the cards, the signatures on the cards,
against the names appearing on the payroll list submitted by the em-
i
I
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11503
ployer, it was RvScertained tliat tliere was a variance in the social
security Jiuinbers appearing with respect to the same employee ; tliere
was also a variance with respect to various addresses.
In fact, the check revealed that, as I recall, there were 15 cards
submitted by the union which had a different social security number
than that which appeared upon the coni{)any records which they sub-
mitted. I also recall that tliere were ol, I believe it was, cards which
had been submitted by the union, which contained an address that
was different from that given by the company on its payroll list.
Mr. jNIay. However, at that time you were primarily concerned
with the signatures contained on the unions cards; is that true?
Mr. Cole. That is correct. And it was the variance in the social
security numbei-s and the variance in the addresses which first alerted
me to the fact that something appeared to be amiss with the cards,
and it was l>ecause of that that I deemed a further check into the
authenticity of the signatures as being warranted.
Mr. May. In your check you found that on 60 cards submitted by
the union, or for 60 cards submitted by the union, the names were con-
tained on the company records; is that true?
Mr. Cole. That is correct. Of the cards submitted, and I don't
recall the exact number of total cards submitted by the union, but of
those that were submitted 60 contained a signature, the name of which
also api)eared on the company's payroll list. The payroll list, under-
stand, at this point was a typeAvritten list. It did not contain any
signatures of the employees,
I found 60 appearing on cards, and also foiiiul the same 60 appear-
ing on this list.
Mr. May. Thereupon you received certain records from the com-
pany containing the signatures of the employees ?
Mr. Cole. Yes. In view of the circumstances as I mentioned, the
the discrepancies in the addresses, and so forth, I felt that the check
was warranted, so I contacted the employer to secure the official signa-
tures of the employees on record with the company.
Mr. May. Of the 60 cards submitted, how manv cards contained
reasonably true signatures?
Mr. Cole. The company made available to me with the W-4 with-
holding exemption forms which they had on file, and which contained
the employees" signatures, and of these 60 cards, I found that at most
7 apparently appeared to be authentic, that is, contained authentic
I signatures.
Mr. May. Seven out of sixty ?
Mr. Cole. Out of 60.
Mr. May. Fifty-three contained possibly fraudulent signatures?
Mr. Cole. It would appear that they were signed by somebody
other than the employee involved.
Mr. May. That takes care of the King Kullen case.
Now, in the Kollner stores, the situation was quite similar. You
eventually checked the cards, the union cards, against the company's
records, and some 54 cards were checked ?
Mr. Cole. That is right. In the Kollner matter, which had been
scheduled for hearing previously before the Kullen investigation had
been completed, in view of this development in the Kullen situation,
and a contention by the intervenor as well, in the Kollner case it was
21243 — 58 — pt. 29 -21
11504 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
determined and decided that certain investigation was desirable there
also.
Mr. May. Out of the 54 cards checked in the Kollner case, how
many contained reasonably true signatures?
Mr. Cole. Again I checked tliem against signatures of the employees
in the possession of the employer, and of the 54 only 7 appeared to be
reasonably authentic.
Mr. May. Once again, 7 out of 54, and 47 contained fraudulent
signatures?
Mr. Cole. That is correct.
Mr. May. That means there was a great difference between the sig-
nature on the miion card and the company record ?
Mr. Cole. That is correct. It was some difference that I couldn't
conclude with any reasonable interpretation that it was signed by the
same person.
Mr. May. In the Mid-Island Market case, that was a little different
situation. Local 342 did submit cards in its petition for an election?
Mr. Cole. That is correct.
Mr. May. And since no normal complaint was made, and the cards
appeared satisfactory on their face, that case went to an election ; is
that true ?
Mr. Cole. That is correct. In that case, I did not have any social-
security numbers or addresses on the employer list,
Mr. May. You had no additional data ?
Mr. Cole. That is correct. And unlike in the Kollner case, there
was no contention by the intervenor either that they believed that the
cards submitted by local 342 to be fraudulent. Therefore, it did go to
an election, a consent election.
Mr. May. There were some 80 employees involved in that particular
unit?
Mr. Cole. Initially, the petition as filed contained approximately
80. However, frequently, when a consent election is worked out, there
is some variation in the unit made.
Somebody else may contend that the unit is a little larger. The
result is, I believe, that in the election there were approximately 131
eligible employees.
Mr. May. Local 342 submitted 40 cards at that time ?
Mr. Cole. Forty cards, which were found on the company's list.
Mr. May. When the election was finally held, how many votes did
local 342 obtain.
Mr. Cole. The results of the election revealed that there were 6
votes for the petitioner, that is, local 342, and 110 for local 1500 of the
RCIA. RCIA was at that time the incumbent union and had been
representing them.
Mr. May. It is true that local 1500 was the incumbent union in all
three cases we have mentioned ?
Mr. Cole. That is correct.
The Chairman. Are there any questions. Senator?
Senator Church. I have just 2 or 3 questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cole, I wonder if I might question you as an expert witness
just briefly. One of the purposes of this committee, as you know,
is to endeavor to ascertain whether changes should be made in the
existing Federal laws.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11505
Mr. Cole. I realize that.
Senator Church. Have you had a great deal of experience in
making checks on card counts of the kind you have been describing?
Mr. Cole. We have a card check in connection with the showing
of interest in all petitions filed by labor organizations. There is no
such check, of course, where a petition is filed by the employer. In
those checks, we do not, normally, make a check as to the authenticity
of the signature.
Senator Church. Has it often been your experience when such a
check is made, that is to say of the authenticity of the cards them-
selves, that fraudulent cards are frequently used? Is this something
that happens with any degree of frequency, in your experience, or in
the experience of the NLRB ?
Mr. Cole. I haven't had too many occasions myself, personally,
where the issue was raised, either because of ourselves noticing some-
thing apparently amiss, or because of the other parties submitting
some evidence indicating possible fraud.
For that reason, my experience is rather limited on that scope.
Generally, as I say, we do not make checks unless there is some indica-
tion of it, and in those cases where I have, as a result of such informa-
tion or evidence, of course, I did find that the cards in large part were
not authentic.
Senator Church. So unless some objection is registered by one of
the parties, it is normally not the procedure of the NLRB to check the
authenticity of the cards ?
Mr. Cole. Unless we ourselves, in inspecting something — ^if some-
thing comes to our attention which would alert us to something possibly
being wrong. For example, as I explained before, the variance in
addresses and social-security numbers immediately alerted me that
something was amiss. So that investigation was completely made on
our own initiative and in no way requested or suggested by any of the
parties.
On the other hand, where we don't have such information available,
then we primarily compare the types of handwriting. For example,
we will inspect them as to whether or not more than one card appears
to have been signed by the same person.
Of course, I realize there are ways to deceive one in that respect.
Senator Church. Yes ; we had testimony this afternoon as to what
some of those waj^s are.
Mr. Cole. That is right.
Senator Church. I have no further questions.
Mr. Cole. If I might add, with the Board in that connection it is
largely a case of economics in not checking into the authenticity of
the signatures. Frequently, of course, it would be necessary, as it
was in King Kullen, to go out to the company's plant to inspect these
records, because they are reluctant to allow them out of their office
for fear they might get lost. It comes to a question of plain economics,
to a large extent.
Mr. Kennedy. Based on your study and the results of it, there was
an attempt, was there not, by the Butchers Union to perpetrate a
fraud in at least two of these cases ?
Mr. Cole. I don't know, of course, what was back of or in what
manner these cards were signed. It is obvious that fraudulent cards
were filed and somebod}^ knew that they were fraudulent.
11506 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. And they were filed by the Butchers Union?
Mr. Cole. They were filed by the Butchers Union, either directly
by the union or through its counsel ; that is correct.
The Chairman. Is there anything further ?
If not, thank you very much.
■Call the next witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. O'Grady?
The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear the evidence yow shall give
before this Senate select connnittee shall be the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. O'Grady. I do.
TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH E. O'GRADY
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your
business or occupation.
Mr. O'Grady. My name is Joseph E. O'Grady. I reside at 1181
Bush wick Avenue, Brooklyn, N. Y. My profession is that of an
attorney.
The Chairman. Mr. O'Grady, I assume you waive counsel ?
Mr. O'Grady. I certainly do.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. O'Grady, you participated in the card count
that was held in October 1952 ; did you not 'I
Mr. O'Grady. I conducted it.
Mr. Kennedy. When did you first learn that the Meat Cutters
were trying to organize the A. & P. clerks ^
idr. O'Grady. Well, when inquiry was made of me about whether
I would be available to make the card count in the event they found
it necessary to do so.
Mr. Kennedy. When was that ?
Mr. O'Grady. I would say it was sometime within a week prior
to the start of the count.
Mr. Ivennedy. That is the firet time that you ever learned of the
Meat Cutters attempting to organize the clerks ^
Mr. O'Grady. That is my best recollection ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You say that was probably within the first week of
October 1952 ?
Mr. O'Grady. Yes, sir; within a week of October 9.
Mr. Kennedy. You had not been contacted in September?
Mr. O'Grady. No, sir; I had not.
Mr. Kennedy. When were you told that you should get ready
specifically for Friday or Thursday, October 9 ?
Mr. O'Grady. Specifically I was told on October 8.
Mr. Kennedy. October 8 ?
Mr. O'Grady. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. The day before ?
Mr. O'Grady. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you make yourself available?
Mr. O'Grady. Well, they had decided on tlie card count and could
I get started in the morning and get it finished by Friday night.
Mr. Kennedy. Had you had conversations with them prior to that
time ?
Mr. O'Grady. The only conversation I remember prior to that —
we\\, I will say my best recollection is that someone had called me,
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11507
I thought it was Burt Zorn — to ask me if I would be available to make
a count in the event they found one was necessary.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they ask you whether you would be available
at the end of the week to do it ?
Mr. O'Grady. They didn't say when.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you mean they just called you the day before
and told you to come in the following day ?
Mr. O'GrLVDY. When the final arrangement was made on October
8 ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Prior to that, had there been some preliminary ar-
rangements tliat vou sliould make yourself available, get ready for
the 9th and 10th?''
Mr. O'Grady. Xo, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. They just called you on the 8th and said to come
in the following day ?
Mr. O'Grady. As I said, sometime in the week prior to that I had
been asked whether I would make myself available to make a count
in the event they needed one. On October 8, they called me and said
thev needed a count, and would I stait it the following morning, on
the'Oth.
]\Ir. Kennedy. "Were there any financial arrangements made with
you at that time ?
Mr. O'Grady. Xo, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that subsequent to the card count ?
Mr. O'Grady. Yes; sometime after the card count was finished.
Mr. Kennedy. Had you participated in any card counts prior to
this time ^
Ml'. O'Grady. I had never actually conducted a card count. I was
familiar with card counts, but I never actually conducted one.
Mr. Kennedy. And the card count was to take place at the A. & P.
oflices?
Mr. O'Grady. That was the arrangement made over the phone on
Wednesday, the 8th.
Mr. Kennedy. AVhen did you arrive ?
Mr. O'Grady. I think I arrived sometime between 8 and 9 o'clock
on Wednesday morning.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they tell you at that time when you arrived
there, what day they wanted tlie card count completed by ?
Mr. O'Grady. They had told me that on Wednesday when tliey
spoke to me on the phone.
Mr. Kennedy. When did they say tliey wanted it completed by?
Mr. O'Grady. Friday niglit.
Mr. Kennedy. Who told you that ?
Mr. O'Grady. Either Burt Zorn or Burt Zorn and Arnold Colien,
because T spoke to both of them on Wednesday, the 8th.
Mr. Kennedy. Burt Zorn was the one arranging it for the company ?
Mr. O'Grady. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. And Arnold Cohen was arranging it for the union ?
Mr. O'Grady. For the union.
Mr. Kennedy. So you arrived at around 8 o'clock, did you say?
Mr. O'Grady. Between 8 and 9. I don't remember the exact time.
Mr. Kennedy. And you started comiting the cards, did 3'ou?
Mr. O'Grady. Yes.
11508 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. You had an assistant there ?
Mr. O'Gradt. I had Mr. De Santis there.
Mr. Kennedy. What were the mechanics of going through the
cards ?
Mr. O'Grady. Well, I had been supplied with what I call the pay
slips or time cards of the employees for 1 given week in which they
had worked. They had been arranged alphabetically. I had those
before me here. Alongside of that were the cards which had been
furnished by the union, with the authorization or designation to
represent them.
De Santis — my recollection is — most frequently, unlike his testimony
today, would call from the union card, and I would check it against the
company pay slip.
However, I think to relieve the monotony, it was a monotonous job,
we switched once in a while.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you check the signatures of the cards against
the payroll?
Mr. O'Grady. I checked some of the signatures, not all of them.
Mr. Kennedy. You received some 4,300 cards. How many signa-
tures do you think you might have compared ?
Mr. O'Grady. Well, it might have been different in different units.
It is hard for me to tell you, Mr. Kennedy, exactly. But if you want
me to make an approximation, I would say some place around half of
the signatures in each of the units.
Mr. Kennedy. So you probably compared about 2,000 signatures?
You stated you came at 9 o'clock in the morning and you stayed
until what time on Thursday ?
_ Mr. O'Grady. My recollection is that De Santis went home some
time — I thought he went home at the time I went out to dinner, around
7 o'clock. I went out to dinner, my recollection is, around 7 o'clock,
and I came back —
Mr. Kennedy. The first day ?
Mr. O'Grady. Yes, sure — and I came back, and I worked, accord-
ing to my recollection, to some time between 10 : 30 and 11 o'clock.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not indicate that to me the last time I
talked to you.
Mr. O'Grady. I don't think you asked me.
Mr. Kennedy. I asked you how late you stayed and you were leav-
ing earlier in the evening that time.
