Skip to main content

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

See other formats


r 



^•*^aaiU-L3Aai5 



"Si 




pt.^-i 



Given By 



L e 



3* 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 

* *) 5 3 A ■? 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SELECT COMMITTEE 

ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 

LABOR OR MANAGEMENT MELD 

EIGHTY-FIFTlil CONGRESS 

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



NOVEMBER 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, AND 20, 1958 



PART 41 



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







INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

SELECT COMMITTEE 

ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 

LABOR OR MANAGEMENT MELD 

EIGHTY-FIFTH CONGRESS 

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



NOVEMBER 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, AND 20, 1958 



PART 41 



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



->! 




UNITED STATES 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1959 




Boston Public Library 
Superintendent of Documents 

APR 2 - 1959 
DEPOSITORY 



SELECT COMMITTEE ON IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR 
OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 

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

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

FRANK CHURCH, Idaho CARL T. CURTIS, Nebraska 

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

II 



CONTENTS 



Secondary Boycott 

Page 

Appendix 15747 

Testimony of — 

Barry, Desmond A 15597, 15711 

Bauman, Jay S 15383 

Binns, Joseph 1 539 1 

Bridge, John 15712 

Bunch, R. B 15561 

Carlough, Edward F 15474 

Clark, W. Fov 15646 

Coffev, Glen 15642, 15645 

Coffey, Tom 15625 

Constantine, James V 15365, 15675 

Frost, William O 15437 

Garrison, O. L 15454 

Gilbert, Roy J 15497 

Hass, Edward 1 5578 

Johnson, E. F 15561 

Johnson, G. Howard 15705 

Joy, H. Dean 15654 

Kamerick, Paul E 15408, 15528, 15539, 15565 15645 

Kleiler, Frank M 15675 

Leedom, Bovd 15675 

Mav, Albert E 15660 

McGavin, Peter M 15470 

Owens, Buck 15515, 15529, 15543 

Parker, Albert S 15696 

Sawyer, F. C 15413 

Shafer, Raymond C 15531 

Sherry, John H 15391 

Smith, Zeno 15538 

Springer, William R 15570 

Verdina, Robert 15399 

EXHIBITS 

Introduced Appears 

on page on page 

1. Four photographs of the picketing at the Park Avenue 

entrance of the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel 15396 (*) 

1A. Photographs taken incident to the picketing at the Waldorf- 
Astoria Hotel 15397 (*) 

2. Partial list of deliveries turned back by pickets 15398 (*) 

3. Letter dated February 28, 1956, addressed to Waldorf- 

Astoria Hotel, attention: Mr. Wallace W. Lee, Jr., from 

Robert Verdina, secretary-treasurer local No. 760 15408 15747 

3 A. Letter dated March 7, 1956, addressed to George Laufek, 
Meadow Gold Products Corp., from Joseph P. Heffernan, 

president of local 757 15408 15748 

3B. Letter dated March 7, 1956, addressed to Wallace W. Lee, 
Jr., Hotel Waldorf-Astoria, from Alfred Kean, general 

manager, Major Liquor Distributors, Inc 15409 15749 

4. Standard form of union agreement used bv the Sheet Metal 

Workers Union I 15436 (*) 



•May be found in the files of the select committee. 

in 



IV CONTENTS 

Introduced Appears 
on page on page 

5. Job classification chart 15450 15750 

6. Agreement dated December 1, 1956, signed by Wooster 

Sheet Metal & Roofing Co. and local union No. 70 15454 (*) 

7. Letter dated December 16, 1955, addressed to B. W. Older 

and signed by Robert Byron, general president, Sheet 

Metal Workers International Association 15457 15751 

8. Letter dated August 29, 1956, addressed to Richard J. Gray, 

president of Building and Construction Trades Depart- 
ment, AFL-CIO, and signed by O. L. Garrison 15457 (*) 

9. Telegram addressed to United Steel Workers of America, 

AFL-CIO and signed by F. C. Sawyer, executive vice 

president, the Burt Manufacturing Co 15458 (*) 

10. Letter dated April 17, 1957, addressed to David J. McDon- 

ald, president, United Steel Workers of America 15459 15752 

11. Letter dated May 8, 1957, addressed to George Meany, 

president, American Federation of Labor, and signed by 
Robert Byron, general president, Sheet Metal Workers 
International Association 15460 (*) 

12. Letter dated June 10, 1957, addressed to George Meany, 

president, AFL-CIO, and signed by David J. McDonald, 

president, United Steelworkers of America 15461 (*) 

13. Letter dated July 19, 1957, addressed to George Meany, 

president, American Federation of Labor and signed by 
Robert Byron, general president, Sheet Metal Workers 
International Association 15461 (*) 

14. Letter dated September 16, 1957, addressed to David J. 

McDonald, president, United Steelworkers of America 
and signed by George Meany, president, American Feder- 
ation of Labor 15462 (*) 

15. Rock that was thrown through the windshield of a car 15508 (*) 

16. Southeastern Motor Transport, Inc., income and expenses, 

year 1954 15511 (*) 

17. Excerpts from recording relating to details in the manner of 

handling dynamite and pay Owens received from Shafer_ . 15544 (*) 

18. Excerpts from recording relating to allegation that Raymond 

Shafer secured services of W. R. Springer to transport a 

load of dynamite from Odessa to San Antonio, Tex 15545 (*) 

19. Excerpt from recording relating to temporary storage of the 

stolen dynamite 15547 (*) 

20. Excerpt from recording relating to an explosion which 

damaged the warehouse of the Austin Fireproof Storage 

Co. in Austin, Tex 15551 (*) 

21. Excerpt from recording relating to explosion in Austin, Tex_ 15555 (*) 

22. Excerpt from recording relating to alleged acts of violence 

committed against trucking firms in the San Antonio 

area 15556 (*) 

23. Excerpt from recording relating to alleged arson at the Lee 

Way Terminal and alleged attempt to bomb the Alamo 

Terminal 15557 (*) 

24. Excerpt from recording relating to arrangements Shafer 

effected for setting fire to some trucks owned by South- 
western Motor Transport of Aan Antonio 15558 (*) 

25. Excerpt from recording relating to information received 

by Shafer that dynamite he sold to representatives of 
the Teamsters Union in Shreveport, La., exploded 
accidentally 15560 (*) 

26. Registration card from the El Montan Motor Court, dated 

January 4, 1955, in the name of E. F. Johnson & R. B. 

Bunch 15563 15753 

27. One-way trailer lease contract between E. F. Johnson and 

U-Haul Co., dated January 5, 1955 l 15564 15754 

28. Letter dated January 30, 1958, addressed to Mr. Paul E. 

Kamerick, from L. L. Taylor, Arcoa, Inc., Portland, 

Oreg 15566 15755 



♦May be found in the files of the select committee. 



CONTENTS V 

Introduced Appears 
on page on page 

29. Report furnished by the sheriff's office in Shreveport, in 

which is described an explosion which took place February 

3, 1955, near Summer Grove on old U.S. Highway 171__ 15567 (*) 

30. Excerpt from recording relating to alleged arson at the Lee 

Way Terminal 15582 (*) 

31. Excerpt from recording relating to conversation regarding 

the incidents surrounding the bombing of the Austin 
fireproof warehouse and the theft of dvnamite at Odessa, 
Tex 15583 (*) 

32. Excerpt from recording relating to further details concerning 

the bombing of the warehouse in Austin 15587 (*) 

33. Excerpt from recording relating to the complaint of Eddie 

Hass that he was deprived of the portion of his income 

because he was not hired by Shafer 15588 (*) 

34. Excerpt from recording relating a conversation between 

Buck Owens and Eddie Hass 15590 (*) 

35A. Picture of explosives 15592 (*) 

35B. Picture of explosives 15592 (*) 

35C. Picture of Frank Gensberg's residence in San Antonio with 

garage apartment in the rear 15593 (*) 

36. Compilation entitled "Effect of Secondarv Bovcott Against 

Coffey's Transfer Co" 15630 (*) 

37. A file of carbon copies of letters secured under subpena from 

John Bridge, Chicago 15645 (*) 

38. Copies of notes made at the time of the strike on January 27, 

1956, against Darling by Local 41 of the Teamsters in 

Kansas City 15654 (*) 

39. Document entitled "Secondary Boycott of Teamsters Union 

Against Ford Storage & Moving Co., Omaha, Nebr." 15661 (*) 

40. Letter dated December 10, 1955, addressed to G. Howard 

Johnson, president, Independent Truckers, Inc., from 
John Bridge, executive chairman, Motor Carrier Labor 
Ad\isory Council, Chicago, 111 15720 15756 

41. Letter dated June 13, 1957, addressed to John L. Keeshin, 

Eagle River, Wis., from John Bridge, executive chairman, 

Motor Carrier Labor Advisor Council 15723 15757 

42. Letter dated February 22, 1957, addressed to J. L. Keeshin, 

president, C. A. Conklin Truck Line, Inc., from John 
Bridge, executive chairman, Motor Carrier Labor Ad- 
visory Council 15733 15758 

43. Letter dated September 4, 1956, addressed to Albert E. May, 

of Swarr, May, Royce, Smith & Story, Omaha, Nebr., 
from Carl L. Steiner, of Axelrod, Goodman & Steiner, 

Chicago, 111 15735 (*) 

Proceedings of — 

November 13, 1958 15363 

November 14, 1958 15413 

November 17, 1958 15497 

November 18, 1958 15531 

November 19, 1958 15597 

November 20, 1958 15675 



•May be found in the files of the select committee. 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1958 

U.S. Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

in the Labor or Management Field, 

Washington, D.C. 

The select committee met at 2 p.m., pursuant to Senate Resolution 
221, agreed to January 29, 1958, in the caucus room, Senate Office 
Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the select com- 
mittee) presiding. 

Present: Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Sen- 
ator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat, North Carolina; Senator Carl T. 
Curtis, Republican, Nebraska. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Jerome Adlerman, 
chief assistant counsel; Paul Kamerick, assistant counsel; John J. 
McGovern, assistant counsel ; Ruth Y. Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

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

The Chairman. The Chair will make a brief opening statement. 

We are today resuming hearings of the committee authorized and 
directed by the resolution creating the committee and we are also be- 
ginning a new series of hearings. In this series the committee will 
hear testimony on practices involving secondary boycotts. This field 
has proven a very troublesome one to labor, to management, to the 
public, as well as to the courts and legislative bodies and administra- 
tive agencies. The number of complaints concerning this type of 
activity have been numerous, which prompts the committee to explore 
into this area to determine the need for corrective legislation. 

To place matters in proper perspective, I will touch briefly upon 
the elementary law as it exists at the present time. The primary boy- 
cotts have been defined as "a refusal to deal with or patronize a busi- 
ness." They have been legal under both common law and our statute 
law. 

However, the problems involving so-called "secondary boycotts" 
have led to many complaints. Secondary boycotts are not clearly de- 
fined in law. One of the reasons is that it has taken many forms, the 
subject of a great deal of legislation, and a matter of much discussion 
by the courts. In its simplest definition, "secondary boycott" has 
been described as : 

An intent to boycott one who is not a direct party to the principal or primary 
dispute. 

15363 



15364 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

It has also been defined as a — 

combination to influence A by exerting some sort of economic or social pressure 
against persons who deal with A. 

Under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 the courts prohibited 
secondary boycotts as a restraint of trade in interstate commerce 
(Danbury Hatters case, 208 U.S. 274 and Gompers case, 221 U.S. 418) , 

Congress by the Clayton Act of 1914 under section 6 and section 20 
specifically exempted normal and legitimate union actions from the 
Sherman Act. Even under the exemptions of the Clayton Act the 
Supreme Court ruled that certain union actions constituted an illegal 
secondary boycott (Duplex Printing, 2,54c U.S. 443) . 

Congress again in 1932 under the Norris-LaGuardia Act gave un- 
ions broad protection against injunctions in secondary boycott cases. 

However, when Congress passed the Labor-Management Relations 
Act of 1947 it imposed certain restrictions and bans against the un- 
ion's use of secondary boycott and I refer to sections 8(B) and 8(B) 

Under 4(A) it is a violation to induce employees of any employer 
to refuse to process goods where the object is to force another em- 
ployer to join a labor or employer organization or to induce any em- 
ployer to cease doing business with another employer. 

Section 8(B) 4(B) forbids a union to induce employees of employer 
B to strike with an aim to induce employer A to recognize a union 
that holds no certification of majority bargaining rights from the 
NLRB. 

Phases to be covered in these hearings, for example, in the New York 
area, will touch upon the problem of picketing "common sites," that 
is, a site in which several companies not parties to a labor dispute may 
be situated and whose business may be affected by a picket line aimed 
at only one employer, with a resulting great damage to innocent 
parties. An important factor is to determine whether this has the 
effect of putting improper pressure on a party being struck to compel 
it to accede to the striking union's demands, however reasonable or 
unreasonable they may be. 

In this and other cases to be heard we will examine into the use of 
secondary boycotts in jurisdictional fights between different unions 
and whether coercion is exerted to force members to give up their 
right to choose their own union, as well as the pressures that are put 
on an employer who must, under the NLRB law T , remain neutral and 
enter into contracts with the unions decreed by the NLRB to be the 
bargaining representative. 

We will also examine into activities of employers acting in combi- 
nation with unions to engage in secondary boycotts to eliminate com- 
petition or otherwise improperly restrain trade. 

In the case involving the Burt Manufacturing Co. we w r ill examine 
into a situation where an employer and his employees are on the horns 
of a jurisdictional fight between two labor unions — the Steel Workers 
Union on the one hand, and the Sheet Metal Workers Union on the 
other hand. The committee will seek to study the effects of such juris- 
dictional fight on rank and file members of labor, their labor organiza- 
tion, and on management and the public. 

In the course of our hearings we will examine into the use of vio- 
lence as an element in secondary boycott and the use of hot-cargo 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15365 

clauses in union contracts. The committee will also seek to determine 
whether such hot-cargo clauses are an improper interference with 
interstate commerce in "interlining shipments" which are decreed by 
license bv the Interstate Commerce Commission. 

For the purpose of better understanding of the issues it is perhaps 
well to explain the terms "interlining" and "hot-cargo." The inter- 
state common carriers come under the jurisdiction of the Interstate 
Commerce Commission which license the carrying of goods from 
one area to another. Where one trucking company is licensed to ship 
to a certain point, it delivers its cargo to a freight depot where it is 
picked up by another carrier and delivered to the farther point. 
Such transshipment from one carrier to another is called interlining. 

The practice has grown of the inclusion of a hot-cargo clause in 
contracts between unions and trucking and warehouse companies 
which is essentially an agreement with an employer to free his em- 
ployees from the "obligation of handling of "hot goods" or "hot 
cargo" being manufactured or transferred by a struck employer. 