Mr. O'Grady. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. The first day ?
Mr. O'Grady. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You went out to dinner and then you came back?
Mr. O'Grady. I came back after dinner.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. De Santis, what time did he leave ?
Mr. O'Grady. I said I thouglit that he left at the same time I went
out to dinner. He indicated he went out earlier.
Mr. Kennedy. Around 5 : 30. I think he left.
Mr. O'Grady. 20 minutes to C lie said, I think.
Mr, Kennedy. And you came back the next day ?
Mr. O'Grady. Yes, the next morning.
Mr. Kennedy. Wliat time did you arrive the next morning?
Mr. O'Grady. I arrived at approximately 9 o'clock or a little before.
Mr. Kennedy. You worked until what time ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11509
Mr. O'Grady. Well, we went out to lunch. We came back, Mr.
DeSantis left earlier, around 6 o'clock or so, and I continued on,
until the job was completed some time between 10 and 12 o'clock at
night.
Mr. Kexnedt. Did you receive some cards that day, on the 10th?
Was a delivery made of cards ?
Mr. O'Grady. On Friday?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. 0'Gr.\dy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. "\Anien were the deliveries made?
Mr. O'Grady. My recollection is that there was a delivery made in
the morning, and probably two other deliveries during the course
of the day.
JNIr. Kennedy. Was there a delivery made in the evening?
Mr. O'Grady. I have no recollection of that. I have been asked
about that before, and I have no recollection of it.
Mr. Kennedy. By whom were the deliveries made ?
Mr. O'Grady. I don't recall who made the delivery on Friday, but
my best recollection is that on Thursday the delivery was made by
Mr. Block and somebody that was with him.
]\Ir. Kennedy. What about on Friday?
]Mr. O'Grady. Frankly I can't recall who made the delivery on
Friday.
Mr. Kennedy. Did ]\Ir. Casale make the delivery ?
Mr. O'Grady. He might have, but I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. You say you can't recollect whether there was a
delivery made on Friday evening?
;Mr. O'Gr.vdy. I cannot recall a delivery being made Friday evening.
I liave been asked by your investigators.
Mr. Kennedy. When was the last delivery made?
JNIr. O'Grady. The last one as I recall was made in the afternoon,
some time around 4 or 5 o'clock, and that was of the Westchester
cards.
Mr. Kennedy. How late did you stay that night?
Mr. O'Grady. Some time between 10 and 12 o'clock I got finished.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. De Santis testified he felt that the cards were
about finished, maj^be 1 more hour's work.
Mr. 0'Gr.vdy. Maybe 1 more hour's work.
Mr. Kennedy. If there were no cards delivered that evening, why
did you have to remain until 10 or 12 o'clock ?
Mr. O'Gr.vdy. Because I had enough work to keep me busy until
then. That was Mr. De Santis' estimate of the time necessary to com-
plete it.
Mr. Kennedy. He was mistaken?
]\Ir. O'Grady. Definitely, because I had to stay until some time be-
tween 10 and 12 o'clock.
Mr. Kennedy. How could you check over so many cards so quickly?
Did 3'ou have enough time, do you think, JNIr. O'Grady, to check all
of these cards?
Mr. O'Gr.vdy. I had enough time to make a spot check of signa-
tures and to check the names against the company records.
Mr. Kennedy. Stipulation says that you were to compare the sig-
natures.
11510 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. O'Grady, I compared some. I did not compare them all.
Mr. Kexxedy. When did you receive the stipulation to compare
the signatures?
Mr. O'Grady. My best recollection is that the stipulation was deliv-
ered to me on Friday.
Mr. Kennedy. Which was the 10th ?
Mr. O'Grady. The 10th.
Mr. Kexxedy. Tliat was after you had been counting the cards for
a day?
Mr. O'Grady. That was after I counted all day Thursday and
Friday.
Mr. Kennedy. The stipulation says specifically that you are to
compare the signatures.
Mr. O'Grady. It says to compare signatures. I compared signa-
tures. I did not compare them all. When I undertook to do the job,
I assumed I was going to do the job in accordance with the custom-
ary practice of spot checking signatures.
Mr. Kennedy. According to the testimony before the committee,
there was a good deal of fraud perpetrated.
Mr. O'Grady. I was not aware of that at the time. Xobody indi-
cated that to me at the time I was making the count.
Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you find tliat there were no company slips
for a lot of the individual cards that you did go over?
Mr. O'Grady. Well, I have given you a copy, Mr. Kennedy, or
your investigators, of the tally that I made at the time, which shows
the categories into which I have put the various cards.
Mr. Kennedy. Didn't you find that, that there were no company
slips ?
Mr. O'Grady. I did find in one of the units quite a large number
of no company slips to match the union card.
Mr. Kennedy. What unit was that ?
Mr. O'Grady. That was the Brooklyn unit.
Mr. Kennedy. That is Max Block's unit himself, isn't it ?
Mr. O'Grady. 342, that is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I might just explain that when they
go in and take tlie names off these time cards there would be no way
to indicate whether the employee was a permanent employee or just
a part-time employee.
Only the full-time employees could vote in the election.
So when the company would send in their slips, they would not be
sending in any of their lists of the part time employees. But tho
union, if they used these fictitious names, would be listing those people
on these cards. So when tliey were finally submitted to Mr. O'Crad}',
when ho would go through them, lie would see all of these cards where
the company had no slips on them, which would indicate that the
union employee, the business agent, that copied down these names,
were part time em])loyees who liad no right to vote in the election,
who were ineligible to vote in the election.
The Chairman. They would be ineligible, then, to petition by
card, if they were not eligible to vote ?
Mr. Kennedy. That is correct.
Mr. O'Grady, in the Brooklyn unit alone there were 1,411 cards, is
that right?
Mr. O'Grady. Yes, sir.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11511
Mr. Kexnedy. And you found 270 in that unit alone that had no
company slips?
Mr. d'GRADY. That is right, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Didn't that arouse your curiosity and interest to de-
termine that a more thorough check should be made of the other situa-
tion as far as checking the signatures ?
Mr. O'Grady. It did not suggest it to me, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Then there were 94 other cards that were duplicates
or questionable cards?
Mr. O'Grady. That is right, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Didn't that arouse you ? That was about 26 percent
right there, without a comparison of the signatures.
Mr. O'Grady. Well, to start off with, INIr. Kennedy, on no company
slip, comparable company slip, to match the union card, that was a
100 percent check, so I could not have made any greater or more ex-
tensive check than that.
Mr. Kennedy. That showed, or should have shown, it seems to me,
that there was something phonj that was going on when you found
that out of 1,411 cards, 1 out of every 5 cards at that point had no
compaiiy slips.
Mr. O'Grady. They may have been stale cards. They may have
been signed by employees at a time Avhen they were employees and
who were no longer employees, and in addition to that you also had
the part time workers who were not eligible for this count. So be-
tween the 2 of them, that amounted to 270, and I turned down 270
of those cards.
Mr. Kennedy. I would think that would have aroused you. ^\lien
you turned down 1 out of every 5 cards, when you made a 100 percent
check on checking the card slips, that would have aroused your curi-
osity and your interest, because of this responsibility that was on your
shoulders, to check the signatures to find out maybe if they were
phony signatures as well.
Mr. O'Grady. I did check signatures, Mr. Kennedy. I did not
check them all. I spot checked the signatures.
Mr. Kennedy. The testimony before the committee indicates that
many of the signatures were in fact phony also. If you had checked
them, maybe a greater percentage, a very high percentage, even a
higher percentage than this, would have been tossed out.
^Ir. O'Grady. Anvthing is possible, Mr. Kennedy. I can't answer
that.
Mr. Kennedy. Not only possible, but that is the testimony. Ac-
cording to the previous witness, Mr. Cole, based on a preliminary
check that he made, he found something wrong in two of these stores
and made a complete check of the signatures and found that about
90 percent of the signatures were phony.
Mr. O'Grady. Does it follow that they were phony here ?
]\Ir. Ivennedy. According to the testimony, it indicates a great
number were phony.
Mr. O'Grady. I don't want to argue the point with you. I don't
represent the company and I don't represent the miion, Mr. Kennedy.
But by the same token, I heard there was testimony here that they
had the cooperation there of the managers to get the cards signed.
So if they were getting the cards signed with the cooperation of the
managers what is there to suggest that the signatures are phony ?
11512 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
I am not attempting to appraise or judge the testimony whicli was
submitted here. I was not aware of it when I made the count.
The Chairman. You said you examined and compared about half
of the signatures, is that correct ?
Mr. O 'Grady. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. How many did you find that were not authentic,
out of the half that you compared ?
Mr. O'Grady. In the Brooklyn unit out of the 1,047 cards, actually,
that I found had comparable cards with signatures, I found 94, which
is roughly 9.4 percent.
The Chairman. You detected 94 of them ?
Mr. O'Grady. I questioned them. They were questionable.
The Chairman. The signature was not authentic ?
Mr. O'Grady. Well, I said questionable. I am not a handwriting
expert and I did not want to pass upon whether they were forgeries
or not, but I set them aside as questionable.
The Chairman. They were at least questionable ?
Mr. O'Grady. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. How many cards did you examine, a total of how
many?
Mr. O'Grady. I think around 4,300.
The Chairman. How many out of the 4,300 did you find
Mr. O'Grady. I found a much lower percentage in the other units,
where the signatures were questionable.
Only 34 in the Garden City unit, and 15 in the New York unit. I
did find in both of the other units, in the Garden City unit 145 union
cards where there were no comparable company pay slips, and I found
137 in the New York unit where they had union cards but no company
pay slip.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Kennedy. Out of the total cards, 4,329, you found no company
slips, 562, is that right ?
Mr. O'Grady. I have not added them up. I will take your arith-
metic for it.
Mr. ICennedy. All right. And the total of duplicate or other ques-
tionable cards was 143. That would be 16 percent of all the cards.
In the Brooklyn unit alone, out of those 1,411 cards, 270 had no com-
pany slips, and 94 were duplicate or questionable, making a total of
26 percent, or 1 out out of every 4.
Mr. O'Grady. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Wlien our investigators first interviewed you, Mr.
O'Grady, when you were asked about whether you checked the signa-
tures, you said :
Well, I didn't check 1 out of every 5 or 1 out of every 20, but I checked them
periodically or occasionally as we were going along.
Mr. O'Grady. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now you are testifying before the committee that
you checked 1 out of every 2 ?
Mr. O'Grady. Well, 1 didn't put it in that fashion, INIr. Kennedy.
I said it would be very hard for me to tell you hoAv many I checked.
I said if you were asking me to make some kind of an estimate, I
would say about 50 percent, but I did not do it every other card or
every other slip.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11513
Mr. Kennedy. I don't see how you can check that many cards, Mr.
O'Grady. Based on the time tliat you spent you had to go through
about 200 cards in an hour. I don't see how it would be physically
possible to check signatures on that many cards.
Mr. O'Grady. Well, I think it would have been difficult for me to
have checked all of the signatures in the time allotted.
Mr. Kennedy. You said tliat you and Mr. DeSantis switched posi-
tions. Mr. DeSantis testified before this committee that he never
checked any cards as far as signatures were concerned.
Mr. O'Grady. I did not say he checked signatures.
Mr. Kennedy. If you switched positions, and you took his position
and he took yours, he would be the one that had the responsibility of
checking the signatures.
Mr. O'Grady. No ; he never had the responsibility of checking the
signatures. That was my responsibility, and I kept it at all times.
He would have a slip. He would sit alongside of me and had a union
card and a company slip, and I can certainly sit here and see a sig-
nature over there from here, and compare the two of them, that way.
Mr. Kennedy. You would be looking over his shoulder?
Mr. O'Grady. Not over his shoulder, but right in front of us.
Mr. Kennedy. If he started checking the card, you would have to
look across and compare what he was doing and compare with the
slips that you have on the other side.
Mr. O'Grady. It only takes, Mr. Kennedy, a flash of the eve like
that.
Mr. I^NNEDY. You would have a lot of flashing, because you would
have 200, at least, in an hour.
Mr. O'Grady. That is right, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you check social-security numbers ?
INIr. O'Grady. Very infrequently, and only if I had a question about
a particular card.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you check addresses ?
Mr. O'Grady. No, sir; I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Again, it is based on the testimony about the history
of this union where they were involved in these other fraudulent
cards, in the two other companies. Of course, based on the testimony
before this committee, this individual said he himself made up fraudu-
lent cards, and they made up 300 or 400 of them.
Did you discuss the card count with anyone while it was taking
place?
Mr. O'Grady. Do you mean with any union representatives or any
company representative?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. O'Grady. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have lunch with Mr. Zom during Octo-
ber 9?
Mr. O'Grady. I don't recall having it. I understand that he has
said that he had lunch with me on Thursday, and that his record
indicates that. I have told the investigators I don't have any in-
dependent recollection of having lunch with him on Thursday.
Mr. Kennedy. Where did you deliver their cards ?
Mr. O'Grady. The Beverly Hotel, I think it was.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that ]VIi\ Block's suite?
Mr. O'Grady. I didn't know it was Mr. Block's suite, but I was
told that they would all be there and if I would deliver the cards there
11514 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
they would appreciate it — not the cards, the residts. I delivered the
results to the Beverly Hotel. I don't know who had the suite. I had
never been in it before.
Mr. Kennedy. Were thev surprised at the results when you told
them?
Mr. O'Grady. I didn't notice any particular surprise.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you conduct any other card count for them?
Mr. O'Grady. No, sir. Oh, yes, I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Where was that ?
Mr. O'Grady. For Paterson and Newark.
Mr. Kennedy. In New Jersey, also ?
Mr. O'Grady. That was subsequently, in November.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you compare signatures at that time ?