The committee will hear with interest testimony during the next 
few days on these and other aspects of secondary boycotts as cur- 
rently practiced and it will study the testimony to determine whether 
present laws are adequate to protect the public interest. 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis, do you have any statement? 

Senator Curtis. I have no further statement, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Ervin, do you have a statement? 

Senator Ervin. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Kennedy. The first witness, Mr. Chairman, is from the Na- 
tional Labor Relations Board, in order to inquire generally into some 
of these fields, and his name is Mr. Constantine. He will precede the 
first case we will have this afternoon. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Constantine, will you come around, 
please? 

Do you solemnly swear that the evidence, given before this Senate 
select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Constantine. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES V. CONSTANTINE 

The Chairman. The Chair may further state that possibly some 
of the testimony we shall hear in this series of hearings will not be 
as spectacular as we have heard in other hearings, but the committee 
regards this testimony as of considerable importance to its task, and 
to its responsibility for inquiring into practices that may be improper 
and for making recommendations with respect thereto to the Congress. 

Will you state your name, and your place of residence, and your 
present occupation, please ? 

Mr. Constantine. James V. Constantine, I live at 7039 Wilson 
Lane in Bethesda and I am presently Solicitor of the National Labor 
Relations Board. 

The Chairman. How long have you held that position, Mr. Con- 
stantine? 

Mr. Constantine. Three years. 

The Chairman. What business or profession did you pursue 
previously ? 



15366 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Constantine. Before that I was an attorney in the Division 
of Law of the National Labor Relations Board for about 7 years. 

The Chairman. All right, thank you very much. 

Mr. Counsel, you may proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Constantine, as you know from the conversa- 
tions that you have had with the staff of the committee, we are in- 
terested in this question of boycotts and secondary boycotts. I was 
wondering if you could tell the committee in brief form what a sec- 
ondary boycott is and some of the typical problem cases that you have 
had before the National Labor Relations Board where there has been 
some question, perhaps not of a loophole in the law, but where there 
has been some contention in connection with secondary boycotts as to 
whether a particular situation is in fact a secondary boycott. 

Mr. Constantine. Well, the statute doesn't use the word "second- 
ary boycott," or the word "boycott" or "secondary," counsel, but those 
words have come to be used by the Board and the courts because they 
were used by the House of Representatives and the Senate in the legis- 
lative history which preceded the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act. 

The Chairman. That is in the discussion of the issue, they referred 
to -it on the floor of the House and Senate as a boycott, primary or 
secondary. That is when you say the legislative history ? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes, sir; in the discussions and also in the com- 
mittee reports. 

The Chairman. Although the law does not use that term? 

Mr. Constantine. It does not ; no, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Constantine. To use ordinary instead of technical language, I 
suppose a secondary boycott may be referred to as a situation where 
pressure is put on one person so that he will cease doing business 
with another person with whom a labor organization has some kind 
of a dispute. 

Mr. Kennedy. What are the various forms that that may take, as 
a practical matter ? 

Mr. Constantine. Well, some of the pressures, counsel, are per- 
fectly lawful. If they are illegal, then they become prescribed as sec- 
ondary boycotts, which the chairman of the committee referred to as 
being prescribed by section 8(B) and 4(A). I suppose a typical case 
would be where there is a strike at employer A, regardless of what the 
strike is over, and the union goes to employer B with whom employer 
A is doing business, and seeks to have employer B stop doing business 
with A. 

The Chairman. In other words, employer B possibly is the pur- 
chaser of employer A's products ? 

Mr. Constantine. Or could be a supplier of products to A. 

The Chairman. And therefore the effort is made to induce the cus- 
tomer of A to cease doing business with him ? 

Mr. Constantine. In order to aid the union in its campaign against 
A, to have A succumb to the union demands. 

The Chairman. In order to apply economic pressure, that is what 
it amounts to? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes. If the pressure on the secondary employer 
is in the form of a strike or inducement or encouragement of his em- 
ployees to strike, regardless of whether the inducement is successful 
or not, that amounts to secondary boycott. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15367 

The Chairman. That violates existing statutes? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes. m 

The Chairman. Is that your interpretation of it i 

Mr. Constantine. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Existing law is adequate to cover that particular 

fiction . 

Mr. Constantine. It is adequate to cover the situation where the 
employees of B are asked to strike or actually go on strike. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, may I ask at that point this ques- 
tion : For the sake of the record I want to get your hypothetical case 
correct, You are referring to where employees of B are asked to 
strike in order to apply pressure on A? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes, sir. 

(Members of the select committee present at this point in the pro- 
ceedings : Senators McClellan, Ervin, and Curtis.) 

Senator Curtis. But suppose that there is no pressure applied to 
the employees of B ? 

Mr. Constantine. The pressure is limited to B himself. 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Constantine. That is not a violation, Senator. 

Senator Curtis. Some of the complained-of happenings fall in 
that category ? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes. I had intended to elaborate later on upon 
all of the ramifications upon when you can and cannot use pressure 
and the different kinds of pressure which are used. 

Senator Curtis. In other words, in the Taft-Hartley law the Con- 
gress prohibited the applying of pressure usually on employees of a 
neutral, but they failed to prohibit the applying of pressure on the 
management of a neutral ? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes, that is a correct statement, Senator. 

Senator Curtis. You have read the debates at that time, I take it. 

Mr. Constantine. I am familiar with them. I have not read them 
word for word. 

Senator Curtis. I think Senator Taft said at the time that there 
was no such thing as a good secondary boycott. 

Mr. Constantine. Yes ; I recall that statement of Senator Taft's. 

Senator Curtis. What I mean is, there were efforts to prohibit the 
use of secondary boycotts in the 1947 act ; is that true ? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes. I think the statement that Senator Taft 
made was to this effect : that the committee had had several witnesses 
testifying on the subject of secondary boycotts and was unable to 
distinguish between good and bad, and therefore they condemned, to 
use Senator Taft's words, all secondary boycotts. 

Senator Curtis. But the language that was finally ended up with 
did not prohibit them % 

Mr. Constantine. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. In other words, if there is a concern where there is 
a labor-management conflict, the union involved cannot go down the 
street to a neutral and induce those employees to cease doing business 
with the principal employer, but they can go in to management and 
apply pressure ? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes. The pressure may even go so far as to 
threaten management with a strike or picketing. But they just can't 
strike or picket, of course. 



15368 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

The Chairman. I think the Chair will try to refrain from inter- 
rupting any further unless I need some clarification so we can get the 
broad picture of what you encounter in your official position now and 
the petitions and actions you have observed. 

Mr. Constantine. There are problems, Senator, involved. For 
example, the first problem is to determine what is a labor organiza- 
tion, because the statute says that only a labor organization or its 
agents can commit an unfair labor practice, and one of the unfair 
labor practices enumerated in the statute is this so-called secondary 
boycott. 

In order to find out what a labor organization is you have to know 
what an employee is. The statute defines an employee as any worker, 
but excludes from the definition agricultural workers, railroad 
workers, Government employees, domestics, and independent con- 
tractors. Therefore, if you have an organization composed entirely 
of agricultural Avorkers you don't have a labor organization. If that 
union, composed entirely of agricultural workers, should engage in 
conduct which otherwise would be a secondary boycott — in other 
words, to use this case that I have been using, if an organization 
composed entirely of agricultural workers should picket B in order 
to get B to cease doing business with A, that would not be a violation, 
because a labor organization is not engaged in that conduct. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about a Government installation ? 

Mr. Constantine. That involves another section or another clause, 
Mr. Kennedy, as to whether the Government is a person or employer. 

Under the definition in another part of the statute the Government 
is not an employer or a person, and therefore technically there is no 
violation when the union pickets a Government installation, because 
there is no attempt to have an employer cease doing business with 
another employer. However, that was the original view of the Na- 
tional Labor Relations Board. Either this year or last year — in other 
words, very recently — the Board has taken the position that although 
the Government is not an employer, it may be under some circum- 
stances a person, and in those cases the Board has found a secondary 
violation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have there been cases where they have found that 
there has not been a secondary violation with all the attributes that 
you have described ? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes. If the person picketed was the Govern- 
ment, as distinguished from employees on some Government reserva- 
tion, the Government not being a person obviously, the persons 
picketed were not employees, even though they were Government 
workers. 

Mr. Kennedy. So what is the result ? 

Mr. Constantine. The result would be no secondary violation, on 
that bare statement of facts. If, however, there were other employees 
present, which is not unusual at Government installations, the picket- 
ing of the installation could be, under certain circumstances, a 
violation. 

I will discuss that pretty soon when I come to the question of com- 
mon situs, or I will do it now, as you wish. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 15369 

Mr. Kennedy. As we are going later on in these hearings into the 
question of hot cargo, common situs, and some jurisdiction ques- 
tions 

Mr. Constantine. You are coming to the question of common 

situs. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why don't you briefly discuss first hot cargo, then 
common situs, and then jurisdiction, and then we will go into the 
secondary boycotts not covered by the law. 

Then let us go into those secondary boycotts which are not covered 
by the law. 

Mr. Constantine. I will do that, Mr. Kennedy, but I would like 
to give briefly the statutory requirements of a secondary boycott so 
when I discuss later on what is going on you will understand why 
there is or is not a violation. 

In order to have a statutory secondary boycott you must have con- 
duct by a labor organization. I said a labor organization is where 
3 7 ou must have some employees in there regardless of whether they are 
all employees. If there are no employees in the organization, it is 
not a labor organization. 

Secondly, the labor organization must either engage in a strike or 
attempt to induce or encourage a strike of a neutral employer. 

In ascertaining what is an employer, again you must bear in mind 
that you are not an employer unless you have employees, so, techni- 
cally, the U.S. Government is not an employer because of the fact that 
a Government employee is not an emplo3'ee under the act. 

Similarly, a railway is not an employer under our act because it 
lias no employees. The same for a farmer. 

The third requirement is not only that a labor organization must 
engage in a strike or induce or encourage employees of a neutral 
employer to engage in a strike, but an object— not the object — an 
object of this conduct must be to force or require the neutral employer 
to cease doing business with a primary employer, or the employer 
with whom the union has the dispute. 

With that introduction, then, I will be glad to come to the question 
of "hot cargo/' 

Mr. Kennedy. "Will you discuss the "hot cargo," please? 

Mr. Constantine. Hot cargo clauses are not all uniform, but gen- 
erally they provide that an employer with whom a union has a col- 
lective bargaining contract will not handle the goods of another 
employer or the services of another employer with whom the union 
has a dispute itself or with whom some other union has a dispute, 
and that the union shall be free to have the employees of the employer 
with whom the union has a contract refuse to handle those goods or 
refuse to perform services. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the situation as far as the law is concerned 
in connection with "hot cargo" cases? 

Mr. Constantine. When you say "law," you are referring to the 
National Labor Relations Board and not the Interstate Commerce 
Commission. They have a little different view of the things. 

Mr. Kennedy. There is a different opinion by the ICC and the 
National Labor Relations Board in connection with hot cargo? 

The Chairman. State the National Labor Relations Board first and 
then follow with the ICC. 



15370 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Constantine. The National Labor Relations Board in a divided 
opinion has held that the contracts are valid, as such, and that an 
ei.iployer voluntarily may abide by them. But if an employer elects 
not to abide by them the union may not tell employees not to handle 
pursuant to the contract, and it may not only tell them it may not 
engage in a strike to enforce that clause. 

Mr. Kennedy. Therefore, if the employer decides to enter into the 
agreement, he can be approached and can decide not to handle the 
cargo of the — the hot cargo. 

Mr. Constantine. If the approach is limited to him. 

Mr. Kennedy. But the employees cannot be approached? 

Mr. Constantine. That is it ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the decision of the National Labor Rela- 
tions Board? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes, and it was recently upheld by the United 
States Supreme Court. 

Mr. Kennedy. The ICC is different? 

Mr. Constantine. The ICC, as I recall, has held that such a con- 
tract violates the Interstate Commerce Act. 

Mr. Kennedy. They say these goods must be carried ? 

Mr. Constantine. They must be carried. To put it more tech- 
nically, they have said that a tariff may not contain such a provision 
and if it does it will not defeat an action for reparation by an in- 
jured carrier. That is the way they put it. It amounted to the same 
thing — that this provision is invalid under their act. 

The Chairman. Do you regard that difference as a subject requir- 
ing legislation to clarify it? That it should be uniform with respect 
to the National Labor Relations Board and the ICC ? In other words, 
we should have one law ? 

Mr. Constantine. Senator, it is like this: Under our law any 
pressure put on an employer, a secondary employer, which does not 
extend to his employees, is proper. 

The Chairman. I understand. 

Mr. Constantine. If this committee feels it is improper, that is a 
legislative matter. But there is nothing inconsistent between the two 
laws today, because under our act a union may go to any employer 
who is dealing in the goods of an employer that the union has a 
dispute with and ask him with impunity not to handle those. 

The Chairman. I understand. I was trying to ascertain whether 
the differences needed reconciliation by an act of Congress. 

Mr. Constantine. I don't know. That is a legislative matter, 
Senator. 

The Chairman. I was just trying to get your opinion on it. You 
are more familiar with what the situation is. 

Mr. Constantine. I don't have any opinion, Senator. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I hate to digress, but I want to 
clarify one thing. 

What did you mean by the term that it was proper to apply pres- 
sure on an employer ? 

Mr. Constantine. What I meant was that 

Senator Curtis. You mean it was not prohibited by the statute ? 

Mr. Constantine. It was not prohibited by the statute, our statute. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15371 

Senator Curtis. You nor the Board have passed on the propriety 
of it from the standpoint of the general meaning of the term pro- 

^m/ Constantine. No. Perhaps I used the wrong term It is not 
illegal under our act, to put it that way, Senator To use the specific 
cas- let us take the case of Woodward & Lothrop using stockings 
made by a southern mill with which a union has a dispute; it Wood- 
ward & Lothrop is merely asked not to handle those, that is not a vio- 
lation If Woodie says that it will nevertheless handle those, and 
then the union engages in picketing at Woodie's, that is unlawful. 

Mr Kennedy. Not necessarily. It depends on what they wear on 
their signs; does it not? It would not necessarily be unlawful, the 
mere fact that they picketed Woodie's. 

Mr Constantine. Yes; it depends on the sign. I was assuming 
that they were accusing Woodie's of being unfair If the sign merely 
said any personnel entering this store please don't buy X products, but 
buy anything else, that is what the Board calls a "consumer boycott 

and is legal. . _ ,. , 

Mr. Kennedy. So they could picket W oodie s store * 

Mr Constantine. Under those circumstances. 

Senator Curtis. You used the word "strike." The existence or non- 
existence of a strike does not depend on what is printed on the sign 

Mr Constantine. No. But the Board has taken the position that 
if you are careful to say on your signs that you are only engaging m 
a consumer boycott and that you are not seeking to induce or encour- 
age employees to refuse to work there ; it is lawful. 
^Senator Curtis. You are talking about a picketing and not neces- 
sarily striking. . „ n i ^1 

Mr. Constantine. Yes. Picketing of a secondary employer with 

consumer boycott signs. m 

Senator Curtis. That consumer boycott sign; are you familiar with 
that radio and TV case in Mobile, Ala. ? 

Mr. Constantine. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. That has not reached your Board ? 

Mr. Constantine. It may have. I am not familiar with it, though. 

Senator Curtis. That was a situation where a union lost an election 
in station WKKG and WKRG-TV in Mobile. They immediately be- 
gan picketing the stations and also attempting to bring economic pres- 
sure on sponsors of programs who continued to advertise on those 

stations. 

Would that be called a consumer boycott? 

Mr. Constantine. It would, and it could be in violation of another 
section of the act. I have not mentioned that because I was under 
the impression that we were discussing only secondary boycotts. 

Senator Curtis. I will withdraw any part of the question about 
any other section of the act because, Mr. Chairman, I am guilty of 
digressing again. _ . . 

Mr. Constantine. Under the Curtis case it could be a violation, 
but it is under another section. When I say Curtis, I don't mean 
Senator Curtis. I mean Curtis Bros. That is just coincidental. 

Senator Curtis. It might not be. 

Senator Erven. Don't you have some conflict there, due to the differ- 
ent rules under the Taft-Hartley law, permitting hot-cargo con- 



15372 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

tracts, and the Interstate Commerce Commission rule prohibiting- 
them in the case of truckers? Isn't there a conflict? 

In other words, who handles the truckers who engage in interstate 
commerce and who have hot-cargo contracts with their employees? 

Mr. Constantine. There is a conflict in this sense, Senator, that 
under our act Congress has not made it unlawful for a union to put 
pressure on the employer as long as that pressure is limited to him and 
doesn't extend to his employees. 

Therefore, a union which has a contract with an employer could ask 
him to live up to that contract. The labor board will do nothing 
about that. 

On the other hand, the Interstate Commerce Commission has taken 
the position that under its act and its regulations, a common carrier 
may not enter into such a contract or at least may not have such 
clauses in its contracts. To that extent I suppose you can say there is 
a conflict. Whether it should be resolved or not, I suppose is a legiti- 
mate question. 

Senator Ervin. Of course, under your general principle of the In- 
terstate Commerce Act, a common carrier is obligated to receive and 
transport anything tendered to him by anybody, if he has the 
facilities? 

Mr. Constantine. I assume so, yes. 

Senator Ervin. And then it would seem to me that there is a pos- 
sibility of grave conflict there, if the employer or trucker can make or 
enter into a "hot-cargo" contract with his employees. Does that 
justify him in refusing to transport the goods in interstate commerce 
where he is a common carrier ? 

Mr. Constantine. You mean under our law ? 

Senator Ervin. Yes. 

Mr. Constantine. Under our law he may voluntarily enter into 
hot-cargo clauses and may voluntarily honor them. 

Senator Ervin. But he can't under the Interstate Commerce Act? 

Mr. Constantine. That is the way I read their decisions. 

Senator Ervin. Well, it would seem to me that in the case of a com- 
mon carrier, which most all of your truckers are, you have a situation 
under one law where he is permitted to do it and under another one he 
is prohibited ? 

Mr. Constantine. The difference is that under our act a contract 
in itself isn't bad until something happens to enforce it. If pressure 
is put on an employer, as I said before, even pressure amounting to 
threats of picketing or strike, no violation has occurred, even though 
he is a secondary neutral employer. 

If, however, he resists that pressure and the union decides to picket 
him, or to call a strike, or attempt to call a strike, then he runs afoul 
of our law. But that is because the laws work that way. 

Senator Ervin. But it seems to me it is a rather peculiar thing for 
Congress to have two different laws. The hot-cargo contract is valid 
under one law, as to his employees, but invalid as to his customers. 
That is the effect of it? 

Mr. Constantine. Well, it could be. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, after the "hot-cargo" case, I would like to 
have you discuss the common-site cases and what is meant by that. 
That is where a subcontractor is within a large installation or a store 
within a hotel. What is the situation as far as that is concerned ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 15373 

Mr. Constantine. In the hypothetical case I gave you of A and 
B, I assumed A had his own premises and there was no one else there. 
However, that is not always so, and sometimes you find that B and 
A are together, either temporarily or over a period of time, or per- 
haps permanently as landlord and tenant for example. Or several 
people would be tenants in a building, or several contractors and sub- 
contractors on the building project. 

Such cases, there are two or dual congressional objectives which 
must be balanced against each other. One objective or one congres- 
sional objective is to preserve the right of a union to strike and picket 
an employer with whom it has a dispute. Another congressional ob- 
jective is to preserve the right of a neutral or innocent employer to 
be free from being involved in these disputes between a union and 
some other employer. 

In the case I gave you, the union has a right to strike A and to 
picket him in case of a dispute between them. On the other hand, B, 
the neutral secondary employer, has a right to be free from being in- 
volved or immeshed in that dispute. 

Upon balancing those two rights, the Board has come up with the 
following rule: That where A and B are together, and the union 
has a dispute with A, it may picket A, provided that it follows the 
rule which is known as the rule of the Moore Drydock case. That 
rule is something like this: First, that A must be engaged in his 
usual business at the site ; second, that the picketing must be confined 
to the times when A is engaged in business; third, that the picketing 
must be as close as can be to A's place of business ; and fourth, that 
the picket signs must clearly show that the dispute is with A, and A 
only. 

If those four conditions are observed, the union which has a dispute 
with A may picket A even though the effect of the picketing may be 
adverse to B or C, or any other person who is innocent and is on the 
premises. 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you give us the case that you had out in San 
Diego, just not in detail but what the situation was ? 

Mr. Constantine. I referred to you a building project in San 
Diego where a one-man outfit was engaged in cleaning the windows 
when the buildings were almost through. The union had a dispute 
with him and started picketing him. They complied with all of the 
requirements of the Moore Drydock case and yet no one came on 
the project so that everything came to a standstill as a result of the 
dispute between the union and this one man. Incidentally, he was 
a one-armed man. 

Mr. Kennedy. So all of the construction work stopped. 

The Chairman. A one-armed man was a window washer? 

Mr. Constantine. He was a cleaner. He used something like a 
razor to clean off the windows when they were all through with the 
windows. 

Senator Curtis. Was he the one they were applying pressure 
against ? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Does that come within the problem of the term 
"concerted refusal" ? 

Mr. Constantine. Not quite, Senator. I would say it comes within 
the question of common situs, where A and B are together and the 

21243—59 — pt. 41 2 



15374 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

union has a dispute with A only. In this case, A was the one-armed 
contractor, and it was more than just B. There was B, C, D, and E, 
and the painter and bricklayer and contractor, and all of those. Their 
employees just wouldn't cross that picket line even though it since 
specifically said that the dispute was only with A. 

Senator Curtis. I understand that. Now, there is a situation where 
it is unlawful to apply pressure on several or a group of employees 
of a neutral employer but the law does not prohibit applying pres- 
sure on a few single key individuals that might bring about the same 
result, isn't that correct ? 

Mr. Constantine. Well, the law says "employees," using the plural, 
must be induced. Obviously, if you induce only one employee or call 
him out on strike, it is not a violation. 

Senator Curtis. Well, the law does have the words "concerted re- 
fusal," doesn't it? 

Mr. Constantine. "Concerted refusal," which means you have to 
have two employees. "Concerted refusal in the course of their em- 
ployment," I think that is the phrase. 

Senator Curtis. But a refusal on the part of one key employee 
might bring about the same result, from a practical standpoint? 

Mr. Constantine. It could, but it would have to be just one, be- 
cause the Board has taken the position, Senator, that even though 
there is only one employee at one place, if there are employees at other 
places the other employees may be added to that one to find a secondary 
boycott, and they look at the overall pattern and not just this one em- 
ployer where there is only one employee induced. 

Senator Curtis. It is the term "in the course of their employment" 
that takes agricultural workers and railroad workers and things out 
of the prohibition, isn't that right ? 

Mr. Constantine. Well, it does, but there is also another phrase 
that takes them out, and that is the word "employee," which is defined 
to exclude agricultural workers, railroad workers, Government em- 
ployees, and so on. 

Senator Curtis. Your rulings have been in other words that an 
employee is an employee that is under the juridsiction of the NLRB ? 

Mr. Constantine. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me just give you a case that we are going to go 
into in a few minutes. That is the case involving the Waldorf- 
Astoria Hotel in New York and an attempt to organize the employees 
of that hotel in the barbershop. 

Now, the picket lines were established outside the hotel, the signs 
had the proper statement that they are just interested in the barbers 
and they are not interested in the other employees. They are saying 
the barbers don't belong to their local union. 

The Teamsters Union recognized this, and refused to make deliver- 
ies at Waldorf-Astoria Hotel or make any pickups, take away the 
garbage or anything else. Under the law, what can the hotel do ? 

Mr. Constantine. Well, if the union has complied with the re- 
quirements of the Moore Drydock case, there is nothing the Waldorf- 
Astoria Hotel can do, because that would be common situs picketing. 
If the union complied with the rules on common situs, there is no 
secondary boycott. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15375 

Mr. Kennedy. Then the hotel, if they can't get the food or the 
milk into the hotel is going to close down, are they not ? 

Mr. Constantine. I suppose so. 

The Chairman. You mean the hotel is not a party to the dispute? 

Mr. Constantine. I am assuming that, on the facts Mr. Kennedy 
gave, the hotel was not a party to the dispute. 

The Chairman. Yet it becomes a victim of a quarrel between 
others ? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes. It becomes a victim because of the fact 
it happens to be at the same place or at the scene of the primary dis- 
pute between the barbershop and the union. Congress has said that 
when there is a dispute between a union and an employer, the union 
may engage in a strike and picket. 

It has also said that a person not a party to that dispute shall be 
free from secondary boycotts. But when they are both at the same 
place, it is obvious there has to be a balancing of interest. The Board 
has balanced that interest by saying that the union may picket but 
only by confining it to the barbershop and having the signs properly 
worded. 

The Chairman. I understand then, that the union cannot picket 
the entire hotel site? 

Mr. Constantine. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Only that area adjacent to or contiguous to the 
barbershop. 

Mr. Constantine. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. If the barbershop is not on the first floor, then can 
they picket every entrance ? 

Mr. Constantine. That is a close question. I assume under one 
of these rules here that the Waldorf-Astoria could very well say to 
the union, "You have permission to picket the barbershop up on the 
fifth floor," for one of the Moore Drydock rules is that they shall 
picket as close as possible to the scene of the primary dispute. 

Decisions that the Board has made are that if the unions give per- 
mission to go as close as possible, it must accept that permission. 

Senator Curtis. I want to ask one question. Suppose the union 
during the picketing does not represent any of the employees on the 
inside. 

Mr. Constantine. You mean in the barbershop ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. What is their status then ? 

Mr. Constantine. Well, as far as the law is concerned, they would 
be in violation, not of the secondary boycott sections, but they would 
be in violation of this Curtis Bros, case, which holds that it is unlawful 
for a union to picket an employer for recognition when the union 
is not a majority unit. 

I am assuming it is not a majority unit. 

Mr. Kennedy. That depends on what kind of a sign they wear. 
They could still picket and walk and just give information out that 
these employees do not belong to their union, and that would be 
proper, would it not ? 

Mr. Constantine. Well, you are asking me now a factual question, 
and that is hard to answer because the Board always looks at all of 
the evidence before it comes up with the answer. 

If the purpose of the picketing under all of the circumstances is 
organized, as I understand the Board law that is not a violation. In 



15376 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

some States that is but as far as I know the Board has not yet held 
that. If the purpose of the picketing is recognition that is a violation, 
unles the union has a majority. Whether it is recognition or organi- 
zational as a close question of fact, and I wouldn't dare to try to 
answer that. 

Mr. Kennedy. If it is organizational, if that is what they are 
attempting to do and the signs are proper, they could in fact close 
down the hotel, even though they did not represent any of the 
employees within the hotel or any of the employees in the barber- 
shop if they were successful ? 

Mr. Constantine. They could in fact if others decided to honor 
their picket line. But I assume that others might not, on the ground 
that there is a dispute. Even prolabor people might want to cross, 
on the ground that the dispute is limited to the barbershop and the 
prolabor people weren't going to the barbershop but patronizing 
the hotel. 

The Chairman. Suppose they received orders from their union offi- 
cials not to cross ; would that be a violation ? 

Mr. Constantine. Not to go into the hotel ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Constantine. That would be a violation because orders are a 
form of inducement or encouragement. The Supreme Court has 
passed on that. So has the Board. 

Senator Curtis. Let us take a hypothetical case where we will 
assume — this does not apply to the Waldorf-Astoria — let us assume 
that the barbers in a given shop are not organized and belong to no 
union, and let us assume that that is not only the majority opinion 
but that is the unanimous opinion of the barbers in there; does a 
union have a right to picket such a barbershop under any cir- 
cumstances ? 

Mr. Constantine. That is a broad question, Senator. 

Senator Curtis. I think it is quite simple. 

Mr. Constantine. I can answer it to this extent: If the purpose 
of the union is informational and organizational, at least under our 
law it is not a violation, even though they don't have a majority, 
because as a fact it is found that is not for recognitional purposes. 

Senator Curtis. Even though it would be agreed — maybe that 
would be an extreme case. 

Mr. Constantine. Even though the union didn't have a single 
member in that barbershop. 

Senator Curtis. And we will assume that was a unanimous opinion. 
Such a thing might not exist, but I am using that to bring out what 
the law is. They would still have a lawful right to picket ? 

Mr. Constantine. It all depends on what the purpose of the pick- 
eting is, Senator. That is usually a question of fact. I am assum- 
ing the facts. 

Senator Curtis. Suppose they didn't represent anybody inside and 
that was the unanimous decision of everybody inside? What could 
be their purpose of picketing ? 

Mr. Constantine. They could picket to try to get the employees 
to join the union. That is called organizational picketing. 

Senator Curtis. Suppose the employees had been asked that and 
said no. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15377 

Mr. ( Jonstantine. You could very well find that the picketing was 
subterfuge, so that what they really wanted was recognition and not 
organizational activity. In that case the Board would find that the 
recognition picketing 'was unlawful. The Board sometimes does find 
that certain picketing which is alleged to be organizational is recogni- 
tion picketing on the facts before it, even thought the union protests 
that it is not recognition. 