Mr. O'Grady. In the same fashion.
Mr. Kennedy. You conducted that the same way ?
Mr. O'Grady. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Where was that one held ?
Mr. O'Grady. My recollection is it was held in my office.
Mr. Kennedy. Who submitted the records on that ?
Mr. O'Grady. The company sent over their pay slips and the union
sent over their cards.
Mr. Kennedy. Who brought the cards over ?
Mr. O'Grady. Frankly, I don't recall.
Mr. Kennedy. Who made the arrangements for the company?
Mr. O'Grady. I thought it was Mr. Zorn, but apparently Ratclitfe
did it instead of Mr. Zorn. But Mr. Zorn and Mr. Cohen prepared
and signed the stipulation which was ultimately sent to me.
Mr. Kennedy. You were paid for this work ?
Mr. O'Grady. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. How much were you paid ?
Mr. O'Grady. For the October counts and for the November
counts I was paid $2,800. I had charged the company $1,500 and
the union $1,500, but the union only sent in $1,300. They sent in
checks from the different locals. So I actually received $2,800.
Mr. Kennedy. And you gave Mr. DeSantis $100 out of that?
Mr. O'Grady. Well,' I did not get the $2,800. It went into the
firm account. I was a partner in a firm. The money went into the
firm account. I got my partner's share of it ultimately.
The Chairman. How many hours did you spend on these two
counts ?
Mr. O'Grady. Personally ?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. O'Grady. Approximately 50.
The Chairman. 50 hours.
That is about fifty-some-odd dollars an hour, is it not ?
Mr. O'Grady. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you think, ]\Ir. O'Grady, that you could do a
proper check in tlie amount of time that was allocated to you?
Mr. O'Grady. Well, I Avas under pressure, there is no doubt about
that, Mr. Kennedy, to get a job down by Friday night, and there
wei'e an awful lot of cards to be cliocked.
I tliink I did the best I could with the time allotted to me.
Mr, Kennedy. Do you think you could do a complete and proper
check, an accurate check, in the amount of time that was given to you?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11515
Mr. O'Grady. I certainly did not have time to compare all signa-
tures and compare all information that might be on the card against
all information which might be supplied by the company in that
time.
The Chairman. As I understand it, or I have the impression, at
least, both sides Avanted tliie count to be favorable; is that correct?
Mr. O'Grady. They certainly did not tell me that, sir.
The CriAiRMAX. I don't know how many card counts come along,
but I would like to be a professional at that salary.
Mr. O'Grady. I have done a lot of labor arbitration work, Mr.
Senator, for nothing, too.
The CiiAiKMAX. All lawyers have that experience.
Mr. O'Grady. Therefore, when you have a client that can afford to
pay the bill, you charge them.
Senator Church. Mr. O'Grady, what did you understand your re-
sponsibility to be in conducting this card check?
Mr. O'Grady. "Well, to conduct what would be a normal card count.
In a normal card count, according to custom, it is to clieck names
against the company names and to spot check signatures. If there be-
came an issue, ultimately, as to whether certain cards which were
thrown out were not counted by me would be important in the final
determination as to whether there was a majority or not, then I
would have to have the responsibility of making the final determina-
tion on those cards.
Senator Church. In other Mords, your responsibility was to deter-
mine on the basis of the evidence before you that a proper enroll-
ment on these cards had in fact occurred, and that a sufficient num-
ber had in fact designated this union to be their bargaining agent?
In other words, that it Avas an honest and proper procedure. You
understood that to be your responsibility, did you? Or am I mis-
taken ?
Mr. O'Grady. I don't know that I go for some of the adjectives that
3'ou have added to it.
Senator Church. Then you tell me what you thought your re-
sponsibilities to be.
Mr. O'Grady. I felt that my responsibility was to conduct what
would be a normal card count where there was no controversy be-
tAveen the parties, and there Avas no charge before me of anything im-
proper in the securing of the cards or in the signatures. The company
did not question the cards and the manner in which they had been
obtained, nor was I to go into any questions concerning that.
Senator Church. What was the purpose of the card count?
Mr. O'Grady. I assume it was to give the company some reasonable
assurance that there was a majority of the employees designating
these locals.
Senator Church. And that reasonable assurance could only be
given upon a reasonable examination of the cards and evidence be-
fore you, that this was an honest and not a fraudulent count?
Mr. O'Grady. That is right. They were aware, as well as I was,
and perhaps CA'en more so, of the time factor that they allotted to me
to do the job.
Senator Church. Do you think Avith the number of cards you had
to count, and Avith this being the need for your responsibility, that
you had sufficient time to properly discharge that responsibility ?
11516 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. O'Geady. I think, Mr. Senator, I must answer it the way I did
before, that I think I did as thorough a job as could be done in the
time that was allocated to me.
Senator Chukch. That may be so, but did you think that you had
sufficient time allocated to you to properly discharge your responsi-
bility?
That is the question.
Mr. O'Grady. I think so. Not having any charges filed before me
or made before me that the cards were obtained under improper
circumstances.
Senator Chtjrch. And there was nothing from the numbers of
cards that you did find to be faulty on one count or another that sug-
gested to you that there might be any impropriety in the procedures.
Mr. O'Grady. That is right. It is not unusual to run across in a
card count some improper signatures or cards where there are not
slips. I think that takes place in ever^ card count. That in and of
itself isn't sufficient reason to go to a point where you are going to in-
sist upon a more thorough check than the one I made.
Senator Church. Even where that ratio, as it did in this case,
reaches a percentage as high as 26 percent ?
Mr. O'Grady. Well, that includes the cards that they submitted
where there was no company pay slip. That in and of itself didn't
raise any suspicion in my mind of any improper conduct. They could
be stale cards and they could be cards of part-time workers.
The Chairman. Were you given the list or the number of eligible
employees when you started ?
Mr. O'Grady. I was given the pay slips, sir. I have the pay slips
listed on the worksheets which I supplied to your investigators ac-
cording to the alphabet and number.
The Chairman. According to the paysheets, how many employees
were actually eligible to participate in the card count?
Mr. O'Grady. According to the pay slips ; I have it by units, I did
not add it up, but in the Garden City unit, 1,463 were eligible; in the
Brooklyn unit 1,687 were eligibile, and 2,562 in the New York Bronx
were eligible.
The Chairman. In other words, you got the number that were
eligible from the pay slips ?
Mr. O'Grady. That is right.
The Chairman. Is there anything further?
Mr. Kennedy. Ordinarily, Mr. O'Grady, when you conduct a card
count where there is some evidence or indication that there are some
errors in the cards, wouldn't you conduct a more thorough investiga-
tion of the cards ?
Mr. O'Grady. Well, there was not sufficient evidence to warrant
me to make any further check than what I did.
Mr. Kennedy. When you get down to 1 out of every 4 cards has
something wrong with it, isn't that sufficient evidence that you would
start making a tliorough clieck?
Mr. O'Grady. Well, once again, Mr. Kennedy, I must say — you
insist on using the phrase "something wrong with it," the 270 which
you are including in your 25 percent, the only thing wrong with them
was that there was no company slip for them.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11517
Mr. Kennedy. Tlmt is quite a bit wrong with them. These are
votes l)eing cast that have no riglit to be cast. That is what is wrong
with them.
Mr. O'Grady. But I did not count them.
Mr. Kennedy. So you found something wrong. These votes were
being cast and they had no right to be cast.
Mr. O'Grady. You use the term "wrong." I don't know if there
is anything wrong with it. They just did not have a company slip.
The Chairman. Is it wrong to vote an ineligible vote?
Mr. O'Grady. I don't know that they voted that.
Mr. Kennedy. They sent it in.
Mr. O'Grady. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. And they wanted you to count it?
Mr. O'Grady. I wouldn't say that.
Mr. Kennedy. I don't Imow why they would send them in if they
didn't want you to count them.
Mr. O'Grady. They sent in all the cards they had.
Mr. Kennedy. For purj)oses of being counted.
Mr. (J 'Grady. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. When you found you had this high percentage of
cards being sent in from ineligible voters, don't you think that under
ordinary circumstances you would make a more complete investiga-
tion to see that there was not something wrong with the rest of the
cards in other ways ?
Mr. O'Grady. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. If you had not been rushed for time, Mr. O'Grady,
wouldn't you have made a more complete investigation in this matter?
Mr. O'Grady. If I had had more time, I probably would have made
a more thorough investigation.
The Chairman. And if there had been a real issue between man-
agement and union, or if one had been contesting it, actually.
Mr. O'Grady. Well, if the company had indicated to me that they
were suspicious of cards
The Chairman. The company had ?
Mr. O'Grady. I said if they had. Then, of course, I would have
been on notice and I would have been more careful in scrutinizing
them. Under those circumstances, I think they probably would have
had to allot me more time, because I could not have done it in the
time that I had.
The Chairman. If there had been a real contest, if there had been
resistance on the part of the company, contending that they don't
have a majority, or if they do have, there is something wrong with
the cards, if there had been a real issue there, you would have felt
like you would have had to have done a better job than you did,
wouldn't you ?
Mr. O'Grady. There was nothing to indicate to me that I should
do anything more than I did, sir.
The Chairman. I understand that. But had there been a real issue
between the company, a contest between the company and th-^ union
as to whether or not they really had a majority of valid cards, then
you would consider the check you made adequate, wouldn't you?
Mr. O'Grady. Well. I should think that they had to say some-
thing more than that they wanted me to count the cards and that is
all there is.
11518 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
The Chairman. That is what I am saying. I can appreciate your
position. The whole thing was arranged there for some purpose
other than that there wasn't any real contest between the union on the
one hand and between the company on the other. There was really
no issue between them, was there, so far as you know ?
Mr. O'Grady. They both called me, sir, and asked me to make a
card count and get it finished by Friday night. Those are the facts.
You will have to draw your own conclusions.
The Chairman. Let's put it this way: Had the company said t<)
you, "Look here, we don't think these cards are all valid. We don't
believe they have a majority, and we want a careful count made," had
that occurred you would have done dilferently than what you did,
wouldn't you?
Mr. O'Grady. I certainly would have been on notice that I had
to be extremely careful in checking the cards, because something
might be wrong.
The Chairman. And you did not have anything to put you on
that notice under the circumstances ?
Mr. O'Grady. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. That is one of the reasons, is it, that you did not
follow the stipulation and check all the signatures that you were
instructed to do?
Mr. O'Grady. Well, I don't regard the stipulation, which was
delivered to me on Friday, sir, as instruction to compare all
signatures.
Mr. Kennedy. Let me read it to you.
Mr.O'GRADY. I know, but I started on Thursday morning. I knew
I was to make a normal count. In a normal count, you spot-check
signatures.
Mr. Kennedy. You mean you did not receive the stipulation for a
day and a half after you had been counting ?
Mr. O'Grady. That's right, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. But it says specifically that the signatures are to be
compared.
Mr. O'Grady. It says that in there.
Mr. Kennedy. And that was not done.
Mr. O'Grady. I compared signatures, sir, but I did not compare
them all. I have never made any bones about it ever since anybody
has asked me about it.
The Chairman. Is there anytliing further ?
Mr. Kennedy. A question has been submitted by counsel for A. & P.
The Chairman. Counsel for A. & P. asks that this question be
directed to you : Was there a strike deadline mentioned to you before
you began your count ?
Mr. O'Grady. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. I think you already testified to that.
Mr. O'Grady. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right. Is there anything further ?
If not, the committee will stand in recess until 10 : 30 in the morn-
ing.
(Whereupon, at 4: 40 p. m., the hearing was recessed, with the fol-
lowing members present : Senators McClellan and Church, to recon-
vene at 10 : 30 a. m., Thursday, May 22, 1958.)
INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD
THURSDAY, MAY 22, 1958
United States Senate,
Select Committee on Improper Actrities
IN THE Labor or Management Field,
Washington., D. C.
The select committee met at 10:30 a. m., pursuant to Senate
Resolution 221. agreed to January 29, 1958, in the caucus room,
Senate Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of
the select committee) presiding.
Present: Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Sena-
tor Carl T. Curtis, Republican, Nebraska; Senator Frank Church,
Democrat, Idaho.
Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; "Walter R. May,
investigator; George H. Martin, investigator; John Cye Cheasty,
investigator; Ruth Young AVatt, chief clerk.
(At the convening of the session, the following members were pres-
ent: Senators McClellan and Church.)
The Chairman. The committee will come to order,
Mr. Kennedy, call the next witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Thomas Gloster.
The Chairman. You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give
before this Senate select committer shall be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Gloster. I do.
TESTIMONY OF THOMAS GLOSTEK, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL
JOHN J. SHEEHAN
The Cilmrman. State your name, your place of residence, and your
business or occupation.
Mr. Gloster. Thomas Gloster, 600 West 64th Street. My place of
business is 100 West 42d. I am a business agent for Local 474 of
the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of America.
The Chairman. 474?
Mr. Gloster. That is right, sir.
The Chairman. Do you have counsel with you ?
Mr. Gloster. I do have.
The Chairman. Counsel, identify yourself for the record, please.
Mr. Sheehax. John J. Sheehan, 51 Chambers Street, New York
City.
The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy.
11519
21243— 58— pt. 29 22
11520 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Kennedy. You were a business agent for 474 in 1952?
Mr. Gloster. I was.
Mr. Kennedy. Wliat was it at that time ?
Mr. Gloster. The National Food Chain Store Employees Union.
It was affiliated with the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store
Union.
Mr. Kennedy. CIO ?
Mr. Gloster. CIO.
Mr. Ivennedy. Clerks, CIO, that is the short name for them?
Mr. Gloster. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. You were attempting to organize the A. &. P., is
that right ?
Mr. Gloster. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. You were working particularly hard in the Bronx
area ?