Senator Curtis. Suppose picketing goes on just a very short while 
after there has been an election adverse to a union; would that be 
regarded as organizational picketing ? 

Mr. Constantine. That is a question of fact. In general the Board 
has found that the picketing is a continuation or the purpose of the 
picketing is a continuation of the former purpose before the election 
and finds that is recogiiitional picketing and not organizational 
picketing. 

Senator Curtis. Which is in violation ? 

Mr. Constantine. Which is in violation. That is a question of 
fact, and it is hard to answer those questions. 

Senator Curtis. It is very hard to draw the line in some cases as 
to what is organizational and what is recogiiitional picketing. 

Mr. Constantine. It is. 

Senator Curtis. If it is organizational it is not prohibited by law? 

Mr. Constantine. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. If it is recogiiitional picketing, it is? 

Mr. Constantine. It is. 

Senator Ervin. In other words, it is a question of motive and the 
Board will determine the motive from all the surrounding facts and 
circumstances. 

Mr. ( onstantine. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about the situation regarding ambulatory 
picketing, where the pickets follow a truck and start picketing the 
business where the produce is being delivered ? 

Mr. Constantine. Ambulatory picketing is another form of the 
common situs problem. In other words, the truck of an employer 
with whom the union has a dispute happens to be at the premises of 
an employer with whom the union does not have a dispute. In gen- 
eral the rules as to common situs picketing are applicable to ambula- 
tory picketing, with this exception : If the primary employer has a 
place where the union can effectively picket, then the union may not 
engage in ambulatory picketing away from that place. 

Let us take an example : Employer A has a place whose employees 
are in dispute. If the union can effectively picket at the premises of 
A they may not follow that truck and picket while that truck is at 
the premises of B. If, however, on the facts — and it is usually a 
factual question — the union cannot effectively picket at the premises 
of A either because the employees rarely show up at that place or 
for other reasons, the Board has said that the union may follow those 
trucks and picket the truck, not the employer at place B, provided 
it conforms to the rules of the Moore Drydock case, which is that they 
shall stay as close as they can to the truck, the sign shall specifically 
say that the dispute is with the truck owner, and not the employer 
at B, and that they shall stop picketing as soon as the truck leaves. 



15378 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Are you familiar with the Board decision in the 
Schultz Refrigerated Service case ? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes. That was modified. 

Senator Curtis. What was the essence of that ? 

Mr. Constantine. The essence of that was that you could picket. 
That has been modified, if not overruled as a result of what I just 
told you, Senator. 

Senator Curtis. That was an earlier decision that said that the 
truck was an extension of the employer's premises ? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes. That does not represent the present Board 
view. The Coca-Cola case is the one which either distinguished or 
overruled Schultz. I think the law now is as I have stated, Senator, 
that if you can picket at the primary employer's place of business 
effectively, you must confine your picketing to there and cannot follow 
the truck and picket the truck at other places. To that extent the 
statement I have just made either modifies or overrules the Schultz 
case. 

Senator Curtis. When do you picket effectively '. 

Mr. Constantine. That depends on the circumstances. 

Senator Curtis. What definition do vou give to the word •'effec- 
tively"? 

Mr. Constantine. Take the case of a man who is engaged in the 
trucking business and has a small office in Washington, but he has 
a tremendous place in Richmond, all his Washington employees call 
up Richmond at his expense and ask him for the assignment, so that 
they rarely, if ever, come to the Washington office. 

In that case I suppose it could be said that you cannot effectively 
picket at the Washington office because it would be ineffectual for the 
employees never come there, or if they do, they come spasmodically. 

Under those circumstances I assume you could follow the trucks 
and picket the trucks and employer B, C, and D, provided, however, 
that you picket only the truck, and then with proper signs. The 
test is whether you can effectively picket. I might say also that the 
fifth circuit has not accepted that view. That is Board law. The 
fifth circuit rejected that in a case known as Otis Massey. 

Senator Curtis. Does the Board follow the fifth circuit \ 

Mr. Constantine. No. 

Senator Curtis. Do they follow it within the area of the fifth 
circuit ? 

Mr. Constantine. We have not had any cases since then, so I 
don't know. My best guess is that they would follow the fifth circuit 
in the area of the fifth circuit because in other cases where the fifth 
circuit has overruled the Board the Board has felt reluctant to dis- 
agree with the court, and has said it will go along with the court. 

Senator Curtis. In other words, you have one law for one portion 
of the United States and another law for a greater portion ? 

Mr. Constantine. That is true, Senator. That is the situation 
at present. For example, in the fifth circuit the court has disagreed 
with the Board with respect to picketing of railroads. The Board 
has taken the position that if you picket a railroad it is not a violation 
because a railroad is not an employer and its employees are not em- 
ployees under our act. The fifth circuit reversed the Board on that. 
In subsequent cases following that reversal the Board has said that it 
will go along with the fifth circuit even though it disagrees. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15379 

Senator Curtis. I am going to ask a question that certainly does not 
reflect on the distinguished witness here today, the Solicitor for the 
Board. Why is it that Government agencies in general do not accept 
court decisions as binding, if they are adverse to what the agency 
contends, until the Supreme Court rules ? 

Mr. Constanttne. I assume that the final arbiter, the only arbiter,, 
the one you always obey, is the Supreme Court. 

Senator Curtis. But other litigants do not do that. 

Mr. Constantine. We are not the only agency that does that. 

Senator Curtis. No. I was not holding you responsible, because 
it has been my observation that all executive agencies do that. I 
would be pleased to learn about one that did not. 

Mr. Constantine. If the third circuit rules one way and the second 
circuit rules another, it is obvious that we don't know where we stand 
and we ought to get a Supreme Court interpretation. Sometimes the 
Supreme Court will give us certiorari; sometimes it won't. Until 
it does, about the only thing we can do is to follow the circuits. So, in 
one circuit we may go one way, and in another circuit another way. 

Senator Curtis. That is true where different circuits have dis- 
agreed. 

Mr. Constantine. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. But I think it is also true that a great many Gov- 
ernment agencies after they make their own ruling do not change it 
when overruled by the courts until the Supreme Court has acted. 

Mr. Constantine. That is true, Senator. 

Senator Curtis. I will not argue with you about it, but I do not 
think it is sound policy. I think the courts are primarily interpreters 
of our law and are entirely to be followed where there is not a conflict 
between the courts themselves. I will not pursue that at the present 
time. 

Mr. Constantine. Let me give you an example in the ninth circuit, 
where one panel gave a decision and another panel gave a decision 
another way. That puts us in the middle in the ninth circuit. We 
don't know where we stand. We can't get certiorari. 

The Chairman. Can't you do as you please after that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, this gives a general picture of the 
situation. I think we can discuss it for months and not have it com- 
pletely clarified. I thought we might go on with specific cases this 
afternoon, and perhaps after we finish various cases we might have 
somebody from the National Labor Relations Board back again. 

The Chairman. All right. Do you have any other thought, Mr. 
Constantine, or anything that we may have overlooked that you think 
would be helpful ? 

Mr. Constantine. No, Senator. I am here to answer questions. I 
will be glad to answer any. 

The Chairman. I appreciate that. You have firsthand knowledge 
of the things we are inquiring into and I just wondered if we had 
overlooked anything that you might wish to comment upon and 
which you think might be helpful. 

Mr. Constantine. During the noon recess Mr. Kennedy asked me 
of situations not covered by the law. Questions where there would 
be conduct people would consider to be a secondary boycott that 
turned out that it was not. I gave him most of those. Most of those 
I discussed here. 



15380 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. What about the jurisdictional matter? Did you 
cover that ? 

Mr. Kennedy. In passing, I think we covered the jurisdictional 
matter. We can go back through it. 

The Chairman. It is not necessary if it is covered. 

Senator Ervin. I have been trying to find out whether there is in 
existence any treatise on the Taft-Hartley law. I have never been 
able to find one. Has anybody written a treatise on the Taft-Hartley 
law, and the decisions under it, which would be of assistance to a 
person who wanted to learn something about it and didn't have time 
to read all of the decisions of the various circuit courts and all of the 
decisions of the National Labor Relations Board ? 

Mr. Constantine. I don't know of any treatise on it. There are a 
few good books and pamphlets on certain aspects of it. There is also 
a book being revised now by our Director of Information, Lou Silver- 
berg, who is writing in layman's language for laymen about the Taft- 
Hartley Act. 

Senator Ervin. I would appreciate it if you would write me a letter 
and call my attention to some of those pamphlets, where I could get 
them. 

Mr. Constantine. I will do that, Senator. 

Senator Ervin. I think a person could render a great service to the 
American bar and everybody concerned generally if somebody would 
write something on the subject. 

Mr. Constantine. I agree with you. I know of no treatise on the 
whole field. 

Senator Curtis. Do you think of any other areas where pressure 
may be applied against neutrals that is not a violation of the law? 

Mr. Constantine. In addition to those that I have mentioned ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Constantine. I think there are a few more, Senator. For 
example, pressure may be applied to employees of secondary employers 
asking them not to cross a primary picket line. For example, if there 
is a strike at A or if there is a picket line at A the union may write to 
the employees of B even though employees may be 10, 15, or 500 miles 
away, asking them to honor that picket line if and when they get to 
that. 

The Board has taken the position, and it has been upheld by the 
courts, that is not a violation. 

Let us take a specific example : Pure Oil. 

There was a strike at Pure Oil in Cleveland. The union wrote to 
some employees of a shipping company, I think, in Buffalo, saying to 
them that when your ship comes to Cleveland be sure and honor our 
picket line and don't dock at the dock with any oil for Pure Oil Co. 

As a result of those letters, the employees on the ship did not even 
bring the ship out of Buffalo, not to talk about bringing it to Cleve- 
land. The Board held that was proper because it invited action at 
the scene of the primary dispute. 

Senator Curtis. Who was shipping the oil ? 

Mr. Constantine. Some customer of Pure Oil, I assume, in boats 
not owned by Pure Oil. 
. Senator Curtis. Who suffered by reason of that action ? 

Mr. Constantine. Three people suffered. Pure Oil did. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15381 

Senator Curtis. But they were a primary party. 

Mr. Constantine. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Who else ? 

Mr. Constantine. The shipowner and the man who was selling the 
oil, whoever he was. 

Senator Curtis. An injury was inflicted upon the seller of the oil i 

Mr. Constantine. And the transporter. 

Senator Curtis. And the transporter. Neither of whom were par- 
ties to the primary dispute ? 

Mr. Constantine. That is true. 

Senator Curtis. Or had no authority to settle it one way or another. 
Now, when your Board held and the courts held that was lawful, you 
did so because the statute did not specifically make it lawful ; is that 
right ? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Do you think of anything else? Do you think of 
any other type of case, areas where they could apply pressure to a 
neutral and it is not a violation of the Taft-Hartley law or any other 
existing law ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Maybe you just want to list them and summarize 
what you said. 

Mr. Constantine. While I was with you I made up a little list. 
Let me look at it. It may refresh my recollection. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just read them out. 

Mr. Constantine. There is this Joliet Contractors case, which in- 
volved this situation. In some crafts the only way to get any em- 
ployees is by calling up the union. They have a supply of them. In 
the Joliet Contractors case the employer called up the union and asked 
for employees, but the union refused to send any because it had some 
kind of dispute with the employer. 

Senator Curtis. That was not a violation of existing law because 
what happened happened before they were in the course of employ- 
ment. 

Mr. Constantine. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. It is due to that language in the present law, in 
the course of employment ? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes. The Board held that was not a violation 
and the seventh circuit affirmed. It reversed on other aspects which 
are not now material, but it affirmed that particular part of the Board 
decision. 

Another case where there is no relief under our statute is in the 
case of so-called allies. Ordinarily when A deals with B they are 
dealing at arm's length and picketing of B when there is a dispute 
with A is a violation. But sometimes the relationship between A and 
B may be so close that B is considered an ally of A. In that case, 
picketing of B also would be primary and protected. 

The Chairman. You mean a subsidiary ? 

Mr. Constantine. Subsidiary is one type of ally, but it might be an 
entire stranger. 

Take the Royal Typewriter case in New York as an example of that. 
Royal Typewriter sells typewriters and guarantees them for a year. 
As part of that guarantee, it gives free service. You recall them up 
and tell them to come over during the year and repair them. 



15382 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Let us say 6 months after you bought your typewriter there was a 
strike at Royal Typewriter and you could not get service. When 
you called them they told you to go to any repairman you want, get 
a bill from them, pay it if you want, or not, as you wish, and then 
send the bill in to them. If it was receipted they would reimburse 
you. If it was not receipted they would pay him directly. They 
didn't care to whom you went. 

The Board thought that was not an ally situation and found that 
there was a secondary boycott when the union which had a dispute 
with Royal Typewriter picketed all of these repair people. The sec- 
ond circuit reversed finding there was sufficient relationship between 
those people and the Royal Typewriter Co. to call them allies. 

Of course, if you are an ally you are in the same boat as the princi- 
pal and you may be picketed also. 

Senator Curtis. This is the same principle that involves the so- 
called farming out struck work. 

Mr. Constantine. It is allied to that. It is not exactly the same. 
It is not always struck work. In the Ervin Lines case they had a case 
of Boone Co. which carried logs from the forest to the mill. The 
Boone Co. was a public utility under Oregon law. The mill hap- 
pened to own three-fourths of that public utility. You could call 
them a subsidiary if you wanted or not, but under Oregon law they 
could not be a subsidiary as a public utility. They had to be abso- 
lutely independent. There was no struck work involved. 

The Board found in that case that the relationship was such that 
they were allies because the work dovetailed. One job dovetailed 
into the other. 

The Chairman. Whether under Oregon law they were a subsidiary 
or not, legally, for all practical purposes they were f 

Mr. Constantine. Yes. 

The Chairman. The utility was a subsidiary ? 

Mr. Constantine. When there was a dispute with the mill the 
union picketed the Boone Co. and the Board held that picketing was 
not unlawful. But it is related, as you say, to the struck work 
principle. 

Senator Curtis. If a customer is expecting to purchase goods from 
a certain plant and that plant is under strike, and the customer elects 
to take that business to a similar plant that is not on strike that is not 
an ally, is it lawful for the picket line to follow that work over to the 
neutral plant ? 

Mr. Constantine. That depends on whether the person who has 
been struck authorizes the customer to go to that place. If he does, 
according to the second circuit, it is lawful for the union to picket 
him. According to the Board, it is not. I know of no other decisions 
from any other circuits. 

Senator Curtis. But if a customer makes a decision solely. 

Mr. Constantine. I would say, Senator, that it is not lawful for 
the union to picket that repairman. 

Senator Curtis. Right now, Capital Airlines can send potential 
customers over to United, for instance, and would it or would it not 
be lawful to picket United ? 

Mr. Constantine. In the first place I want to point out that they 
come under the definition of railway employees, and regardless of 
whether it is lawful or not we would not have jurisdiction. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15383 

Senator Curtis. I see. I will withdraw the question. 

The Chairman, is there anything further? 

If not, thank you very much. I think we could continue indefi- 
nitely, but I think we have a sufficient base now and premise to pro- 
ceed on. 

Your next witness, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. With all that being clarified, Mr. Chairman, I would 
like to call Mr. Jay S. Bauman. 

The Chairman. Be sworn, please, sir. 

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. Bauman. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JAY S. BAUMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
CHARLES J. MOOS 

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

Mr. Bauman. My name is Jay S. Bauman, 20 Norman Drive, Rye, 
N.Y. 

The Chairman. What is your business ? 

Mr. Bauman. I am president of Terminal Barber Shops in New 
York. 

The Chairman. President of Terminal Barber Shops ? 

Mr. Bauman. I-n-c. 

The Chairman. That is a corporation? 

Mr. Bauman. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you have counsel with you ? 

Mr. Bauman. Yes, sir ; I do. 

The Chairman. Will you state your name and identify yourself 
for the record ? 

Mr. Moos. Charles J. Moos, 10 Elm Road, Scarsdale, N.Y. 

The Chairman. You are a member of the bar where? 

Mr. Moos. I am a member of the bar in New York and Pennsyl- 
vania, Senator. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bauman is being called just to 
set the stage for the situation that existed at the Waldorf -Astoria 
Hotel. 

The Chairman. I assume counsel is familiar with the rules of the 
committee. 

Mr. Moos. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Bauman, you are president of the Terminal 
Barber Shops, Inc. ? 

Mr. Bauman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you held that position? 

Mr. Bauman. Approximately 6V2 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is when you and a group of your associates 
purchased the Terminal Barber Shops? 

Mr. Bauman. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. At the time we are interested in, early 1956, how 
many barbershops and beauty shops did you have in the Terminal? 

Mr. Bauman. Twenty-one. 



15384 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Were they located in a number of cities? 

Mr. Bauman. Baltimore, Pittsburgh, and New York City. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many were located at New York City? 

Mr. Bauman. We had 14 barbershops in New York City and 4 
beauty salons, I believe, at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were located in various hotels? 

Mr. Bauman. Hotels and office buildings. 

Mr. Kennedy. For approximately 15 years prior to that the Ter- 
minal Barbers represented the employees or the barbers; is that 
right ? 

Mr. Bauman. I believe it was nearer 10. It was about 1946 or 194 ( . 
It was after the war that the guild was formed. 

Mr. Kennedy. What barbers did they represent ? 

Mr. Bauman. They represented the 200-odd barbers and 100 mani- 
curists in the 14 barbershops in New York City. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was an independent union ? 

Mr. Bauman. Yes, it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was not controlled or financed by the Terminal 
Barber Shops, Inc. ? 

Mr. Bauman. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. In fact, there had been a number of disputes with 
the guild, is that correct, over a period of years ? 

Mr. Bauman. There had been some disputes, yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And there have been various bargaining back and 
forth between the guild and the representatives of the employer? 

Mr. Bauman. That is true. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you approached in early 1956 by a repre- 
sentative of the AFL Barbers Union ? 

Mr. Bauman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Approached by Robert Verdina ? 

Mr. Bauman. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he was an international representative of local 
760 ; is that right ? 

Mr. Bauman. I believe so. 

Mr. Kennedy. What conversations did you have with him at that 
time? 

Mr. Bauman. Mr. Verdina came to my office in the first week in 
January and said that he wanted to represent our barbers. I told 
him that they were represented, that a majority of our barbers, in fact 
all of our barbers, were in this Terminal Guild and it was recognized 
by the State as a union. He said the position of the international 
union was that they did not recognize company unions. 

Mr. Kennedy. So what did you say ? 

Mr. Bauman. He relayed to me some of the facts that I knew, how 
Terminal Barber Shops had lost their shops in the Palmer House in 
Chicago and other cities in the Midwest, 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he mean by that ? 

Mr. Bauman. There were labor disputes of such magnitude that 
the hotel closed the shops eventually, which is a case in point at the 
Palmer House in Chicago, and also the Book-Cadillac in Detroit, It 
has happened in other cities. Cincinnati, I believe. 

Mr. Kennedy. The lease that the Terminal Barber Shops, Inc., had 
with the hotel was terminated? 

Mr. Bauman. That is correct. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15385 

Mr. Kennedy. You had to close down the barbershop ? 

Mr. Bauman. It was closed down and eventually the hotel ran the 
barbershop. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that was related to you when he saw you i 

Mr. Bauman. Yes. And he showed me newspaper clippings of 
what happened in the Book-Cadillac in Detroit. I recognized it was 
a serious situation. I told him that I would speak to the guild of- 
ficials and their counsel, which I did perhaps the middle of January, 
and relayed to them the seriousness of the situation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did you talk to in the guild ? 

Mr. Bauman. I talked to the president, the secretary, and the 

lawyer. . 

Mr. Kennedy. The head of the guild at that time was a Charles 

Zirpola ? 

Mr. Bauman. That is right, 

Mr. Kennedy. He was the main one that you talked to ? 

Mr. Bauman. No. There was a secretary who was quite active. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was one of the ones you talked to ? 

Mr. Bauman. Yes. And also the counsel was very active in this 
union. . . . 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you suggest to them at that time that they join 

the AFL? 

Mr. Bauman. I told them that our position, as long as we could 
maintain it, would be neutral. It was a serious situation. The Ter- 
minal had lost shops before and they should relay this information to 
their membership at an early date and report back to me how they 
and the membership felt. 

I believe a week or so later, perhaps the end of January, they had a 
meeting, and it was reported back to me that the membership didn't 
take Mr. Verdina seriously and didn't think they could pull off such 
a stunt as this, and they were not going to do anything for the present. 

Mr. Kennedy. They wanted to remain with the Guild ? 

Mr. Bauman. Oh, yes. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Counsel, could I ask something right there. 
At the time this representative of the AFL Barbers Union came to 
you in January, had he gone to the Barbers directly at that time, to 
recruit them as members of his union ? 

Mr. Bauman. What had happened in approximately give or take a 
year — about 1945 — Mr. Verdina was attempting to organize Ter- 
minal. I believe he got a majority of the barbers in the Hotel New 
Yorker and possibly the Chrysler Building. These are two of the 
existing barbershops we now have. Because of an unfortunate experi- 
ence he could not follow through on this thing — from his point of 
view, that is — and it was not until later that he tried to organize 
Terminal. 

Mr. Kennedy. You mean at the time the AFL came to him ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. At the time the AFL came to you. I will put 
it this way. At that time did they represent any barbers in the 
Waldorf? 

Mr. Bauman. No. 

Senator Curtis. Had they tried to induce them as individuals to 
join? 

Mr. Bauman. I don't believe they had. I have no actual knowledge 
of this. 



15386 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. To the best of your knowledge, they came to you 
as the employer ? 

Mr. Bauman. They came to me first, as far as I know. 

Mr. Kennedy. He didn't bring any cards in to you ? 

Mr. Bauman. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. To show any evidence to indicate he represented the 
barbers in the hotel ? 

Mr. Bauman. No, sir. 

Mr. Kenned v. Then you went and you spoke to the head of the 
Guild, and he reported back that at a meeting the barbers had decided 
they wanted to stay with the Guild and did not want to affiliate with 
the AFL? 

Mr. Bauman. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you do? 

Mr. Bauman. I related that to Verdina, and he told me it was un- 
fortunate, but that he would have to bring pressure on them to get 
them to join, and this was very important to his efforts to organize 
the entire city, and we were the largest and had the most prestige, and 
it was necessary for his campaign to succeed. 

Mr. Kennedy. So what happened then ? 

Mr. Bauman. Well, actually not much did happen until March 1. 

Mr. Kennedy. Prior to that, prior to March 1 of 1956, had there 
been a situation also at the Commodore Hotel in New York City ? 

Mr. Bauman. No, sir. I understand that they had been approached 
and there was going to be picketing there, but it never materialized. 

Mr. Kennedy. It never materialized at the Commodore Hotel? 

Mr. Bauman. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was the lease terminated there ? 

Mr. Bauman. The lease expired there. 

Mr. Kennedy. They refused to renew it ? 

Mr. Bauman. They didn't refuse. It expired on January 31, and 
it was a 5-year lease, I believe, and it expired January 31 and in the 
process of being renewed, somehow Verdina found out about this and 
figured this was the most vulnerable position. During the time it took 
the attorneys to draft a new lease, he had approached the management 
there about picket lines, and naturally they did not renew the lease 
until sometime later. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that a lease with your organization ? 

Mr. Bauman. Yes; and we remained the statutory tenants. 

Mr. Kennedy. But the Commondore Hotel would not renew the 
lease ? 

Mr. Bauman. They did eventually, but they didn't during this 
labor dispute. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, on March 1, 1956, did you receive notification 
there would be picket lines set up ? 

Mr. Bauman. I believe only a telephone call, and I didn't receive 
a letter. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened? Relate to the committee what 
happened. 

Mr. Bauman. We knew by telephone prior to that date, and I think 
Verdina gave about a week's notice actually, and I reported to Mr. 
LefT, the manager of the Waldorf-Astoria, and told him this was 
about to happen, and that they should take the situation seriously 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15387 

because I thought Verdina was prepared to do it, and anything we 
could do to make the Waldorf -Astoria's position better we would be 
glad to do. 

He called me back at a later date, and said it was the position of the 
Waldorf-Astoria not to interfere with labor problems of their con- 
cessionaires. On March 1, the. pickets came. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where were the pickets established ? 

Mr. Bauman. I believe in the first instance there were four pickets 
at four different entrances, on Lexington Avenue and Park Avenue, 
and the two side streets. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, did this have any effect on you ? 

Mr. Bauman. In the first instance, it had no effect. Our business 
wasn't bothered at all, and from what we could tell the activities of 
the Waldorf were not disturbed. It wasn't until the following week 
that the deliveries of all kinds to the Waldorf-Astoria as well as the 
barbershop were stopped. 

Mr. Kennedy. How were the deliveries stopped ? 

Mr. Bauman. Well, Mr. Verdina did the picketing himself, and 
he was near the freight platforms, and for some reason or other 
trucks just didn't come in. 

Mr. Kennedy. The Teamsters refused to make the pickups and 
deliveries ? 

Mr. Bauman. I assume that to be the case and I have no actual 
knowledge of that. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't get the deliveries at the Waldorf ? 

Mr. Bauman. The deliveries didn't come and we were advised by 
the hotel they were not getting milk and laundry and meats and beer 
and everything that was necessary. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any conversations then with the man- 
agement of the hotel regarding the situation ? 

Mr. Bauman. Oh, yes; we were in contact with them, and either 
Wednesday or Thursday of that week, I believe it was Wednesday, 
we met with Mr. Binns, the eastern representative of the hotel. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is Joseph Binns, B-i-n-n-s ? 

Mr. Bauman. That is right. We met in his office with certain other 
executives and our general manager was there, and Mr. Moos was 
there, and Mr. Binns related the fact it was very unfortunate that 
2,400 employees of the Waldorf-Astoria were disturbed because of 
40 barbers in the Waldorf-Astoria. It was at that point that our 
operations were being disturbed because we couldn't receive linen, 
and Mr Binns told us it would be good to remove the pickets. 

Mr. Kennedy. You couldn't get the deliveries of linen ? 

Mr. Bauman. Which is quite essential to our operations; yes. So 
it was at that point that we had injunction papers prepared, and it 
was Friday, I believe, the 9th of March, we went down to the New 
York Supreme Court and we got a temporary restraining order to 
remove the pickets. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened then ? 

Mr. Bauman. I am not exactly certain as to the date. But either 
immediately before or immediately afterwards, there was a general 
meeting of all of the terminal employees, all managers and barbers. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have a conversation with Mr. Zirpola then 
about the situation ? 



15388 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Batjman. We had been talking to him regularly, and this was 
a serious situation for everybody, and sometimes we talked to him 
twice a day and we were up there a great deal, and we talked to him 
continuously. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell him about it ? 

Mr. Bauman. We told him very definitely it was a very serious 
situation for us, and we had a relatively short-term lease there, and 
pur lease expired in June, and we had reason to believe we might lose 
our lease in the barbershop if this continued for any length of time. 

Actually, we were being squeezed, and we in turn turned pressure 
on him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was a meeting called of the employees ? 

Mr. Bauman. Yes. We called a meeting and as I say I don't 
know whether it was immediately before or immediately after get- 
ting this restraining order, and again Mr. Moos and I were there, 
and Mr. Verdina was there, and Mr. Zirpola, and all of the barbers, 
and it was about 100 percent attendance. We started off the meeting 
by giving them or relating exactly what happened w T hen you go 
through with a situation like this. There are a lot of rumors and 
we tried to give them factually how things had happened since the 
first of the year. 

We advised them it was a very, very serious situation, and that this 
was just one of a series of picketings and it would be of terrible 
consequence to lose our largest and the shop with the most prestige. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they shortly afterward vote to join the AFL 
union ? 

Mr. Bauman. Yes, they did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they all became members of the AFL ? 

Mr. Bauman. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any alternative at that time? 

Mr. Bauman. In what way, sir ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any alternative to their becoming mem- 
bers of the AFL union if they wanted to remain at the Waldorf- 
Astoria ? 

Mr. Bauman. I think not. 

Senator Curtis. May I ask what would have happened if they 
hadn't joined the AFL? 

Mr. Bauman. Well, eventually we had a closed shop there with 
the AFL-CIO, and they merged in April, I believe, of 1956, and so 
it was necessary that they join this union and pay their dues and 
initiation fee, and be a member in good standing to work for us. 

Senator Curtis. But suppose your employees had continued on in 
the guild. That was the name of their independent organization? 

Mr. Bauman. That is right, the Terminal Guild. 

Senator Curtis. And would have continued to say "no" to the 
other union. What would have happened ? 

Mr. Bauman. Well, the problem was we had a restraining order 
and there was to be on Friday afternoon or the following Monday 
or Tuesday there was a hearing for a temporary injunction, as I be- 
lieve. The restraining order was only for the Waldorf-Astoria, and 
Mr. Verdina made it plain that he would attempt to go to the Roose- 
velt or Chrysler Building or some other location and start this picket- 
ing all over again, and it was a question as to whether we would get 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15389 

a restraining order in each one of these. So there would have been 
continuous labor problems from our point of view. 

Senator Curtis. And in order to buy industrial peace for the Wal- 
dorf and other businesses transacted in there, it became necessary for 
these barbers to abandon the guild and join the other union? 