Mr. Gloster. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Then the Meat Cutters came along and signed this
contract ?
Mr. Gloster. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. With the A. & P. Co. on October 11, is that right?
Mr. Gloster. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You had not known anything about this all along?
Mr. Gloster. No.
Mr. Kennedy. It was all a secret?
Mr. Gloster. It was all a secret until the morning the boys got the
letters in the stores, telling them that they were now in the union and
would have to become part of the union. That morning I got a
number of calls, about 7 : 30 in the morning. I probably got about 10
calls, immediately, one after the other, from tlie fellows protesting
the fact that they were put into the union by the company.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any conversation at a later time with
Mr. Block about local 474 coming into the Amalgamated Meat
Cutters?
Mr. Gloster. I did.
Mr. Kennedy. When did those conversations take place?
Mr. Gloster. Well, actually, I had never met Mr. Block prior to
that. But on a Thursday before the Friday, that is, the day preceding
the date that this letter was sent out to these fellows in the A. & P., I
called my office
Mr. Kennedy. That would be about October what, 14, 1.5?
Mr. Gloster. October 15 I would think, in about that, anyway.
It was the day previous to the announcement of the contract.
Mr. Ivennedy. That would be October 15, 1952. They did not get
the letter until the I7tli.
Mr. Gloster. It was the 16th, then. I was in Brooklyn visiting
during tlie course of any normal activities in a Safeway store with my
colleague, Pat Reape, and I called the office and our girl in the office
told me that Mr. Block liad called and asked to make an appoint-
ment for Mr. Ileape and myself for luncli on the folloAA'ing IVfonday.
I turned to Pat Reape who was standhig by, and I asked Pat, and
Pat said "We don't want to meet him, I don't know the guy, and
what I do know isn't too good. Let's keep away from him."
I said, "Let's find out what he has to say. '
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11521
So Pat agreed and I called the girl back and told her it was O. K.
to make the appointment. So the next morning then the announce-
ment came and we went out into the A. & P. stores Friday and Sat-
urday and again on Monday. Block's office called sometime on Alon-
day in the forenoon, canceling the appointment for lunch, but sug-
crestino- that we meet Block at dinner at the Black Angus. We had
a meeting before the Federal Mediation Service, because we were m
the process of negotiating our contract with Safeway.
However, we took a cab over to the Black Angus and went m. As
you o-o inside the door there is a service bar there. I did not know
Block, and I asked the bartender if Mr. Block was here and he said
''He is standing right there near you." tt i i
So Max identified himself, and I introduced Pat to him. He had
not known Pat either. That was the start of the convei-sation.
Mr. IvENNEDY. This is the important part of it that I would like
to have you recite, the conversation that you had with Max Block
at this meeting at the Black Angus which probably was October 20.
Mr. Gloster. That would be about right.
Mr. IvENNEDY. And this was just after the card count?
Mr Gloster. It was after the announcement of the contract.
Mr. IvENNEDY. The contract and the card count. The sigmng of
the contract and the card count?
Mr. Gloster. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. You met him at the Black Angus.
Mr. Gloster. Yes. We had a couple of drinks standing at the bar.
We discussed the general terms of the contract and the idea of get-
ting those people signed. I was skeptical about it. Max said :
Well you are not a novice in the business. You fellows broke your back for
the last several years and did not get any place. I think this is the right way to
do it. They can be organized later.
Mr IvENNEDY. "They can be organized later" ?
Mr! Gloster. That is right. I would assume this, that once he got
in there, he had access to the people and had a contract in effect. In
view of the fact that the company had a lot of influence with their
Mr. IvENNEDY. You talk awfully fast, and sometimes it is difficult
to follow you. Slow it down a little bit.
Mr. Gloster. I will try. I would assume that Alax felt once he
was in fact bargaining representative of the people, he could hold
probably meetings and sell them a bill of goods, let's say.
Mr. I\J3NNEDY. What did he say to you right at the begimimg. Did
you raise some question as to how he could go in there and get all these
employees ?
Mr. 'Gloster. I did. , n i i
Mr. Kennedy. Was that based on the fact that you had had so
much difficulty ?
Mr. Gloster. Well, that was the thing. We had so much difficulty.
We worked a long time there. We started in 1947, and my associate,
Pat Keape, and I had several years prior to that. We knew the
difficulty.
Mr. IVENNEDY. And particularly in the Brooklyn area it was very
difficult?
11522 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Gloster. In the Brooklyn area we had an election for repre-
sentation, I think, in the previous Marcli, and that was a very diffi-
cult assignment. We got in there, and we merely submitted an inter-
est, which consisted of 10 percent of the cards. The petitioner has to
file 30, which was 1500. We submitted 10 percent and had an interest
so we got on the ballot. Actually we did have very little work there
prior to that. But I did some work there for 3 or 4 weeks prior to
the election, and I found that people were very antiunion. Actually,
the meatcutters, who were in Block's union were working around 1500
and against both unions, because they said, "We have a union and see
what it is doing for us ?"
(At this point. Senator Curtis entered the hearing room.)
Mr. Kennedy. So you raised some question with Block at this meet-
ing about his ability to get in there and be their bargaining represent-
ative. Recite again wliat he said to you.
Mr. Gloster. He said, "You fellows have broken your backs,"' or
words to that effect, "You have broken your back there for several
years and made no headway. I think this is the way to do it. We can
organize these people later."
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ask him what he meant ?
Mr. Gloster. I asked him. He said, "Well, you are not a novice in
this business."
Tlien I particularly raised the question about the Brooklyn unit.
Mr. Kennedy. What?
Mr. Gloster. I particularly raised the question about the Brooklyn
unit, since I kneM' there was very little interest in the union.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you raise a question
Mr. Gloster. I asked him how he got tlie cards there, because pre-
viously in the election in Brooklyn in March, the employees voted
5 to 1 against the union, and I said, "You can't tell me. Max, that you
can go in 4 or 5 months later and sign up a majoritv of these people."
So he said, "Well, what of it ? Actually, I had 300 cards, legitimate
cards."
I said, "That adds up because there Avere about 302 people who
voted for the union in March."
Mr. Kennedy. So he admitted to you tliat even at that time that in
the Brooklyn unit they only had 300 legitimate cards?
Mr. Gloster. Tliat is right.
Tlie Chairman. For the record, how many were eligible in the
Brooklyn unit ?
Mr. Kennedy. I think it was 1,411 that he actually received. That
is according to the vote.
The Chairman. In other words, in the Brooklyn unit, according to
the record liere, there were 1,411 employees eligible to eitlier vote or
to sign tlie cards indicating they preferred a certain union.
Mr. Kennedy. We will get the exact figures.
The Chairman. I just want to relate the 300 valid cards that he
said he had to the total number who were eligible.
Mr. Gloster. Well, he indicated that he liad 300 legitimate cards,
in Brooklyn.
Mr. Kennedy. As I remember the figures were that the Meat Cut-
ters, according to the card count, received 1,400 votes, or over 1,400
votes, in the Brooklyn unit.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 11523
Mr. Glosit.r. Well, there were cards, I would say. I don't think
they were votes.
Mr. Kennedy. As far as cards, they received 1,400 cards.
The Chairman. What I w anted to do was relate what he said there
about the number of valid cards that he had, 300, to the total number
that were eligible in that unit.
Mr. Kennedy. The approximate number of eligible employees was
1,687.
The Chairman. He had, then, out of that, only 300. He had ap-
proximately 300 valid cards.
Mr. Kennedy. That was his admission. I passed the remark that
the people in Brooklyn were 5 to 1 against the union in March, and
I could not understand how they would swing so fast.
The Chairman. So what that amounted to was a small minority,
300 members out of the 1,687, or nearly 1,700 members.
Mr. Gloster. It was approximately one-fifth, Senator.
The Chairman. They actually determined about the Butchers
Union being selected as its bargaining representative for the whole
group.
Mr, Gloster. That is it.
The Chairman. That was in collusion, apparently, with manage-
ment.
Mr. Gloster. That is the way it sounded to me.
The Chairman. I am talking about from the evidence here. His
admission to you was that he had about 300 valid cards?
Mr. Gloster. That is right.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Kennedy. And the votes that were given to them in the
Brooklyn unit, Mr. Chairman, was 1,047 votes, to the Butchers.
He said out of those 1,047 votes only 300 of them were legitimate.
Mr. Gloster. Were legitimate, yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he tell you that there was an easier way?
Did the conversation go on after that ?
Mr. Gloster. That was the context of the conversation when we
started off, that that was the easiest way to do it, citing the fact
that we liad spent so much time and effort to try to organize the
people and still were unsuccessful.
The Chairman. You had not resorted to any improper tactics,
had you, in trying to organize ?
Mr. Gloster. No, Senator, we don't operate that way.
The Chairman. You had not undertaken to enter into any agree-
ment or collusion with management to get management's assistance
to lielp vou organize ?
Mr. G^loster. I don't think they would assist us. Senator. We
are not that type of a union.
The Chairman. You were just out in a legitimate enterprise of
trying to persuade the employees that it was to their interest to have
a union, and that your union was the proper one to represent
them.
Mr. Gloster. Yes. It took us a couple of years to go out, work
hard, get legitimate cards, to petition the National Labor Relations
Board for an election, and when we had sufficient cards we felt was
over 50 percent of the eligible voters and we petitioned the Board.
11524 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Thereafter, the Board processed the election, in September of
1950. We lost the election ; however, we petitioned the Board. We
said it was an unfair labor practice charge.
We petitioned the Board for a new election. We did have an
election in, I think it was, March of 1952. That is in the Bronx unit.
We made a much better showing, and it looked like as if we had a
feeling then that since we came so close to it in March, that a year
later when we were in a position to apply for a new election, we
would really take that election.
We felt that once we knocked off the Bronx unit, we then would
go along to the other four units in the division,
Mr. Kennedy. Subsequently, did your union join up with the ^leat
Cutters?
Mr, Gloster. We did.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you take an active role in the Meat Cutters now?
Mr. Gloster. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Are you a member of the district council with Mr.
Block?
Mr, Gloster, We are not members of the joint council,
Mr. Kennedy. The district council ?
Mr, Gloster. We are not members of the district council. We
withdrew from the district council in 1955,
Mr, Kennedy, Why did you withdraw ?
Mr. Gloster. Well, certain practices. We had a strike in Safeway
and we felt that Max Block actively worked against us during that
strike, so we walked out of it and never went back.
Mr. Kennedy. Had you known at any time that there was any
secret agreement between Block and the A. & P. ?
Mr. Gloster. Well it was rumored in the grapevine. We actually
could not prove it, but we had rumors of it.
Mr. Kennedy. You were never able to prove it ?
Mr. Gloster. We were never able to pin it down.
Mr. Kennedy. Was it on the fact that there was a 5-year con-
tract?
Mr. Gloster. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. That is all.
The Chairman. Are there any questions?
Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Curtis.
Senator Curtis. "Wlien was it that Mr. Block stated that they had
800 cards ?
About when was that conversation?
Mr. Gloster. Approximately October 20, Senator, 1952.
The announcement of the contract to the A. & P, employees was on
a Friday and this was the following Monday evening, about 7 o'clock.
Senator Curtis. Would you favor a statute, the enactment of a
statute, that eliminated the practice of recognizing the bargaining
agent through the signing of cards and which would require a secret
election in all such cases ?
Mr. Gloster. Well, where there is a contest, certainly.
Senator Curtis, I didn't hear your answer.
Mr, Gloster, Where there is a contest, I certainly say there should
be an election.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11525
Senator Curtis, Why slioiildirt there be in all cases?
Mr. Gloster. I would say this. I think the clause in the Taft-
Hartley Act which stated in the case of a union shop election, a
majority of the people in the bargaining unit should vote in favor of
the union shop, I tliink if that had been allowed to stay in the Taft-
Hartley Act, this contract could not be consummated. As you know,
Senator, the Taft-Hartley Act had a clause when it was first intro-
duced in 1947, which made mandatory for management and the union
to petition the Labor Board for a union-shop election, wherein 51
percent of the people in the bargaining unit would have to vote in
favor of a union-shop election. That clause was subsequently with-
drawn, I think in about 1950 or 1951. If that clause had been allowed
to stay in Taft-Hartley this kind of a contract could not be signed in
A. & P., because they could not go out and get 51 percent of the people
to vote for a union-shop election after that kind of a deal.
Senator Curtis. I understand that, and I have no quarrel with the
legislation, but why shouldn't, in selecting the bargaining agent in
the first instance, the workers have the right to vote ?
The right to organize and bargain collectively is a worker's right.
It is not a union right.
Mr. Glosit:r. I agree with you, Senator.
Senator Curtis. It is not an organizer's right. It is a right of
people who toil for wages.
Mr. Gloster. Let me point out this to you. Senator, that the
National Labor Relations Board moves so slowly, and that is also
true of the New York State Labor Department, they move so slowly
that very frequently you get a group of people up to a point where
they are willing to vote for a union, and the Board, through prob-
ably— I don't know wliat kind of a process, but generally it is a slow
process, particularly if the company files objections and you go into
hearings. Those hearings can go on for a year or two. Then the
people get disgusted. In the meantime, management has a chance to
work on them. The store managers, different dairy heads, produce
heads, different personnel have chances to work on those people, and
they will undo all of the work you have done probably in the course
of a year or two while you are waiting for the Board to process it.
I would say this, if the Board could give you a fast election, say
within the course of a couple of months or three, I certainly say that
you should have an election. But if I am going to have to wait 2 or 3
years, I think I may as well not even bother to try to organize.
Senator Curtis. I agree with you on that. I think the procedures
are terribly slow. I think sometimes they take months to do what
ought to be done in 10 days. I think Congress has the responsibility
to change some of the things. Congress could well set up a procedure
whereby an election could proceed without having to have every one
of them wait for the NLRB. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. KJENNEDY. I have one more question. How would you describe
this contract between the Meat Cutters and the A. & P. Co. ?