Mr. BAtJMAN. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. And was it your opinion that that was an unwil- 
ling act or a choice they did not want to make ? 

Mr. Baumax. Well J they were just about put in a position where 
they had no alternative. 

Senator Curtis. It wasn't a free choice, then ? 

Air. Baumax. There was as much pressure as could possibly be 
put on there, and these people worked 25 years at the Waldorf- 
Astoria and some of the men had been on the job 25 or 30 years and 
it is not unusual at all, and here their security actually was being 
threatened. 

Senator Curtis. You are referring to general employees of the 
Waldorf? 

Mr. Baumax. Xo, I am talking about the barber employees. Many 
of the barbers had been there since the shop was built, when the 
Waldorf was built. They wanted to stay there, and they really had 
no alternative but to become members. 

Senator Curtis. What I mean is it wasn't a free choice, and they 
could not prefer whichever bargaining agent they wanted? 

Mr. Baumax. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. They were compelled to take a union that was not 
their first choice ? 

Mr. Baumax. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Or the barbershop could have been closed? 

Mr. Baumax. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. And this picketing was not effective until it was 
honored by the Teamsters Union, and affecting the supplies coming 
in the hotel ? 

Mr. Baumax. That is right. There were other unions that did 
cross the picket lines. The musicians I believe crossed, and the hotel 
employees were all organized and they crossed the picket lines to my 
knowledge, and of course Mr. Verdina could testify better than I, but 
the only union that did not come in was the Teamsters. 

Senator Curtis. And the hotel itself would have remained neutral 
if the Teamsters Union had not supported this picket line? 

Mr. Baumax. I am not in a position to answer that. 

Senator Curtis, Well, they were neutral up until the Teamsters 
did enter the picture ? 

Mr. Baumax. Yes. 

The Chairmax. The Chair had to be absent for a moment, and 
I didn't get to hear your initial statement. How many employees, 
barber employees, were there in your shop in the Waldorf ? 

Mr. Baumax. In the Waldorf-Astoria, I believe there were 24 
barbers, and 17 manicurists, and about 6 shoeshine boys in the con- 
cession there. 

The Chairmax. Some 40-odd employees ? 

Mr. Baumax. That is right. 

The Chairmax. They were all compelled to join the AFL union? 

21243— 59— pt. 41 3 



15390 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Bauman. Yes. 

The Chairman. What were the initiation fees? 

Mr. Bauman. The initial fee was $10, and the monthly dues are $4, 
and they had to pay $14, 1 month's dues in advance. 

The Chairman. They were a member of a labor organization ? 

Mr. Bauman. Well, we had what was called the Terminal Guild, 
which was chartered by New York State as a labor union. 

The Chairman. It was recognized by them ? 

Mr. Bauman. The guild had a union charter, a State charter, yes. 

The Chairman And it was so recognized by the laws of that State ? 

Mr. Bauman. Yes. 

The Chairman. So in effect, this was raiding a union by coercion 
and compelling a segment of that guild to transfer their membership 
and their allegiance in one union to the other. Is that what it 
amounted to ? 

Mr. Bauman. I believe so. 

The Chairman. I am just speaking in practical terms, and not 
necessarily legal terms, but that was the practical effect of it? 

Mr. Bauman. That is right. 

The Chairman. And that effort on the part of the AFL Barbers 
Union was having no effect until the Teamsters stepped in and sup- 
ported it by refusing to deliver goods to the entire hotel \ 

Mr. Bauman. That is right. 

The Chairman. Not just refusing to deliver merchandise or con- 
signments to the barbershop but to the entire hotel i 

Mr. Bauman. That is correct. 

The Chairman. I think that is all. 

Senator Ervin. Did the barbers who worked in the Terminal Bar- 
ber Shops at other points in New York City have to go into the AFL 
union, also? 

Mr. Bauman. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. How many all together were transferred from the 
guild to the AFL union ? 

Mr. Bauman. Well, there were a little over 300 in New York City 
that eventually did, maybe 40 in Pittsburgh, and 1 beauty salon. 

Senator Ervin. The whole question involved was which union 
would represent them and collect their initiation fees and dues, or the 
other ? 

Mr. Bauman. Well 

Senator Ervin. They had already paid their initiation fees to the 
guild? 

Mr. Bauman. The guild as I understood it required no initiation 
fees, and it required employment in terminal barbershops and no ini- 
tiation fees, and there were dues. 

Senator Ervin. But the whole controversy, or all of the agitation 
was merely the question of whether one union or another would be the 
bargaining agent and represent these barbers? 

Mr. Bauman. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. What were the dues of the guild ? 

Mr. Bauman. They were somewhat less. I think they might have 
been $2.50 verus $4. In the AFI^CIO there is a certain amount of 
life insurance and other factors that they didn't get in their local. It 
might have been 25 or 50 cents a week more — not a substantial differ- 
ence. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15391 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Bauman. 
Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Joseph Binns and Mr. John Sherry. 

The Chairman. Mr. Binns and Mr. Sherry, come around, please. 
Will you be sworn, please. 

You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give before this Sen- 
ate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Binns. I do 

Mr. Sherry. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN H. SHERRY AND JOSEPH BINNS 

The Chairman. Beginning on my left, will you state your name, 
your place of residence, and your business or occupation ? 

Mr. Sherry. John H. Sherry; my residence is 356 West 56th 
Street, New York 19, N.Y. My occupation is that of a lawyer. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Binns. My name is Joseph P. Binns. I am executive vice 
president and general manager of the Waldorf-Astoria, and vice 
president of the Hilton Hotels Corp. I reside in the Waldorf- 
Astoria. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Binns, how long have you been with the Wal- 
dorf-Astoria ? 

Mr. Binns. I went there when the Hilton Hotels Corp purchased 
the property in October 1949, so that is approximately 9 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been general manager of the 
Waldorf? 

Mr. Binns. Nine years. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Binns, back in 1956, there was an effort by the 
AFL Barbers Union to organize the barbers within the Waldorf- 
Astoria Hotel. 

Mr. Binns. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us when you first heard about that 
and what steps you took ? 

Mr. Binns. There were a good many conversations concerning this 
whole situation. I was aware of the fact that we had a Barbers Guild 
in the hotel which was not affiliated with the AFL. In fact, as you 
have heard, it was a labor organization in its own right. Many of 
these people had been there a great many years. I guess I first heard 
about it when my barber, Gus, told me that they were having prob- 
lems and he was very unhappy because he did not want to change 
and the membership did not Avant to change from what they were 
doing. 

Subsequently we got into these discussions with the Terminal Bar- 
ber Shop people about this because they were the employers under 
our lease arrangement of these employees. We kept current with the 
activities which have been reviewed before. Any detail that you wish 
me to cover, I will be glad to. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were never approached by anvbody from the 
union itself, the AFL union ? 

Mr. Binns. No. 



15392 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. The first actual overt connection was at the time 
of the picket line? 

Mr. Binns. No. Before that there was a good deal of general 
knowledge around the hotel that this was imminent, and actually one 
or two of the barbers stopped me and talked to me informally. But 
our position was that this was a matter between the barbers and the 
terminal and did not involve the Waldorf-Astoria Corp., and I re- 
fused to be drawn into it until such a time as the pickets actually 
appeared. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Sherry, were you approached at all by anybody 
representing the union? 

Mr. Sherry. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were approached by Mr. Verdina? 

Mr. Sherry. Mr. Verdina. 

Mr. Kennedy. What conversations did he have? He represented 
the AFL union, is that right ? 

Mr. Sherry. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Sherry is the attorney for the Waldorf. 

Mr. Sherry. For the Waldorf-Astoria. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he approached you in that capacity ? 

Mr. Sherry. He approached me in that capacity. 

Mr. Kennedy. What conversations did he have with you? What 
did he want you to do at that time ? 

Mr. Sherry. He came up to my office and told me that he had seen 
Mr. Lee, the manager of the hotel, and suggested to Mr. Lee that he 
cooperate in helping him to organize the employees of the Terminal 
Barber Shop in the Waldorf-Astoria. He also told me that the re- 
sponse of Mr. Lee was somewhat negative. He was not cooperative 
and that Mr. Lee referred him to me for further information and 
further solution of any problems. So he came up to see me and in 
substance put to me the same proposal, could he get some cooperation. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he want as far as cooperation was con- 
cerned ? 

Mr. Sherry. He didn't specify exactly what the cooperation was at 
that time, but I gathered that by cooperation he wanted us to exercise 
some persuasion on the Terminal Barber Shops to tell their people 
to join the AFL. That is what I understood him to mean. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was your position at that time ? 

Mr. Sherry. Our position was that we did not want to interfere 
in an internal situation between a barbershop and its employees. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he subsequently have another conversation with 
you at which time he proposed something substantial that he wanted 
you to do ? 

Mr. Sherry. Yes. It is my recollection that he again came to me 
and made a suggestion that perhaps our lease could be somewhat 
amended so that we would be in a position to lock out the tenant in 
the event of a strike of its employees, or in the event of picketing of 
the shop, or labor dispute developing between the tenant and ourselves 
or its employees, rather. 

Mr. Kennedy. He suggested that perhaps the lease that you had 
with the Terminal Barber Shop, Inc., be either terminated or 
amended ? 

Mr. Sherry. Or amended. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15393 

Mr. Kennedy. So that you could cease the relationship with that 

company ? 

Mr. Sherry. So that we could exercise police powers and terms of 
perhaps cooperation. 

Mr. Kennedy. And thus bring by force the employees into the 
union ? 

Mr. Sherry. I suppose that is what he meant. 

Mr. Kennedy. You understood that is what he meant ? 

Mr. Sherry. I understood him to mean that, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was your position on that ? 

Mr. Sherry. I told him that we had a valid lease and that any 
breach of that lease would result in damages against us, and that I 
was neither sympathetic to the proposal nor would I have the legal 
power to comply with it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then following that there was one picket line that 
appeared ? 

Mr. Sherry. On March 1 the picket line commenced. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Binns, would you relate to the committee the 
results of the picket line ? 

Mr. Binns. In general and without getting into specifics, we had 
a number of pickets. I believe that the committee has some photo- 
graphs of the pickets and of the sign. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where were they located % 

Mr. Binns. At first, as I remember, they picketed the Park Avenue 
entrance. We do not worry too much about pickets. We get pickets 
practically every other week for something. The Jewish Zion people 
have a convention, then we get the Arabs out front. If the north of 
Ireland people come in, the south of Ireland people picket us. We 
have had all sorts of picketing and usually the New York police are 
very cooperative. I must say, gentlemen, that these pickets were 
orderly; they did not interfere with the movement in and out of the 
building. They were at the front Park Avenue entrance and also the 
side entrances. Eventually they eliminated the other picketing activi- 
ties and concentrated on the service entrance which is on 50th Street, 
what we call the service delivery entrance, the loading dock on 50th 
Street. They concentrated there and remained in cars later all night 
and all day to cover the picketing activities. I must say that we do 
not have a very large number of people coming in our barbershop 
through the service entrance and the loading platform. They come 
in through the main lobby. As you know the barbershop is located 
on the main lobby floor which is one floor up from the street. It is 
entirely interior. There is no way that you can get to it without 
coming through the lobbies. So the picketing did not bother us. In 
fact, it didn't bother the business in the barbershop at all. The only 
problem we encountered was when the deliveries of our vital foods, 
beverages, poultry, and all of the produce that we need were beginning 
to be shut off. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did that come about ? 

Mr. Binns. The truckers who delivered this from the various pur- 
veyors of the city came up to the back entrance and were confronted 
with the pickets and refused to go through the picket line. This went 
on for several days until the situation became very serious. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the effect of where the pickups and deliveries 
cease to be made at a hotel such as the Waldorf-Astoria ? 



15394 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Binns. You can imagine a very large organization doing some- 
thing like $25 million worth of business a year and not having any 
garbage disposal. That has to go out of there every morning in the 
early morning hours. We have to have fresh produce. We are out 
of business if we do not have deliveries and removals. It is perfectly 
obvious. We average maybe 2,500 guests, between 2,000 and 2,700 em- 
ployees, and this activity concerning the barbers began to so seriously 
restrict the normal business of this institution and in some instances 
could have caused some danger to elderly people who live in the hotel. 
Certain people have to have their meals in, and so forth. It became 
a critical situation to us. I was not about to have 40 barbers' and 
manicurists' activities and problems result in the closing down of the 
Waldorf-Astoria. That is the real situation that resulted by virtue 
of the fact that we could not get deliveries, not by virtue of anything 
that had to do with the barbershop. 

Mr. Kennedy. The picket line in and of itself was not effective, as 
I understand. It was just the cutting off of the deliveries and the 
pickups that was effective. 

Mr. Binns. We work very closely with some very fine labor people. 
We have a very fine labor contract for almost all of our employees 
with an AFL union in the city of New York. Those people came in 
and out of the building as they do every day and disregarded the 
picket lines. The customers of the barbershop did not pay any atten- 
tion to the pickets. The only problem came when we were unable to 
get deliveries as I have outlined. That is a fatal problem. 

Mr. Kennedy. It could have closed you down. 

Mr. Binns. It was a matter of a few more days and we would have 
had to eliminate our services and maybe gradually begin to evacuate 
the building. 

The Chairman. That is the power that is now reposed in the Team- 
sters Union. That is a demonstration or illustration of the extreme 
powers they have over the economy of any area or business where they 
desire to make use of or employ that power. 

Mr. Binns. This is a very simple but powerful example. 

The Chairman. How many employees would you say you have at 
the hotel? 

Mr. Binns. As I said, Senator, we run between 2,000 and 2,700 em- 
ployees. Because we have a large group of what we call temporary 
employees or extra waiters and extra people, sometimes live or six 
hundred a day. 

The Chairman. But your employees exceed 2,000. 

Mr. Binns. They exceed 2,000. 

The Chairman. And practically all of them, I assume, are members 
of unions ? 

Mr. Binns. They are all members — they happen to be all members 
of the AFL — except some white-collar workers and officeworkers and 
some miscellaneous classifications. I would say 95 percent are mem- 
bers of organized labor groups. 

The Chairman. They who are members of the AFL in other unions 
who were employees of the hotel did not honor the picket line ? 

Mr. Binns. That is right, sir. They came to work. 

The Chairman. They continued with their work. 

Mr. Binns. That is right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15395 

The Chairman. In order to make this strike or this picket line ef- 
fective, the coercive measure of enlisting the support of the Teamsters 
Union that would not cross the picket line, producing a cutoff of your 
supplies, made it imperative that you intercede to bring about the 
joining of these forty-odd barber employees of the AFL, notwith- 
standing that they were already in another labor organization. 

Mr. Binns. That is correct. 

The Chairman. And you did intercede ? 