Mr. Gloster. I think it is a sweetheart deal. A. & P. benefited from
it and the union benefited from it, but the employees did not. It cer-
tainly isn't a contract in the sense that I would have. Of course, when
we have a contract, we go to our people with it. That has to be rati-
11526 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
fied before we can sign that contract. You can't sign a contract
legitimately and go to your people afterward and ask them to ratify
it after the contract has already been consummated.
Mr. Kennedy. That is what was done in this case ?
Mr. Gloster. I don't think it was ever ratified.
Mr. Kennedy. It was never ratified.
Mr. Gloster. Never ratified any place that I know of, and I think
I was very familiar with the procedure.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you think what was followed by the Meat Cut-
ters was good union tactics and policy ?
Mr. Gloster. No, sir. If I tried to follow it in my union, they
would run me out of town.
The Chairman. Do you believe that union contracts, or bargaining
contracts, should be approved by the union members who are affected
by that before the contract is actually signed and goes into effect?
Mr. Gloster. Definitely, Senator. Any good union practices that
procedure.
The Chairman. I have a provision like that in the bill that I intro-
duced. I am wondering what is the serious objection to it.
Mr. Gloster. I don't thiiik you are going to find any objection.
Senator, from legitimate unions. As a matter of fact, let me say this :
I think 95 percent of the meatcutters unions are probably as good
unions or better than any other comparable group. We have a very,
very fine type of people in there; unfortunately, in the New York
area, we have certain other people, and I think they are the cause of
these hearings today. But by and large, throughout the country, we
have real good unions, democratic unions, responsible people, honest,
industrious, people with a sense of ethics, who really take care of their
people and do a job for them. I think anybody who has investigated
the meatcutters at large will agree with me.
The Chairman. But you agree with me that a contract affecting
hundreds or thousands of employees should be approved, tlie terms
and provisions of it should be approved, bv the workers themselves
before the contract is entered into ?
Mr. Gloster. Yes, Senator, unless there may come a situation where
you are in the process of negotiating. What we do in that case when
we are negotiating, as a matter of practice, and I think it is a good
practice, is we report back every couple of weeks to the membership,
and give them a factual account of the progress we are making.
Very frequently you arrive at a situation where you luive prac-
tically everything settled, but maybe one or two minor details, and
the membership says to the negotiating committee "Go back and see
what you can do on these items."
You may liave actually complete agreement, complete ratification.
were it not for the fact that there are a couple of minor details which
you may or may not get, and may not affect the outcome anyway. I
think that is the only time that you should sign a contract without
complete ratification.
The Chairman. In other words, you favor it where it is necessaiy to
prevent fraud ?
Mr. Gloster. I am definitely in favor.
Tlie Chairman. Thank you, sir.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11527
Senator Church. Mr. Glosterj I want to commend you for having
brought two important points into perspective. For one thing, I
think we cannot remind ourselves too often that in a hearing of tliis
kind, where we refer to the Amalgamated Meat Cutters' Union, we
are in fact referring to the practices of a single local, and we ought
to be very careful not to innocently convey the impression that this
kind of practice that has come to light in the hearing, with respect to
this particular local, necessarily reflects the kind of practice that is
actually being pursued in other locals of the Amalgamated Meat Cut-
ters' Union generally throughout the country. Your testimony has
been very lielpful in pointing up that distinction. We have dealt here
with the practice of a local. AVe are not dealing with Avhat could be
regarded as the general practice of the Amalgamated Meat Cutters
unions throughout the country. I appreciated the emphasis that you
gave to tliat point. The second thing I would like to say to you is
this: I tliink you very well demonstrated in your testimony that, not
onl}^ do the workers themselves have an interest in sound union prac-
tices, but that the unions themselves have an interest in seeing to it
that sound and proper practices are observed. Your union and the
other union that was attempting to organize these workers and was
complying witli the established procedures of the NLRB were also
victims of this collusive arrangement between this particular local and
the A. & P. management.
So there is a public interest in preventing this kind of thing. There
is an interest that serves the best interests of wholesome unionism in
this country, and there is an interest that relates directly to tlie work-
ers themselves. And this committee ought to be considering all three.
I think your testimony has been extremely good, and you have pointed
up these things that Ave ought to keep in mind and keep in perspective.
I want you to know I appreciate your testimony very much this
morning.
Mr. Gloster. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Kennedy. In some of the literature that you put out, and in
the conversations that we have had with you, Mr. Gloster, you had
another description for this kind of an arrangement.
Mr. Gloster. "Well, frankly, Mr. Kennedy, I forget, because pos-
sibly what I said^ — ■ —
Mr. Kennedy. Yoa mentioned in some of the literature that you
put out at the time that it was a back-door deal.
Mr. Gloster. That was so, and I may have been even more ex-
pressive and profanely so. I would not want to repeat that in nice
company.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you describe it as that ?
Mr. Gloster. Definitely a back door, of course.
Mr. Kennedy. That is all.
The Chairman. I agree with what Senator Church has said. I
think we can go one step further. Legitimate unionism has a big stake
in this, too, because you cannot help, as has been pointed out here,
however much of a caution you take, when you expose a condition like
this in one local, it does carry some reflection upon the whole.
I think legitimate unions have a stake in this thing, to get in here
and help us find a way to clean it out, because you not only become
the victim from the standpoint of the immediate contract and the im-
11528 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
mediate practice, but it tends to cast an aspersion upon unionism as
such. We don't want to destroy unionism, but we do want to destroy
or to prevent unionism that is not in the interests of the workingman
and in the interest of the public at large.
Mr. Gloster. Let me say. Senator, this is not a union. This is a
company union, No. 1. No. 2, I completely agree with you in that.
As a matter of fact, in our office for the past 2 weeks since these hear-
ings started we have had a number of calls, particularly from those
people who have come into our union just recently, and have not yet
begun to realize the type of union they have, protesting the fact that
we are associated with the Amalgamated Meat Cutters. That is why
I wanted to make the point that the Amalgamated Meat Cutters in
cities such as Boston, Pittsburgh, Chicago, different other areas, they
have unions second to none, and the type of people who lead them
are certainly above reproach. It hurts me and I think it hurts every-
body in the labor movement when these people go out and make these
kind of deals, and there comes national publicity through television
hearings, televised hearings, and the national press. It hurts me,
it hurts my children who go to school, and who have to say that
their father works for the Amalgamated Meat Cutters. They are
ashamed to say it. I feel ashamed, too. I don't think there is any
need for any man in the labor movement who isn't aboveboard, and if
he isn't aboveboard, and if he isn't honest with the people who pay
his salary, because I in effect am an employee of my local, and that
is the way I regard it, I regard every single member as my boss. I
think my associates feel the same. I think there would be no need
for these hearings if that was the same all over.
The Chairman". I certainly commend you, and commend your
union, and may the tribe increase.
Mr. Gloster. Thank you. Senator.
The Chairman. Call the next witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Maggiacomo.
The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear the evidence you shall give
before the Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Maggiacomo. I do.
TESTIMONY OF DOMINICK MAGGIACOMO, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS
COUNSEL, SAMUEL BADER
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your
business or occupation.
Mr. IMaggiacomo. Dominick Maggiacomo, 544 Palisades Avenue,
Yonkers, N, Y., secretary-manager, Local 489, A. F. of L. That is
the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of America.
The Chairman. You have counsel?
Mr. Maggiacomo. Yes.
The Chairman. Counsel, identify yourself.
Mr. Bader. Samuel Bader, 32 Broadway, New York City.
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Local 489 has jurisdiction in what area ?
Mr. Maggiacomo. Westchester, Putnam, and part of Dorchester
County.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11529
Mr. Kennedy. Going back to 1952, you were also secretary-manager
of the local at that time ?
Mr. ]VL\GGiAC0M0. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. The Meat Cutters were attempting to organize the
employees and clerks of the A. & P. store in 1952, is that right?
Mr. Maggiacomo. Tliat is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you instruct the employees of your union, the
business agent, to go out and obtain signatures on cards?
Mr. Maggiacomo. I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell them at that time that there was going
to be a card count ?
Mr. Maggiacomo. No.
Mi\ Kennedy. Did you know there was going to be a card count?
Mr. Maggiacomo. I knew there was going to be a card comit, but
I didn't know what it was for. I thought it was a regular procedure
to have a card count and then go to the election.
Mr. Kennedy. You didn't know this card count was the one to de-
cide the bargaining representative?
Mr. Maggiacomo. I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. You were never informed of that by Mr. Block.
Therefore, the business agents who were working for you during this
period of time were not able to inform the ones from whom they got
cards, when they got the signatures, that this was gomg to be used
as an election ?
Mr. JSIaggiacomo. No, I don't think so, no. They couldn't.
Mr. Kennedy. You couldn't give them that information and there-
fore they couldn't pass it on ?
Mr. Maggiacomo. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you aware of the fact that a contract was
signed the day after the card count ?
Mr. Maggiacomo. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Block ever tell you about that ?
Mr. Maggiacomo. That it was signed the very next day ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Maggiacomo. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he in fact tell you that he was negotiating the
contract after the card count was finished ?
Mr. Maggiacomo. I was under the impression that we were all
negotiating it at the same time.
Mr. Kennedy. After the card count you were informed that a card
count had taken place ?
Mr. jVIaggiacomo. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Then he told you that he was in the midst of negoti-
ating the contract ?
Mr. Maggiacomo. No. We were discussing the different problems,
but I didn't know the contract was signed the next day until you told
me the last time I met with you.
Mr. IvENNEDY. Did Mr. Block indicate to you in the course of his
conversation, that he was having discussions with the A. & P. to-
wards signing a contract, discussing the terms of the contract?
Mr. Maggiacomo. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. And that took place after October 11, after the card
count had taken place?
11530 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Maggiacomo. It must have.
Mr. Kennedy. So you thought that you were carrying on discus-
sions during the period of some 2 or 3 M^eeks, which was going to lead
to the signing of a contract ?
Mr. Maggiacomo. Right.
Mr. Kennedy. When, in fact, Mr. Chairman, the contract had al-
ready been signed on October 11.
Do you feel that you were being misled during that period of time,
Mr. Maggiacomo ?
Mr. Maggiacomo. Well, after all, Mr. Kennedy, what we did get
for the people was very good, and they were very happy about it.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever submit it to them for ratification?
Mr. Maggiacomo. Yes, we did. At that particular time, of course,
we already had the Butcher contract, and we were working under the
Butcher contract, and we were working under the Butcher contract,
and discussing what we could get for the employees in the other
departments.
^Ir. Kennedy. But, of course, when you were discussing what you
could get for the employees in the other departments, the contract
liad already been signed ?
Mr. Maggiacomo. Yes, without my knowledge. I didn't know.
Mr. Ivennedy. Your union was involved in it ?
Mr. Maggiacomo. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Let's go one step further. After the contract was
signed, was it ever given to the membership, submitted to the mem-
bership for their approA^al ?
Mr. Maggiacomo. Yes. In my particular area we explained to the
membership what they were to receive and everything else.
Mr. Kennedy. To the Grocery Clerks ?
Mr. Maggiacomo. To the Grocery Clerks.
Mr. Kennedy. Did 3^011 actually submit a copy of tlie contract to
the Grocery Clerks ?
Mr. Maggiacomo. I think we mailed one out to all of them.
Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time?
Mr. Maggiacomo. After everything was over, I think we mailed
them a copy of the contract.
Mr. Kennedy. This was after it was signed, of coui*se ?
Mr. Maggiacomo. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. But you did mail a copy of the contract to all of
them?
Mr. Maggiacomo. I think all of them got a copy. If each indi-
vidual didn't get one, the shop stewards in the particular stores—
I really think that all of them got one, because they were demanding
a copy of the contract.
Mr. Kennedy. And you say the membership voted approval of
the contract ?
Mr. Maggiacomo. They did in my area.
Mr. Kennedy. They had the actual contract before them, and they
voted approval of it ?
Mr. Maggiacomo. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. You had a meeting on it?
Mr. Maggiacomo. Yes ; we did.
Mr. Ivennedy. Of the clerks?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 11531
Mr. Maggiacomo. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy, When was that held ?
Mr. Maggiacomo. Not too long after this card count. I don't
remember exactly when, but it wasn't too long after, because they
were clamoring for a meeting to know what they had received.
Mr. Kennedy. Again, when I talked to you up in New York, you
liad no recollection of any ratification of the contract '. '
Mr. Maggiacomo. I think I told you I did have it ratified. I
think, if you look at your minutes, you will see I said it was ratified,
and you asked me how could you get it ratified when you already liad
it signed.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the answer I
Mr. JSIaggiacomo. I don't know tlie answer. All I know is that T
did call the clerks in my area and told them what they were to
receive, and they were happy about it.
Mr. Kennedy. Was this after the welfare clause in the contract
was changed?
Mr. Maggiacomo. Yes; after the welfare clause was changed.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you know of any secret agreement extending the
the 45-hour week for a 5-year period?
Mr. Maggiacomo. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. I asked you the question, ''Why didn't you submit
it to the membership and find out if they were happy?" and you said,
■"I did not in my area."
Mr. IMaggiacomo. I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Did not submit the contract to the membership?
Mr. Maggiacomo. I think you have it wrong there.
Mr. Kennedy. I am reading it.
Mr. Maggiacomo. I am pretty sure I said I did, and you said, ''Well,
how could you, when the contract was signed the very next day?" and
you knocked me otl' my pins when you said it was signed the next day.
Mr. Kennedy. This is the exchange :
Why didn't you submit it to the membership to tind out if they were happy?
and your answer was :
I did not in my area. I don't know if they did in other areas.