Mr. Binns. No, sir; I did not intercede. I talked with the then 
president of the Guild. He asked to see me. I was very willing to 
see him. I saw him outside of the building. I would like to put in 
the record that I did see him. He was very disturbed. He could see 
that he was going to go out of business, which is evidently what hap- 
pened. The Guild disappeared entirely, and he was the president of 
it, and he asked me what to do. I said I could not advise him. This 
was a matter for his membership, but that he could easily see that I 
was not going to stand by and see the barbership dispute close down 
the Waldorf-Astoria. He said, "I sure can understand that." I said 
the same thing to Mr. Bauman, who is the president of the Terminal 
Barber Shops. 

The Chairman. That was interceding to the extent of expressing 
the course of action you would be compelled to take. 

Mr. Binns. That is correct. 

The Chairman. So that was bound to have some influence because 
the consequences of the action you were going to take would have put 
the barbershop out of business ; would it not ? 

Mr. Binns. There were several things you could do. You could 
have closed the barbership. We don't have to have the barbershop 
open. 

The Chairman. That is what I understand. 

Mr. Binns. On the other hand, that in itself, which some of the 
parties wanted us to do, was a very strong move, in my opinion. I 
didn't want to do that. 

The Chairman. You just made the lightest move that you could 
under the circumstances, but I am confident the move you made was 
well understood. 

Mr. Binns. It had to be. 

The Chairman. It had to be. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. The milk was not being delivered, is that right ? 

Mr. Binns. All deliveries of perishables are daily, sometimes two 
or three times a day. All those deliveries were cut off. In an en- 
deavor to help and negotiate and not have this thing happen too 
quickly we kept going on as best we could. Actually we brought 
some supplies in with our own people in station wagons late at night. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you bring it in late at night ? 

Mr. Binns. That is right. Milk and cream and ice cream and 
things like that. You have refrigerated products that have to come 
in. But eventually it became impossible to continue that, and we 
realized it was just a matter of a very short time before we would have 
to face closing down certain areas, and certain services. 

Mr. Kennedy. As I understand it, the pickets were removed from 
the various entrances and put just at the service entrance. 

Mr. Binns. At the end I believe that the pickets were only at the 
service entrance and when it was learned that we were bringing 



15396 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

things in at 2 and 3 in the morning, then the pickets remained all 
night. They stayed in a car and when trucks came up — I am told, 
I was not there — that they would get out and intercept the driver and 
explain the situation and prevent the delivery. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any barbers coming in at 2 or 3 in 
the morning? 

Mr. Binns. No ; not that I know of. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, may I ask who placed those pickets 
there? 

Mr. Binns. Who placed the pickets ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Sherry. May I answer that, Senator? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Sherry. To the best of our knowledge and belief the Barbers 
Union placed the pickets there. 

Senator Curtis. The support of the Teamsters Union was effec- 
tive but at all this time the Barbers Union was picketing? 

Mr. Sherry. Yes ; except to the best of my belief when the picket- 
ing switched to the service entrance some representatives of the Team- 
sters were there to police and oversee that the Teamsters obeyed or- 
ders from their headquarters not to pass the picket line. In that fash- 
ion some representatives of the Teamsters joined the Barbers Union 
pickets also. 

Senator Curtis. To put it this way, to the best of your knowledge, 
the AFL Barbers Union continued and carried on picketing all the 
while, including when they were picketing at the service entrance. 

Mr. Sherry. Yes. 

The Chairman. Mr. Binns, I hand you here four photographs and 
ask you if you identify them, please, sir ? 

Mr. Binns. Yes, sir. These are noted. These are photographs of 
the picketing at the Park Avenue entrance. This is Lexington Avenue 
entrance. This is in front of the service entrance or the loading plat- 
form, and this is in front of the employees' entrance adjacent to the 
loading platform. I believe this is a photograph — what is it? 

Mr. Sherry. This is Mr. Verdina himself. 

Mr. Binns. Yes ; the president of the AFL Barbers Union. 

The Chairman. That series of photographs may be made exhibit 
No. 1. 

(The photographs referred to were marked "Exhibit No. 1" for 
reference and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Now I hand you a series of six photographs and 
ask you to state if you can identify those. 

Mr. Binns. These appear to be photographs of delivery trucks 
outside of our loading platform on 50th Street. This is a truck de- 
livering alcoholic beverages. This is also the same point. I can't 
identify the truck. The same individual is in all of these pictures. 
They are all at the loading area of the hotel. 

The Chairman. Who is that individual ? 

Mr. Binns. I believe that is Mr. Verdina. I am not positive be- 
cause his face does not show in all of them, but I believe they are. 

The Chairman. They are all pictures taken incident to the picket- 
ing. 

Mr. Binns. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15397 

The Chairman. That second series of pictures may be marked "Ex- 
hibit 1-A." 

(The photographs were marked "Exhibit 1-A" for reference and 
may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I understood from the previous witness that at least 
a temporary injunction was obtained from the courts preventing this 
picketing. If that could be done, why would it be necessary to take 
any steps in connection with the barbers to try to get them to join the 
AFL ! I am directing this to Mr. Binns or Mr. Sherry. If you can 
get a court injunction to prevent this kind of activity, why was it 
necessary to be concerned about it ? 

Mr. Binns. In the first place, the Waldorf-Astoria did not get the 
injunction. The employer of the barbers got the injunction. They 
did so when we brought pressure on the employers of the barbers to 
do something about this situation. They took the action. 

Mr. Kennedy. If you could stop this kind of activity on the part of 
the union to get the picket line removed, why was it necessary, then, to 
take the other step of bringing pressure on the employees to join the 
union ? 

Mr. Sherry. I am going to answer that, sir. It is our understand- 
ing that the temporary injunction was granted with the consent of 
the Teamsters and we are by no means convinced that it would have 
been granted if they had opposed it. 

Mr. Kennedy. I see. I wanted to find out whether there still is a 
problem of whether that would have been a solution. So the tempo- 
rary injunction was not contested ; is that right? 

Mr. Sherry. No. 

Mr. Binns. Mr. Kennedy, you made a statement a moment ago in 
the form of a question, why was it necessary to bring pressure, I pre- 
sume by the Waldorf, on the employees. 

Mr. Kennedy. The pressure indirectly by the Waldorf on the 
employees. 

Mr. Binns. I would like to point out that our position was one 
which is abundantly clear of being an innocent victim in this thing. 
We brought pressure on both sides. Whatever we said to the employ- 
ees, we said to the employer, "Look, we are not going to stand here 
now and have the hotel shut down by this dispute and it is up to you 
two parties, not alone the employees, but also the employer." 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not questioning whether you did not take the 
right action or the action that I would, take in similar circumstances. 
All I wanted to find out is whether there is a solution to this kind of 
a problem because that, after all, is what we are interested in. Did 
you keep a list of the cutoffs of the deliveries? 

Mr. Sherry. What is that? 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you keep a list of the cutoffs ? 

Mr. Sherry. Yes ; we kept a running record of the cutoff of deliv- 
eries from day to day. 

Mr. Kennedy. They included, did they not, the Teamsters Union, 
involving the grocery drivers, liquor drivers, warehouse drivers, brew- 
ery drivers ? 

Mr. Sherry. Meat drivers, laundry drivers, every other kind of 
driver that brought anything under the sun to the loading platforms 
and the delivery entrances. 



15398 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. I hand you a photostatic copy of a document which 
says, "Partial List of Deliveries Turned Back by Pickets." Would 
you examine this photostatic copy and state if you can indentify it, 
please ? 

Mr. Binns. I think that is a partial list. We are not prepared to 
say that covers all. Incidentally, the Waldorf laundry is located in 
Jersey City. It is a very large problem. We use truck trailers to 
deliver the daily linen. You could not operate very long if you could 
not get sheets and pillowcases for your guests. 

The Chairman. All right, that list may be made exhibit No. 2. 

(The list was marked "Exhibit No. 2" for reference and may be 
found in the files of the select committee. ) 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions, Senator Curtis? 

Senator Curtis. I would like to ask the attorney, you would regard 
the action of the AFL Barbers Union representatives when they 
called on you in your capacity as representative of the Waldorf as 
applying pressure, would you not ? 

Mr. Sherry. It might be so characterized, although it was done in 
a reasonably tactful manner. 

Senator Curtis. The fact that someone is polite and their words 
are well chosen and their voice is not raised does not lessen the impli- 
cations of what they can do and what they are informing you they 
might do ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Sherry. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. In that sense, as I understand you, are you not 
stating that they got rough, so to speak, but they did inform you of 
harmful consequences that could come if these men did not ultimately 
get into their union ? 

Mr. Sherry. They made that absolutely clear to me. 

Senator Curtis. It is also very evident that your client, the Wal- 
dorf Astoria Hotel, was definitely a neutral ; was it not ? 

Mr. Sherry. Yes; absolutely a neutral. Incidentally, it was so 
recognized by the Barbers Union — I must give them credit for it — 
they apologized for the consequences that they forecast would ensue. 

Senator Curtis. Did you handle the labor relations matter for the 
Waldorf and advising them in these matters ? 

Mr. Sherry. If they get into any kind of problem where legal inter- 
pretation is involved, they do consult me. But the hotel itself has a 
personnel director who handles the run-of-the-mill labor problems. 

Senator Curtis. Would this threat or implied threat of harmful 
consequences that you received, representing the management of the 
Waldorf, have been applied to the employees of the Waldorf without 
the violation of the statute ? 

Mr. Sherry. I am not prepared to say without the violation of 
statute. As a practical matter it hardly could have been applied to 
the employees of the Waldorf because they were represented by an 
AFL union which had its own strength. 

Senator Curtis. What I am getting at is that we are dealing with 
an area that is not covered by law. There is no statute that prohibits 
the applying of pressure to management of a neutral in such a case as 
this. 

Mr. Sherry. Not that I know of. 

Senator Curtis. Thank you very much. 

The Chairman. Senator Ervin. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15399 

Senator Ervin. They told you that they did not want to hit you 
with rocks they were throwing at somebody else? 

Mr. Sherry. They left no doubt that they were going to put on a 
picket line. They told me that unless a miracle happened, and I was 
supposed to perform such a miracle, a picket line would have to be 
at the hotel, and they were very sorry it had to be done, but there was 
no choice about it. 

Senator Ervin. That is all. 

The Chairman. All right, gentlemen, thank you very much. Call 
the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Verdina. 

The Chairman. Will you be sworn, please ? 

Do you solemnly swear that the evidence, given before this Senate 
select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Verdina. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT VERDINA, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 

JOSEPH G. GLASS 

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

Mr. Verdina. Kobert Verdina. I am secretary of local 760, and I 
live at 62-04 80th Street, Rego Park, N.Y. 

The Chairman. Is that a Barber's Union local ? 

Mr. Verdina. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is 760 ? 

Mr. Verdina. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What is the name of the international ? 

Mr. Verdina. The Journeymen Barbers, Hairdressers, Cosmetolo- 
gists and Proprietors International Union of America, affiliated with 
the AFL^CIO. 

The Chairman. You have counsel, have you ? 

Mr. Counsel, will you identify yourself for the record ? 

Mr. Glass. My name is Joseph G. Glass, and I live at 33-29 166th 
Street, Flushing, N.Y. 

The Chairman. You are a member of what bar ? 

Mr. Glass. The bar of the State of New York. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been in the Barber's Union? 

Mr. Verdina. I have been an international representative for 22 
years. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you an international representative at the pres- 
ent time ? 

Mr. Verdina. No, I have been fired. 

Mr. Kennedy. Wlien were you fired ? 

Mr. Verdina. I was fired right after our national convention. 

Mr. Kennedy. Which was when ? 

Mr. Verdina. Held on September 8 to the 15th at Indianapolis, Ind. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of this year ? 

Mr. Verdina. Of this year. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who fired you as international representative? 

Mr. Verdina. Our general president, William C Birthright. 



15400 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Why were you fired ? 

Mr. Verdina. Well, for 20 years Mr. Birthright was general presi- 
dent and general secretary-treasurer of our international union, and 
many of the organizers thought that it was high time that we separate 
those two front offices, and have a general president and to have a 
general secretary-treasurer. We fought Mr. Birthright at the con- 
vention, and he won out and he was elected again, and right after the 
convention, on the 16th, all of the organizers, nine of us, were fired 
without any severance pay and without any notice whatsoever. 

The Chairman. That is what you call liquidating your opposition, 
is that correct ? 

Mr. Verdina. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is unfair to labor ? 

Mr. Verdina. It is unfair to labor and unfair to all principles of 
labor and what we have been taught. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever vote on the floor as to whether the two 
positions would be separated ? 

Mr. Verdina. We had a vote on the floor, yes, sir, but only voice 
vote. 

Mr. Kennedy. They weren't counted ? 

Mr. Verdina. There was no count vote, and a motion was made to 
that effect, but the fast gavel overruled it. 

The Chairman. That is not peculiar to union government, is it? 
You are just a victim of practices that are general; isn't that correct? 

Mr. Verdina. I didn't follow you there. 

The Chairman. That is not unusual in union government, is it? 
And you just become a victim of practices that are generally followed ; 
is that correct ? 

Mr. Verdina. I don't know, sir. 

The Chairman. I would think that you would know. 

Senator Curtis. How many delegates were at that convention ? 

Mr. Verdina. I believe there were 913 delegates. 

Senator Curtis. And how many of them depended on their job upon 
the president and his friends ? 

Mr. Verdina. Well, I would say, Senator, a good majority of those 
delegates depended upon him for their job, because they hold a posi- 
tion as secretary-treasurer of their respective local unions. 

Senator Curtis. Can the international remove a local secretary ? 

Mr. Verdina. Oh, definitely. 

Senator Curtis. They can ? 

Mr. Verdina. Oh, definitely, very easily. 

Senator Curtis. That is in the constitution of the Barbers' Union? 

Mr. Verdina. Well, it might not be in the constitution of our inter- 
national union; but if a secretary is opposing the general president, 
an international representative will step into that local union and find 
some fault and remove the secretary. 

Seator Curtis. And in what categories were some of the other dele- 
gates ? 

Mr. Verdina. Well, they are elected delegates, mostly business 
agents or presidents of local unions. 

Senator Curtis. Were there any international representatives who 
were delegates? 

Mr. Verdina. Oh, yes. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN TliE LABOR FILLD 15401 

Senator Curtis. They were all directly subject to the will of the 
president, were they not i 

Mr. Verdina. Yes; and manv r.ew international representatives 
were appointed about a month c. . o prior to the national convention. 

Senator Curtis. They were appointed international representatives 
and then made delegates ? 

Mr. Verdina. They had the : ight to vote as delegates, as elected 
delegates. 

Senator Curtis. Where have the liberals of the country been all dur- 
ing these years that Government has progressed but the guardians of 
unionism are away back two centuries in their treatment of human 
beings ? 