I asked:
Can you explain what you told us here, how the contract had been signed the
day following the card count?
iind your answer was :
No ; I couldn't.
Question. You were being misled then?
Answer. Yes.
Question. The contract was signed the day following the card count?
Answer. Then it was really rigged, then.
Do you remember saying that ?
Mr. MaCtCuacomo. Yes. But I also said tliat I had talked to the
l)eople in my area about what they were going to receive.
Mr. Kennedy. Obviously, according to what you told us. Block
was misleading you, and your answer was, 'Tf he signed the contract
the very next day, he was misleading me and some other people.'" And
then you said, '"Our union was involved." You also said, *'I do feel
betrayed." Do you remember saying that I
11532 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. Maggiacomo. I didn't say it that way. I said I felt, when you
said to me that the contract was signed the very next day, I got a
little excited because I didn't know anything about a contract being
signed the next day, and you said something about, "Well, then you
were sold down the river."
Mr. Kennedy. The question was :
If there was an agreement, would you feel that you had been betrayed?
Answer. I do feel betrayed, if you are making agreements and you sell me
down the river,
Mr. Maggiacomo. Well, tliat is the answer, then.
Mr. Kennedy. And that is the way you feel?
Mr. Maggiacomo. Of course, if I didn't know anytliing about it, I
should feel that way, because I wanted to report to my people every-
thing that was going on.
Mr. IvENNEDY. Did you ever hear that you were going to strike?
Mr. Maggiacomo. Yes.
Mr. IvENNEDY. You Were ready for a strike ?
Mr. Maggiacomo. Well, we had told tlie company that if we didn't
get somewhere we would strike them sooner or later.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell them that you were going to strike
if the retail clerks did not sign ?
Mr. Maggiacomo. I, myself, personally ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Maggiacomo. No.
Mr. ICennedy. Do you know if anybody did ?
Mr. Maggiacomo. I don't know.
Mr. Ivennedy. Did you tell the members of your union, did you
ever discuss that with them, that you might go out on strike ?
Mr. Mattiacomo. Yes. We kept using that word now and then to
try and get something.
Mr. Ivennedy. I am sure you kept using the word now and tlien,
but wasn't the reason that the threat of strike was used at that time
in order to get a 40-hour week, to go from a 45-liour week to a 40-
hour week ?
Mr. Maggiacomo. At that particular time ?
Mr, Kennedy. Just prior to it, while the card count was going on,
in early October.
Mr. Maggiacomo. A mention of a 40-hour week at that time ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. Maggiacomo. In our negotiations, we were mentioning the
40-hour w^eek.
Mr. Kennedy. Isn't that why the threat of a strike was being
held?
Mr. Maggiacomo. In 1952, Mr. Kennedy ?
Mr. KJENNEDY. Yes.
Mr. Maggiacomo. I don't think so.
Mr. Kennedy. What were you saying you were going to strike
about then ?
Mr. Maggiacomo. In 1955 ?
Mr. Kennedy, No ; in 1952,
Mr. Maggiacomo, We more or less let the company know that, if
they didn't talk turkey with us, we might take the Butchers out.
Mr. Kennedy. What did you mean by talking turkey ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11533
Mr. Maggiaco^io. We wanted a contract.
Mr. Kennedy. For the Butchers ?
Mr. Maggiacomo. For the clerks.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell them, or did Mr. Block tell them, at
that particular time that you were going to go out on strike if they
didn't sign a contract for the clerks ?
Mr. Maggiacomo. I wasn't there, if he did.
Mr. Kennedy. You weren't there ?
Mr. Maggiacomo. If he did say that, I wasn't there.
Mr. Kennedy. You don't know anything about that ?
Mr. Maggiacomo. No ; I don't.
Mr. Kennedy. You never discussed that, at least, with your mem-
bership ?
Mr. Maggiacomo. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Under the law, don't you have to file a 30-day notice
with the State mediation board if you are going to go out on strike?
Mr. JNIaggiacomo. That is general procedure.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever file a 30-day notice with the State
mediation board in this case?
Mr. JNIaggiacomo. Not that I know of, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, on this question of whether the
Butchers and Mr. Block were actually going out on strike, there is
a law that they have to file this notice, and Mr. May has made a check
with the mediation board and with the Federal authorities to find
out if there was a notice given to those boards. He could give a
report of that.
The Chairman. Mr. May, have you been sworn ?
Mr. May. No, sir.
The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear the evidence you shall give
before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. May. I do.
TESTIMONY OF WALTER R. MAY
The Chairman. Mr. May, you made a check with the State media-
tion board, and, also, with the NLRB, with respect to whether any
notice had been filed in compliance with the law ?
Mr. May. Yes, Senator.
The Chairman. With respect to whether a strike was intended or
to be called ?
Mr. May. Yes, Senator.
The Chairman. What did you find ?
Mr. May. Section 8 (b) of the Taft-Hartley Act requires a couple
of procedural steps before a union can conduct a legal strike. They
must file a written notice to the other party to the contract 60 days
prior to the expiration of the contract, which, in this case, for all
unions involved, was October 4, 1952. Also, 30 days thereafter, if
the union intends to strike, it must notify the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service and, simultaneously, notify the State mediation
service.
I checked with Mr. Julius Mason, now executive director of the
New York State Mediation Service, and he told me that, from the
11534 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
records available, there is no record of either Local 342, Local 400,
or Local 480 of the Meat Cutters filing such a notice with that service
in 1952.
I also checked with Mr. Frank Brown, Xew York regional director
of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, and, according to
his records, those unions failed to serve notice in 1952. Consequently,
they were unable, in October of 1952, to conduct a legal strike.
The Chairman. Are there any questions ?
(At this point. Senator Church left the hearing room.)
TESTIMONY OF DOMINICK MAGGIACOMO— Resumed
Senator Curtis. What is the geographical location of your local?
Mr. Maggiacomo. It takes in Westchester, Putnam, and part of
Dutchess County.
Senator Curtis. What employees are involved ?
Mr. Maggiacomo. All of our contracts, do you mean ?
Senator Curtis. Yes.
Mr. Maggiacomo. The A. & P. employees from this union go up as
far as Wappingers Falls, and that is in Dutchess stores. We have
First National Stores, Inc.; the Gristede Bros., five stores; Grand
Union; and all of the smaller, independent stores within our juris-
diction.
Senator Curtis. Do you have just the people in the meat depart-
ment or do you have the whole store i
Mr. Maggiacomo. In five stores of Grand Union I have the whole
store. In the A. & P., of course, we have the whole store. In the
First National, we do not. We have just the meat department. In
the Gristede Bros., we have just the meat departments.
Senator Curtis. In these stores, other than A. & P., how many
hours did you have in your workweek in your contracts in 1952 ?
Mr. Maggiacomo. I believe it was 45.
Senator Curtis. In all of them ?
Mr, Maggiacomo. Yes.
Senator Curtis. Was it more than 45 in any ?
Mr. Maggiacomo. No, sir.
Senator Curtis. For how long did it continue at 45 ?
Mr. Ma(;giacomo. All of them until June 1, 1957.
Senator Curtis. You are referring to all of your stores ?
Mr, Maggiacomo, Yes. When we neo-otiated with the other com-
panies after the A. & P, contract was signed, we made sure that on
June 1, 1957, we would automatically go to a 40-hour agreement.
Senator Curtis. But, up until then, all the contracts had been 45?
Mr. Maggiacomo. That is right.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you.
Call the next witness.
Mr. Kennkdy. Mr. Joseph Colin.
The Chairman. You do solemnly swear that the evidence you slmll
give before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Coiix. I do.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11535
TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH COHN, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL,
SAMUEL HARRIS COHN
The Chairman. State your name, your place of residence, and your
business or occupation.
Mr. CoHN. Joseph Cohn. I reside at 8 Montgomery Circle, New
Rochelle, N. Y. ; place of business is 550 Bergen Avenue, Bronx, N. Y.
The Chairman. Do you have counsel ?
Mr. CoHN. I do.
The Chairman. Counsel, identify yourself, please.
Mr. S. CoHN. Samuel Harris Cohn, offices, 1776 Broadway, New
York City, member of the New York bar.
The Chairman. We have the witness Cohn and the attorney Cohn.
Mr. Corn. No relation.
The Chairman. Proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. You are secretary -manager of local 400 ?
Mr. Cohn. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. ^^Hiat is the area that you work in ?
Mr. Cohn. The geographical area is in the Borough of Bronx and
Manhattan in the city of New York.
Mr. Kennedy. How many members do you have ?
Mr. Cohn. At this date, approximately 4,600.
]\rr. Kennedy. You had been working for a long period of time,
had you not, trying to organize the clerks in the A. & P. stores ?
Mr. Cohn. I didn't get the question, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. You had been working a long time, had you not,
attempting to organize the clerks in the A. & P. stores ?
Mr. Cohn. You are referring to the year of 1952, sir?
Mr. Kennedy. Prior to that time had you been working on that?
Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. For a number of years ?
Mr. Cohn. On and off.
Mr. Kennedy. And on and off for a number of years you had been
interested in that?
Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. In 1952, did you renew your efforts to try to organize
the clerks ?
Mr. Cohn. Yes, we did.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Block then take over the direction of the
drive ?
Mr. Cohn. Never took over the direction of the drive, as a drive
itself, because in all my experience of organizing I have done my
own writing, I have done all my own layout of work, but no one ever
took over the direction of the drive.
Mr. Kennedy. Specifically I am thinking of the contracts with the
company. That was all done by Mr. Block, was it not ?
Mr. Cohn. On the question of negotiations, partially.
Mr. Kennedy. As far as the grocery clerks, up until October 11,
that was all done by Mr. Block, was it not, the contracts with the
company ?
Mr. Cohn. The question is very vague. I do not want to answer
the wrong way. When you speak of taking over the negotiation, sir,
21243— 58— pt. 29 23
11536 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
it means taking it over from the inception to the conclusion, and this
would not be true.
Mr. Kennedy. I said up until October 11, the contracts that were
made with the company on the part of the Meat Cutters was pretty
much done on the part of Mr. Block, was it not ?
Mr. CoHN. There were many meetings that Mr. Block attended by
himself and contacted, to use that word, there were many meetings.
Mr. IvENNEDY. It was pretty much left up to him until the final
negotions on October 11? The discussions and conferences were
pretty much left to him ?
Mr. CoHN. Yes, he was the person in charge.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he keep you advised specifically as to what was
going on and what steps he was taking ?
Mr. CoHN. That is hard to relate, because if I knew of every meet-
ing I could relate the answer to that.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you feel that he was keeping you advised as to
what was going on ?
Mr. CoHN. I felt that he told me things that were going on, whether
he told me completely, I do not know at this stage.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you think you were being kept advised suffi-
ciently enough as to what was going on ?
Mr. CoHN. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. The card count was held on October 9 and 10 ; is that
right?
Mr. CoHN. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you aware that that card count was taking
place ?
Mr. CoHN. I was told about it prior to the card count.
Mr. E^ennedy. "VYlien did you learn about it ?
Mr. CoHN. I couldn't date it exactly. I would say a few days be-
fore, generally. But it was 1, 2, 3 or i days. It is impossible for me
to remember when.
Mr. Kennedy. Did your business agents know that the cards they
were getting were to be used in this card count ?
Mr. CoHN. Absolutely not.
Mr. Kennedy. Then, on October 8 and 10, did you know that the
contract was going to be negotiated on October 11 ?
Mr. CoHN. Negotiated ?
Mr. Kennedy. Negotiated and signed ?
Mr. CoiiN. I do not know. Tlie date of October 11 was void to me
as far as anything happening prior to October 11, so I could not very
well know what was going to take place on that day.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not know. Wlien did you first hear that the
contract was to be signed ?
Mr. CoHN. The morning of October 11, approximately 10 o'clock
or thereabouts.
Mr. Kennedy. Where were you at that time ?
Mr, CoiiN. I was at Woodbourne, N. Y.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive a telephone call to come back?
Mr. CoiiN. I did.
]\Ir. Kennedy. What time did you come back ?
Mr. CoHN. Well, as I stated to you, sir, at the previous meeting,
it is 102 miles exactly to New York.
Mr. Kennedy. Approximately when ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11537
Mr. CoiiN. I would say 1 o'clock or thereabouts.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the state of the negotiations at that time,
when you got back, about 1 o'clock on Saturday ?
Mr. CoiiN. I could not call them negotiations, sir. That is, from
my interpretation of the word "negotiations." I would say when I
came into the place where I was supposed to arrive at the Graybar
Building on Lexington Avenue, the city of New York, I was given a
contract to read.
Mr. IvENNEDY. The contract had already been drawn up ?
Mr. CoTTN. The body of the contract had been drawn up.
Mr. Kennedy. This was by 1 o'clock on Saturday ?
Mr. CoiiN. Approximately.
Mr. Kennedy. The day following the card count?
Mr. CoHN. According to the record.
Mr. IvENNEDY. Did you sign the contract at that time ?
Mr. CoHN. Not immediately.
ISIr. Kennedy. You wanted some changes made ?
Mr. CoHN. I objected to several things in the contract, 1 or 2
things. We argued about it, we talked about it, and eventually got
what I wanted.
Mr. Kennedy. What was that ?
Mr. CoiiN. There was a clause in the opening of the contract which
gave the contract, as I interpreted it at that time, to the New York
Butchers' district council. I felt this would lose the local autonomy
of local 400. I felt that I had no right to waive the local autonomy of
local 400, and I insisted upon a letter from Mr. Block, the president
of the New York Butchers' district council, that this would in no way
mean or be interpreted to mean that local 400 waives its local juris-
diction and its right to bargain by itself. I received that document.
I believe you have a copy of it, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. So if you would sign this contract initially it would
have given all rights to Max Block ?
jMr. CoiiN. This was my interpretation at that time.
Mr. Kennedy. So you insisted on getting a letter that you would
preserve your own rights and the rights of your local union ?
Mr. CoHN. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. At that time, did you know of any secret agreements
that had been signed by Mr. Block ?
Mr. CoHN. I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. When did you learn about that ?
Mr. CoHN. Well, that question, sir, when I learned about that, hap-
pened in this way, and you can draw the conclusions of whether I
learned about it or not. I was in Chicago approximately 2 or 3 months
ago, the exact date, there again I can't date the exact date, and in my
discussions with Patrick E. Gorman, the secretary-treasurer of our in-
ternational, and I had gone there for 2 purposes — 1 was to get a copy
of the telegram which I had sent to him on July 22 and second was
some organizational problems that I was confronted with — and he
mentioned to me that your committee investigators were in his office
and had been looking for a 5-year letter, and in which he told me
then they had found on a microfilm. I never saw the letter; I never
saw the document. That was my first knowledge of that situation as
far as anything 5 years secret or not secret.
Mr. Ivennedy. Wliat was your reaction to it ?
11538 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. CoHN. I got angry. I felt there was an obligation of the inter-
tional office to advise me if such a document had been signed. At that
time, Gorman explained that to me, and I quote him saying :
I do not remember whether I signed it or not. All I remember is that I told
the committee —
I think it was Mr. Kopecky, the name he used —
where the letter was because even the committee could not find it.
So he quoted what he said to me.
Mr. Kennedy, Can you give us any more about your reactions as to
what had been done ?
Mr. CoHN. Well, my first reaction ? My first reaction to the thing
was that it was a situation if anyone dared to sign anything that I
was party to, and I used the word "I" representing the local which I
am elected from, to do something of that sort or any nature, which
would leave us out and holding the situation where we would not be
able to move, it was an outrage and I felt that at that time. I felt
that very, very much, and was incensed about it. To this date I have
never seen the letter. I have read about it in the press, and I have
read about it in the minutes. But I have never seen the letter to this
date.
Mr. Kennedy. The contract as it was written, was that ever sub-
mitted to the membership for ratification ?
Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. It was ?
Mr. CoHN. On October 16, 1052, we had scheduled a membership
meeting of those people who were members of our union who were
working in the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
Mr. Kennedy. Would that be butchers and grocery clerks?
Mr. CoHN. This was the butchers, the butchers. At that meeting,
we presented the contract. May I add that during the entire reading
of the agreement, at no time did we mention the grocery clerks as a
part of the contract, because we did not want to sell the butchers the
idea that we gave in on any particular point in order to get the
grocery clerks. It was only after the contract was ratified that I an-
nounced the question of the grocery clerks.
Let me state that in all my life I have never heard an ovation by
the butchers that I heard that daj^, they were so happy about it. Be-
cause they had gone through the experience, by particular local, local
400, which I represent, that they could not get the best conditions in
the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. with only one-third of the people
organized. They could not get it. We maneuvered previously. We
were the first ones to sign a contract in the Great Atlantic & Pacific
Tea Co. We maneuvered in many, many negotiations for things that
we felt we were entitled to. We squirmed, we moved, we did eveiy-
thing under the sun.
But we very well knew the leadership, and the membership, under-
stood that unless the entire sliop was signed up, we could never get
anywliere and get the conditions we were entitled to, wliether it be a
40-hour week, wliether it be better working conditions, whether it be
top wages, we were alone. In 1952 there Avas an election taking place
in the city of New York in which participated local 1500 of the RCIA
and local 474 of the then CIO. Our organization went on record with
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11539
our members, our shop stewards, to have the people vote union. We
take the stand that the reason that the unions all got such a big vote
in that election was because the butchers supported the prounion vote.
We did not take a position for wliich local, because we hoped they
would win and we wanted to know who we would live with. But our
entire drive was to see the entire shop organized. The proof of the
pudding is the existing contract today, that once the shop was signed
up completely we were able to get the conditions that we are en-
joying.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever submit the retail clerks' contract to
the employees ?
IVIr. CoiiN. You are referring to the grocery clerks, Mr. Kennedy ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Mr. CoiiN. No, sir, they were not members of our union. There
was no way Me could submit it to them for ratification. I presume
that is what you mean.
Mr. IvENNEDY. That is correct.
Mr. CoHN. Not for ratification. But we called a series of meetings
which would have gone off swell, if we did not have a disruptive ele-
ment in the organization, who were there to disrupt. But we took
up the question with the workers and did the best we could under the
circumstances.
We must have had about 50 meetings in a period of 6 months or less.
Mr. IvENNEDY. Did you have a lot of trouble signing up the clerks
in your area after the contract was signed ?
Mr. CoiiN. Yes, without a question of a doubt. We had no assist-
ance from anybody. We had a lot of trouble. We had people who
were pro-CIO, and there again I speak of 1952 if not of today, and
they gave us a lot of headaches about this situation.
Mr. I\JENNEDY. Was there a lot of bad feeling, Mr. Cohn?
Mr. Cohn. Without a question of a doubt.
Mr. IvENNEDY. Right after the contract was signed ?
Mr. Cohn. Without a question of a doubt.
Mr. Kennedy. Had you tried in 1955 to get a 40-hour week in the
negotiations that took place in 1955 with the A. & P. ?
Mr. Cohn. That was part of our demands.
Mr. IvJENNEDY. Was there anybody in the union who was against
your going to a 40-hour week ?
Mr. Cohn. AYlio differed with our opinion ?
Yes, there were two locals who differed with our opinion, the rank
and file. We met as a complete negotiating committee of one hundred
and some odd. The rank and file committees felt and the leadership
felt, of those two locals, that the raising of money was more important
to workers because of the cost of living, et cetera, and we were for a
40-hour week.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Block himself oppose going to a 40-hour
week ?
Mr. Cohn. Well, it is hard to say "oppose." He was for $7.50, as
No. 1. Let me place it this way, if I may, Mr. Kennedy. We had No.
1 on the agenda, the 40-hour week, with that tied up as much money
as we could get. Our people were primarily interested in the 40-hour
week. Mr. Block's local, 342, their people were interested. No. 1, on
the agenda, the increase of as much as they could get, and. No. 2, a
11540 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
reduction of hours. But it was a question of opinion as to which
came first for which particular locaL
Mr. Kennedy. All I am asking is : Did Mr. Block oppose the em-
ployees in the union from going to a 40-hour week?
Mr. CoHN. When you use the word "oppose"
Mr. Kennedy. He was not in favor of going to a 40-hour week?
Mr. CoHN. He was representing his local for an increase.
Mr. Kennedy. He was not in favor of going to a 40-hour week.
Mr. CoHN. That is correct.
Mr. I^NNEDY. You were in favor of going to a 40-hour week and
he was not in favor of going to a 40-hour week.
Mr. CoHN. That was the sentiment of the people I represented.
Mr. Kennedy. What if you had submitted this contract to the
employees and it had contained a clause in which the 45-hour week
was going to last for a 5-year period? What would have been the
results ?
Mr. CoHN. If such an agreement was brought to them, it is my
opinion they would not be here today. They would have torn me to
pieces.
Mr. I^NNEDY. So if this secret agreement had been made known
at that time, what would have been the results ?
Mr. CoHN. It would never have been accepted by our people if such
an agreement was in effect and was signed.
Mr. Kennedy. How many grocery clerks did you get as members
from this contract ?
Mr. CoHN. Well, the figure cannot be a true figure, because the
turnover in the A. & P. is tremendous. It was more then than it is
now. I would say approximately 1,800 to 2,000, or 2,100, around that
figure. There are variations on account of the season, and so forth.
Mr. Kennedy. It almost doubled the size of your union ?
Mr. CoHN. Exactly. Exactly.
Mr. Kennedy. So this was a rather important thing.
Mr. CoHN. Without a question it was important from many phases,
the most important being that it organized the shop completely.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Cohn, what do you feel, as far as union prac-
tices are concerned, about the making of a secret agreement ?
Mr. CoiiN. I am against a secret agreement. I am against any-
thing that is kept from the membership. There are times you will
not divulge tactics to the membership, because of leaking out, that you
are going to do something.
But as far as keeping secrets from the membership, I am against it
now, and I have always been against it, and I hope to continue to be
against it.
The Chairman. Are there any questions?
Senator Curtis.
Senator Curtis. With what employers besides A. & P. do you have
contracts ?
Mr. Cohn. The background of our local is basically small shops,
1 and 2 man shops. We started the reverse in 1934 and 1935. We
organized the small 1-2-man shops. That makes up the majority,
which is approximately, you can imagine, about 500 employers with
about 1,400 workers, to give you the idea of the shops. That is the
backbone of our organization.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11541
Senator Curtis, Do you have any larger shops ?
Mr. CoHN. Yes. I am coming to that. We have a few small
chains. We don't call them large. When we speak of large, we make
a comparison of the major chains in the city of New York. I have
no contracts witli major chains. Gristecle's, as far as employees, only
has 175 to 200 butchers working for them. So you see, our backbone
is completely small shops. We do not have any of the big, major
chains.
Senator Curtis. In some of these minor chains, how many stores
would they have ?
JNIr. CoHN. Some 5, some 7, some 4, some 6, some 8, they vary. I
would say anywhere from 3 up to about 10.
Senator Curtis. AVere their contracts as good for the workers as
the contracts for the larger employers generally ?
Mr. CoiiN, All of our contracts basically are identical in language
and conditions of work. They are all identical except the chainstore,
the A. & P. contract, has certain clauses which we cannot get — let me
reverse that. There are certain clauses in the independent contracts
which we cannot get into the A. & P. contract.
Senator Curtis. What sort of clauses?
Mr. CoHN. I beg your pardon ?
Senator Curtis. What sort of clauses ?
Mr. CoHN. The question of hiring. We are intrastate under the
question of the independent stores, while in the A. & P. we are classi-
fied as interstate. In the interstate situation you have the question
of the hiring hall. Therefore, it makes it illegal for an employer to
enter into any agreement of hiring employees through the union.
This is not true in our independent stores. That is a very important
clause to our people we represent. If an employer needs a man, he
calls the union and we send a man. Of course, he is not compelled
to keep him. He has a trial period. I want to make that clear. But
that is a very important clause to us.
Senator Curtis. What was the length of the workweek in the con-
tracts that you had with employers other than A. & P. in 1952 ?
Mr. CoHN. All our contracts, outside of the A. & P., qualified, I
would say 99.9 — I want to leave that one point where I may be
wrong — are 45 hours for our butchers, we had 40 hours for our female
wrappers, and in our self-service store 421/^ hours.
Senator Curtis. That was 1952?
Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir. We had started the 45-hour week prior to
any local in the city of New York.
Senator Curtis. Your particular local.
Mr. CoHN. That is correct, sir.
Senator Curtis. When did you go to a 40-hour week for every-
body?
Mr. CoHN. On May 24, 1 believe the date is, 1957. Simultaneously,
the entire union went on a 40-hour week.
Senator Curtis. You signed this contract with A. & P. ?
Mr. CoHN. Well, in essence, actually, I haven't signed it but I am
responsible for the signature. The president of the local who was
with me signed it, so you can state that I signed it, because we were
there together.
Senator Curtis. And that involved the grocery clerks ?
11542 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Mr. CoiiN. That is correct, sir.
Senator Curtis. Did you represent them at the time ?
Mr. CoHN. In my thinking at the time that I represented them,
that is true, I am speaking for local 400 now.
Senator Curtis, What did you base that on ?
Mr. CoHN. I based it upon the organization drive we have had in
the shops, the cards we presented for the card count. On these bases
we felt we represented them.
Senator Curtis. How many cards did you present for the card
count ?
Mr. CoHN. According to my memorandums that I have, I would say
roughly about 68 percent of the cards of qualified workers in our
area, we presented. Numerically that would be around 1,350, or
around that, numerically.
Senator Curtis, You presented around 1,350 ?
Mr, CoHN. That is right, sir ; for our local. Local 400,
Senator Curtis. Were they all genuine ?
Mr. CoiiN. To my knowledge, they were.
Senator Curtis. What do you mean by that ?
Mr. CoHN. Well, I am not a roadman. By that I mean I do not
go out in the stores. We have always had, since the inception of our
organization, a shop steward system. No matter how small a shop is,
we have an area system and a shop steward system. We were the
first ones to organize the A. & P., as I stated before. We set up a
shop steward, and we had a shop steward in every shop, and we had
shop steward meetings. It was not in name only. We had actual
shop steward meetings. We had gotten our shop stewards together
and had given them cards to sign the grocery clerks up with.
We had only one business agent, one paid representative who was
covering the entire Borough of Manhattan and the Bronx at that
time, representing the Butchers since 1947. It would be physically
impossible for him to do the job. The shop stewards cooperated.
When I say to my knowledge, when these cards were given to me
through either the shop stewards or the business representative, I
accepted them as legitimate cards, and to the best of my knowledge I
say they are valid cards.
I want to say that is only from the A. & P. workers.
Senator Curtis. What connection, if any, is there between local
400 and Mr. Block?
Mr. CoHN. We both belong to the same international as far as
organization. When I say we both, I mean 342 and 400. We both
belong to the New York Butchers District Council. We have em-
ployers who cross boundaries. They have shops in his geographical
area, and they have shops in our geographical area.
We meet from time to time at meetings. We consult when we have
a common problem. That is about as far as it goes.
Senator Curtis. How do you reconcile your statement about 1,350
employees of A. & P. signing up in the union, and the statement at-
tributed to Mr. Block here this morning that there were 300 ?
Mr. CoiiN. The statement made this morning which I heard, I do
not know the answer to it, sir. I can only speak of local 400. I don't
know how many cards Mr. Block presented. I did not handle them, I
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11543
did not look tlirough thein. What was going on in his area I know
absoUitely nothing about.
Senator Crnins. But getting the grocery clerks organized was a
joint effort, wasn't it ?
]\lr. Coiix. A joint effort as far as conferring. As far as organiz-
ing, no one gave local 400 any assistance from any other local. In
fact, let me state that local 489, the witness before me, who is much
closer geographically, because Yonkers and the Bronx is the boundary
line, even they work on their own in these things and we work on our
own. There are times in various campaigns where we have crossed
each other's boundaries because we have had a united campaign and
going for one election, et cetera. But as a rule, up to this very date,
we work on our own in these respects and so do the other locals.
Senator Cuetis. You work on your own, but weren't you both
striving to get the grocery clerks of the A. & P. in the geographical
area involved signed up in the tea company ?
Mr. CoHN. That is true. That is true.
Senator Curtis. 'Wliat is the committee to believe, that there were
only 300 legitimate cards or that there were 130 in your part of it
alone?
Mr. CoHX. May I say to you, sir, I think the whole thing is mis-
construed.
Senator Curtis. That is what I want to be straightened out on.
Mr, CoHN. When I speak of 1,300 cards, I speak of the cards pre-
sented by local 400 for the card count. When I heard the testimony
given here, in which the former witness said there were 350 cards or
300, whatever he said, I think, and I am sure, he was speaking of 342.
I do not know how many cards the others sent in. I do not know,
whether it was 1 or 10,000. I have no way of knowing.
Senator Curtis. Were they all involved in the same contract?
Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. I am not referring to identical contracts, but were
they all in the contract ?
Mr. CoHX. There, too, sir, there is a differential.
In the Butcher contract the records will show, and I have copies of
the contracts with me if you care to see them, that it calls for 400 and
489, and on the grocery contract, it calls for 400, 489, and 342. There
is a differential.
The experience of elections we have gone through was on the
brokers warehouse, the A. & P. brokers warehouse, and there was a
State board where we first appeared many, many years ago, and there
was the National Board before which we appeared many, many years,
and they designated the Bronx warehouse as the collective bargaining
unit. Therefore, we were bound by the election terms, and since that
time the contracts have been signed that way.
Wlien you speak of contracts, there are two different types of
agreements, one for 489 and 400, verbally, the same, written the same,
but heading different, and the other for 342, et cetera, et cetera.
Senator Curtis. Were the cards that the grocery clerks asked to
sign the same ?
Mr. CoHN. This, too, I cannot answer. I do not know, sir. I
know what our cards were. I don't know what their cards were.
11544 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Senator Curtis. I have here exhibit 2, which appears to be some
sort of card. It says at the top :
In accordance with my legal rights guaranteed by the National and State
Labor Relations Act, I hereby designate the joint chain store organizing com-
mittee of local 400 and local 489, A. F. of L., as my agent for collective bargain-
ing.
There is a place for the name, address, store address, and the sig-
nature.
And down below it says :
The joint chain store organizing committee of local 400 and local 489, A. F.
of L., 586 East 61st Street, Bronx, and 206 South Broadway, Yonkers, N. Y.
I want you to look at that and tell me whether or not that is the
form of the card that was used ?
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. CoHN. According to my recollection, in looking at this card, I
would say that it is.
Senator Curtis. Based upon wliat it recites there, and the addresses
of the unions, did that also include the cards of Mr. Block?
Mr. CoHN. No, sir.
Senator Curtis. Wliat was the number of his group ?
Mr. CoHN. Local 342.
Senator Curtis. 342?
Mr. CoHN. That is correct, sir.
Senator Curtis. How many grocery clerks in this entire proceed-
ings were put into the Meat Cutters Union on October 11? How
many grocery clerks were involved ?
Mr. CoHN. Wlien you speak of "involved," sir, when you speak of
them, do you mean in the area wliich I represent, or on an overall
basis ?
Senator Curtis. I mean in the whole group brought into the union.
Mr. CoHN. The figures vary. I have been hearing in the last few
days about 10,000, the figure I have been hearing. At the time I par-
ticipated in this, I heard the figures of 9,000 or 8,500. So the actual
figure I could not give, either from memory or record, because I don't
think there is any such record, except the payroll of the company at
that time that the changeover was made.
Senator Curtis. Did anybody else have cards besides Mr. Block
and you?
Mr. CoiiN. Are you referring to October 8, 9, and 10 ?
Senator Curtis. Yes.
Mr. CoHN-. Mr. Block, myself, and 489, the numbers being 342,
400, and 489.
Senator Curtis. How many cards did Mr. O'Grady certify?
Mr. CoiiN. I really don't know, sir. I can't recall the exact figure.
Senator Curtis. Is it something over 4,000 ?
Mr. CoiiN. There, again, sir, I don't recall. If that is the figure
you have, I assume it is correct.
The Chairman. They actually certified, I tliink, less than 4,000.
There were 4,300 cards and he threw out some 500 of them, so it was
actually 3,000 or so that were certified as legitimate cards. Out of
4,300 cards he received, he eliminated between 500 and 600.
Senator Curits. How many of those cards came from Mv. Block's
union, how many from yours, and how many from the third ?
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11545
Mr. CoHN. I couldn't answer that, sir. I liave no way of knowing
tlie figures. I had no way of knowing tlie figures then or now. I
liave no way of knowing. I have never asked.
Senator Curtis. I would like to have Mr. May state that.
The Chairman. I think we have the figure in the record from
yesterday.
Mr. May. In the Garden City unit, 1,463 eligible employees, valid
cards were 1,071. In Mr. Block's Brooklyn unit, 1,C87 eligible em-
ployees, and valid cards were 1,047. In the Bronx unit, Mr. Cohn's
unit, 2,562 eligible employees, and 1,300 plus 181.
The Chairman. 181 of those were eliminated?
Mr. May. No, they were additional cards brought in later in the
card count. That would be 1,526 valid cards.
Senator Curtis. How many cards did Mr. O'Grady throw out?
Mr. ]\LvY. 705.
The CiiAiRMAisr. Did it total that many ?
Mr. May. Yes, sir.
Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Are there any other questions ?
Mr. Kennedy. No, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The Chair has been requested by counsel for the
A. & P. stores to ask you this question :
Didn't the A. & P. in the 1955 negotiations twice offer the 40-hour
staggered week to your union ?
Mr. CoHN. I don't recall whether it was once or twice. It was
offered. We rejected it.
The Chairman. It was offered ?
Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You don't recall whether it was once or twice?
Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they ever offer a 40-hoiir week straight to the
union ?
Mr. CoHN. When you say "straight," if you mean no stagger, the
answer is "No."
Mr. Kennedy. And that is what you wanted ?
Mr. CoHN. That is correct.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much. You may
stand aside.
Mr. Kennedy. We have a number of other witnesses, Mr. Chair-
man, who have gotten sick. Mr. Murphy, the attorney for the union,
was going to be an important witness. He counted the cards at
one of these other card counts. Then several months later he ended
up as the attorney for the union.
Then there was Mr. Arnold Cohen, the attorney for the union who
was also supposed to be a witness, but he is sick. We are ending
this phase at the present time.
The Chairman. The Chair has ascertained from counsel for the
A. & P. stores that they have no witnesses they wish to produce or
to have us hear at this time.
I thought in fairness to them they should be given that privilege
if they had anyone or anything they wanted to clear up. I am advised
by their counsel that they do not wish to offer any witnesses.
11546 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
In conclusion, as we conclude this hearing, the Chair makes these
observations :
As the committee concludes this phase of the current hearing, an
analysis of the testimony during the past several days establishes a
number of improper practices which this committee must condemn.
The evidence seems to be quite clear that the Great Atlantic &
Pacific Tea Co. embarked on a course of conduct in 1952, obviously
on the advice of their counsel, that produced serious violations of
various provisions of the National Labor Relations Act.
We are forced to the inevitable conclusion, and the evidence before
this committee amply supports it, that the A. & P. in its relations with
the Amalgamated Meat Cutters, deprived more than 10,000 of its
employees of their right guaranteed under the National Labor Rela-
tions Act to be represented by a collective bargaining agent of their
own choice.
We have had the damaging admission by the top labor relations
official of the A. & P. that he exacted from high-ranking officials of
the Meat Cutters Union a secret guaranty that the company would be
permitted to retain the 45-hour week for 5 years. It is obvious that
the advantages of this agreement were measurable in millions of
dollars.
That is substantial evidence that the company preferred the Meat
Cutters Union to other unions which had been trying for years to
organize its employees ; that some of its managers and supervisors gave
unlawful assistance to that union and that it coerced and intimidated
its employees.
Not only were employees compelled to sign union authorization and
membership cards but the company and the union entered into a con-
spiracy to keep from the employees the fact that there was to be a
card count.
Futhermore, the record is clear that the card count was conducted
in a most superficial manner and with no safeguards employed to in-
sure that fraud would not be committed, as it undoubtedly was.
It is also clear that once the company had established its relation-
ship with the Meat Cutters Union, it adopted a policy of doing every-
thing it could legally and otherwise to maintain that relationsliip.
It has been the function of this committee to ferret out improper
practices by management and labor. The testimony here seems in-
controvertible that what was done in this case by both management and
labor was highly improper and exceedingly repugnant to the recog-
nized principles of orderly and sound labor-management relations.
The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon,
at which time we will go into a new phase of the investigation.
(Whereupon, at 12 :10 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene
at 2 p. m., the same day.)
(Members of the committee present at the taking of the recess were
Senators McClellan and Curtis.)
APPENDIX
ExiTIP.IT No. 1
■ M<< '- *■ >
11547
11548 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 2
In accordance with my legal rights guaranteed by the National
and State Labor Relations Act, I hereby designate the Joint Choin Store
Organizing Committee of Local 400 and Local 489, A. F. of L., as my
agent for collective bargaining.
Name . _
Address
Store Address.
Signature
JOINT CHAIN STORE ORGANIZING COMMIHEE
OF LOCAL 400 and LOCAL 489, A. F. of L.
586 East 161st Street Bronx, N. Y.
«^^<.ii6 206 So. Broadway Yonkers, N. Y.
IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 11549
Exhibit No. 8
April 17, 1956
KEHOi
At a neetiog held Thursday, April 12, I956, at the Vanderbilt
Hotel, attended by Max Block and Arnold Cohsn, representing the Unions
and Bo Ao Zorn, H. Lichtenstein and the writer, reprcBenting the Company,
and subsequent nee ting of hJax Block and the writer held Monday night,
April 16, 1956, the following points were discussed:
lo Check-off: Persuant to previous discussions an agreement
was made that a check-off of Ibion monthly dues would be made after tt»
Union submitted signed cards authorizing same.
2o Parttime Ea^jloyees: The Union claimed they have sufficient
cairds to show that they represent the parttiroe clerks working ten (10)
hours or more but less than twenty (20) hoxirso We agreed that upon re-
ceipt of a telegram so stating Mr* Lichtenstein would contact Kto Cohen
and arrange for an inpartlGLl third party to verify the card repreoentationo
3. Limiting the Percentage of Parbtime Workers: This request
previously made by the Union was rejected by the Company »
If, Change Welfare to Uaion Package Plauis This was rejected by
the IfciioTL.
5, Ea.±mlnate Article V, Sub-division (e) of Contract: The Union
refused to eliminate this paragraph, but agreed to modify it to give us the
desired flexibility, as follows:
(a) Employees ordered to report for work at 7 aom., may
finish day's work at 5 p»ni. or elect to work until 6 p^mo
on an overtiufi basis.
(b) Night stocking sliall be done at the Coaq)amy's con-
venience after store hours, except in restricted arear. where
late night stocking is forbidden or not feasible o
(c) Journeymen Butchers assigned to night vrork shall
receive a premium pay of ^.^O nightly in addition to other
pay.
6, A Uniform Initiation Fee shall be established for eilL Eastern
Division new employees. A weekly dues of seventy-five cents (75^) sLaII be
deducted by the Cov^tany for all Parttime Uhion members for^Ew:h week uben
worked.
11550 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD
Exhibit No. 9
WESTERN
. mfOZk LONG PD RX = N£W YORK NY .APR T.5 .253PL:E =
=FR£flCH BADCLIFFE = DI?5cCTuR LAdOR RELATIONS
^PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE LOCAL UfDO^^S OF THE, AyALG A,,1ATED
MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORX.iEN U:iD£R CONTRACT Wi TH YCUR
COMPANY COVER! MG THEIR ..^Ef^neKS EyPLDYED ) 'i THE BROCKLYM,
GARDENCITY, BRCMX, NEWARK AND PATERSO^i UNITS, EACH
REPRESENTS !N THEI^ GlVii. UfiiTS i*;OR£ THA:< A mAjORITY OF
YOUR PART TI'^E ;'iORKERS V;;i0 ARE E?4RL0YED LESS THAN 2^. HOURS
PER iVEEK AND PRESENTLY NOT COVERED BY ANY AQREEOENT. I^ASEr'
UPCN .ilAJORfTY REPRESENTATION THE U'; I ONS REQUEST RECo ^N I T ! ,.;
AS COLLECTIVE dARGAnr;G AGENTS OF . THESE , PART T I OE
■El'^LOYEES Ai-iD THE CO^rOO-iCE:'^ N T OF COLLECTIVE BAROAr^nO.
ItNPLY ARRANGE CCriFEHENCE WITH R: ORES : N TATI VES OF LOCAL
UfilONS BY CCNTACTnO '^AX BLOCK=
^ARNOLD COHEN ATTORNEY 2 LAFAYETTE ST NE^jYORK 7 HV =
50 vP.
BOSTON PUB"C>.JBB;"J
■g" 06352 025 6
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11