Mr. Verdina. We tried to bring that out at the convention, Sena- 
tor, but as I said, we had a fast gavel and we couldn't do anything 
about it. 

The Chairman. Did you think that was union democracy in action ? 

Mr. Verdina. I certainly did not. Senator. 

The Chairman. It is not the right kind of Democracy ? 

Mr. Verdina. And we expressed our thoughts along those lines. 

Senator Curtis. As a matter of fact I think the people who resist 
correction of these things are the arch-reactionists of the country 
because they are so against individual rights and human rights. Was 
this the outfit that these barbers in the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel had to 
give up their union for, to get into ? 

Mr. Verdina. Well, it is, Senator, but I would like to s".y this, that 
the local union that these barbers who worked for terminal went into, 
I can frankly say it is one of the best in our international union. 

Senator Curtis. One of the what ? 

Mr. Verdina. It is one of the best in our international union ? 

Senator Curtis. Now ? 

Mr. Verdina. Now. 

Senator Curtis. They had a pretty good union before? 

Mr. Verdina. Well, no, not on the surface. It was company-con- 
trolled at the beginning, and then it got out of hand, and it got out 
of hand to the extent that almost business was deterioriating because 
the employer didn't have much to say or if he gave an order they dis- 
regarded him. 

Senator Curtis. I will not digress any more, and counsel can 
proceed with his case. 

Mr. Kennedy. You mean it had gotten to be very independent ? 

Mr. Verdina. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. The employer in fact would rather have dealt with 
you than with them ? 

Mr. Verdina. Well, our relations at the present time even though 
we improved the working conditions of the employees twice since 
they have been organized, the union has taken the position to put 
these shops through an educational program laid down by the union, 
that they must perform their duties and give the public the service 
that they are entitled to, and in doing so the employer had increased 
his business and the shops are run a whole lot better than they were 
while they were independent, and I believe the employer will verify 
to that effect. 



15402 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, the only point we want to establish is that this 
was a completely independent union and it was not company domi- 
nated? 

Mr. Verdina. At the beginning it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. At the time this disupute was going on it certainly 
was not ? 

Mr. Verdina. It was strictly independent. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, this took place in 1956, is that right? 

Mr. Verdina. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you were interested in organizing the barbers 
in the Terminal Barber Shop at the Waldorf-Astoria as well as certain 
other hotels ? 

Mr. Verdina. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you made some approach to the Commodore 
Hotel, did you ? 

Mr. Verdina. Well, I did, under the instructions of our general 
president, Mr. Birthright. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Birthright ordered you to make the contact 
with the Commodore Hotel, is that right? 

Mr. Verdina. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the Commodore Hotel then after these discus- 
sions refused to renew the lease with the Terminal Barber Shops, Inc. ? 

Mr. Verdina. It wasn't that way, counselor. 

Mr. Kennedy. They didn't renew the lease ? 

Mr. Verdina. Well, there is something more to it than that. When 
I approached Mr. Hickey 

Mr. Kennedy. Of the Commodore Hotel ? 

Mr. Verdina. He is the vice president of the Commodore Hotel, 
and he said to me, "Does Mr. Meany know about this ?" At that par- 
ticular time the AFL was holding their quarterly meeting down m 
Florida, and William C. Birthright is on the executive board of the 
AFL-CIO. And I told Mr. Hickey I believe Mr. Meany knows about 
it through Mr. Birthright. 

He said, "Well, I will put in a call to Mr. Meany," which he did, 
because I got a call back from Florida, from our general president, 
and my general president told me that if I could extract a promise 
from Mr. Hickey that if he will not renew the lease to Terminal, that 
we wouldn't picket the Commodore Hotel. 

Mr. Kennedy. He gave you that promise ? 

Mr. Verdina. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. They did not renew the lease and you didn t picket 
the Commodore Hotel ? 

Mr. Verdina. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you went on to the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel ? 

Mr. Verdina. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had some conversations with the management 
of the Terminal Barber Shops, Inc. ? 

Mr. Verdina. Yes, I did ; with a Mr. Lee. 

Mr. Kennedy. You also had some conversations with the lawyer, 
Mr. Sherry, of the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel ? 

Mr. Verdina. Frankly, Mr. Kennedy, I believe as to my conversa- 
tions with Mr. Sherry, I can't recall it; it is a little bit too far back 
whether it was a telephone conversation or whether it was a personal 
conversation. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15403 

Mr. Kennedy. You suggested to him also at that time- 



Mr. Verdina. I followed his line of testimony, and it is about right. 
I mean I have known Mr. Sherry for a number of years. 

Mr. Kennedy. I just want to move on. 

Mr. Verdina. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. You suggested to him at that time that they not 
renew the lease unless the barbers join up with the AFL % 

Mr. Verdina. No, I don't believe that I said that to Mr. Sherry, not 
to renew the lease. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you suggest % 

Mr. Verdina. I probably might have said to him, if there is any- 
thing in the lease 

Mr. Kennedy. What do vou mean ? 

Mr. Verdina. With reference to labor trouble, if a concessionaire 
has labor trouble, does the landlord have the right to terminate the 
lease and then take over the establishment. I think that I talked to 
him along those lines. 

Mr. Kennedy. You didn't suggest to him that that kind of a clause 
be placed in the contract or that he attempt to in the lease thus bring 
these barbers into the AFL? 

Mr. Verdina. I believe I told that to Mr. Sherry after the Terminal 
barbers came into the union. I told him because they were very upset 
at the situation at the Waldorf, and I just made a suggestion to him, 
it would be advisable that when they make leases or leased certain 
portions of the space in their hotel, that they would put a clause like 
that into their lease so that they wouldn't be embarrassed. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were just giving helpful suggestions at that 
time, is that right ? 

Mr. Verdina. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is quite different from the testimony of Mr. 
Sherry that you came to him and suggested that the lease with this 
Terminal Barber Shops, Inc., be terminated unless these individuals 
came along and joined the AFL union ? 

Mr. Verdina. I don't recall saying anything like that; and I said 
before, it was 2 years before. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you think that you might have said that ? 

Mr. Verdina. I wouldn't know. I couldn't say "Yes," and I couldn't 
say "No." 

Mr. Kennedy. We will just have to leave the testimony of Mr. 
Sherry to that effect undisputed in the record, is that right ? 

Mr. Verdina. You are the counselor. I can't recall. 

Mr. Glass. It doesn't feasibly follow. The witness says he can't 
say "Yes," and he can't say "No," and it is up to the committee to make 
up its own mind. 

Mr. Kennedy. We will leave it undisputed in the record. 

Mr. Glass. It is not undisputed, and he could say "Yes" with reser- 
vations. 

Mr. Kennedy. He said he can't say "Yes" and he can't say "No." 

Mr. Glass. That means he has some doubts, but it still might be dis- 
puted. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. The record stands. From the 
standpoint of the Chair it is undisputed and it is not denied. 

Proceed. 



15404 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Verdina, at the time that you made or had the 
conversation with the representatives of the Terminal Barber Shops, 
Inc., how many of the barbers and the manicurists did you have 
signed up ? 

Mr. Verdina. Well, you see, Mr. Kennedy, I am a barber. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Verdina, if you just answer my questions we 
will go much quicker and you don't have to give a speech. 

Mr. Verdina. We had about 40 or 50 cards signed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that in the whole of the city ? 

Mr. Verdina. That is in the whole of the city. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many did you actually have signed in the 
Waldorf-Astoria ? 

Mr. Verdina. We might have had a few, maybe four or five. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many employees were there in the Waldorf- 
Astoria, approximately 40 ? 

Mr. Verdina. There was maybe about 30 or 35 barbers. 

Mr. Kennedy. I believe the testimony is that at that time there 
were about 40 or 50. How many employees worked for the Terminal 
Barber Shops, Inc., in New York City at that time ? 

Mr. Verdina. Well, I was under the impresion — I don't know — I 
thought there was about 400. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had about 40 or 50 cards signed out of 400 ? 

Mr. Verdina. There wasn't 400. We found out there wasn't 400. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many were there ? 

Mr. Verdina. Well, about 300, according to the records. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then, you had 40 or 50 cards signed out of 300, and 
you had 4 or 5 signed up at the Waldorf ? 

Mr. Verdina. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And nevertheless on March 1, or thereabouts, 1956, 
you began picketing? 

Mr. Verdina. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the purpose of the picketing? 

Mr. Verdina. An organizational picket line. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have what your signs said, what you were 
trying to do ? What were you trying to do, Mr. Verdina ? 

Mr. Verdina. We were trying to get the barbers to join our union. 
The signs specifically state that. 

The Chairman. Mr. Verdina, were you trying to get them to, or 
were you trying to force them to join your union ? 

Mr. Verdina. It says, "Please join our union." 

The Chairman. That is what the sign said, and I am talking about 
your actions. You were ready to close down the hotel operation in 
order to compel them to join, were you not ? 

Mr. Verdina. No, I wasn't. 

The Chairman. You knew that to be the consequences of your act, 
didn't you ? 

Mr. Verdina. I did not. 

The Chairman. Didn't you know you were standing there stopping 
the Teamsters from delivering ? 

Mr. Verdina. I never stopped anybody. 

The Chairman. Weren't you trying to persuade them ? 

Mr. Verdina. I never opened my mouth to anyone. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who made the arrangements with the Teamsters, 
then ? Did Mr. Birthright ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15405 

Mr. Verdina. He certainly did. . 

The Chairman. You were just carymg out his orders, and is that 
what you are saying ? 

Mr. Verdina. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Where was he during this time ? 

Mr. Verdina. He was in Florida at the executive council meeting 
at which time he got in touch with Dave Beck, who was president of 
the Teamsters at that time, and got the cooperation. 

Senator Curtis. How often would you report to Mr. Birthright* 

Mr. Verdina. Almost every day by telephone. 

(Members of the select committee present at tins point m the pro- 
ceedings: Senators McClellan, Ervin, and Curtis.) 

Senator Curtis. You reported that you represented four or live of 

the barbers ? n . , . _ . , , 

Mr. Verdina. We represented about 40 or 50 of the Terminal system 

that we had cards. 

Senator Curtis. They had a separate contract for the Waldorf, 

did they not? . . 

Mr. Verdina. Yes. The contract terminated on April o0 of f job. 

Senator Curtis. Were you in favor of placing pickets in front of 
the barbershop in front of the hotel ? 

Mr. Verdina. I only follow orders. 

Senator Curtis. I asked you were you in favor of it ? 

Mr. Verdina. I certainly was. . ■ 

Senator Curtis. You recommended it to Mr. Birthright ? 

Mr. Verdina. I certainly did. 

Senator Curtis. He concurred in that and told you to go ahead* 

Mr. Verdina. He certainly did. 

Senator Curtis. Did you report to him m your daily reports that 
at first it was not effective ? 

Mr. Verdina. I did. . . 

Senator Curtis. Did you suggest to him that it would be helpful it 
they could get the Teamsters to recognize the picket line? 

Mr. Verdina. He asked me: "Are the Teamsters going through? 
and I says, "They are." . , 

Senator Curtis. Did you report to him that it would be helpful 
if the Teamsters would recognize the picket line ? 

Mr Verdina. I didn't report that to him. He said to me, Are the 
Teamsters going through." And I said, "They are." He says, ^ ell, 
I will talk to Dave Beck about it," 

That is all I had. ,.,--,■' m 

Senator Curtis. How soon after that did the Teamsters stop going 

through? , _. n , K , 

Mr Verdina. We picketed there 9 days. The first o days every- 
thing was going through. Then on the fifth day things started to 

slow up. , ,, . , • 

Senator Curtis. What day was it that you had this conversation 
with your international president about the fact that the Teamsters 

were going through ? ,'',,■,.-,«." _lt_ j 

Mr Verdina. It must have been maybe the third or fourth day 

after we started picketing. 

Senator Curtis. So the arrangements were made with Mr. Birth- 
right and Mr. Beck? 

21213— 59— pt. 41 4 



15406 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Verdina. I believe so. 

Senator Curtis. When were you notified of those arrangements? 
Mr. Verdina. The very next time I called up, which was the next 
day. 

Senator Curtis. And you knew about it before the Teamsters 
stopped going through the line, then ? 

Mr. Verdina. I knew about it before the Teamsters 

Senator Curtis. Stopped going through the picket line ? 

Mr. Verdina. Outside of what Mr. Birthright told me. 

Senator Curtis. Yes ; Mr. Birthright told you that it had been ar- 
ranged and that was your first notice that the Teamsters would assist ? 

Mr. Verdina. Yes. 

Senator Ervin. Let us see how this thing operated. 

Mr. Birthright told you to put out the pickets. In other words, the 
Barbers got the Teamsters to cut off the vittles and drinks of the 
patrons of the hotel so the patrons would bring pressure to bear on the 
management of the hotel, so that the management of the hotel would 
bring pressure to bear on the management of the barbershops so the 
management of the barbershop would bring pressure to the members of 
the Guild, so that the members of the Guild would be induced to ioin 
the AFL Barbers Union ? 

Mr. Verdina. I believe that is the way it worked. 

Senator Ervin. I believe you might say that the Barbers Union is 
like providence — it moves in myserious ways. 

The Chairman. Is it a fact that the Barbers Union is under the real 
control and domination of the Teamsters Union? 

Mr. Verdina. Do they control the Teamsters ? 

The Chairman. No ; vice versa. 

Mr. Verdina. I wouldn't know. 

The Chairman. Why wouldn't you? They are pretty closely as- 
sociated. 

Mr. Verdina. That is up to Mr. Birthright. He is on the executive 
council, and the Teamsters have been expelled now, and he was friendly 
with Mr. Beck. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Verdina. I don't know about that. 

Senator Curtis. Coming back to your convention, have you re- 
ported this to the AFL-CIO officials, Mr. Meany ? 

Mr. Verdina. The ethical practices committee, I believe, Senator 
Curtis, that is in the making. 

Senator Curtis. What do you mean by that ? 

Mr. Verdina. A committee has been formed of the ones that have 
been let out since the convention. 

Senator Curtis. How many of you were let out ? 

Mr. Verdina. Nine of us. All of these organizers have a record that 
goes back almost 30 years. 

Senator Curtis. What is the objective of this committee? What 
are they going to seek to do ? 

Mr. Verdina. They are going to seek and find out a lot of discrep- 
ancies that are in that office of the general president, because nobody 
could look at anything in there. 

Senator Curtis. Is one of their purposes to get their jobs back ? 

Mr. Verdina. Not necessarily. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15407 

Senator Curtis. Because, as long as this power is vested in the inter- 
national president to dominate the conventions and the delegates, it 
can happen again at any time. 

Mr.VERDiNA. It certainly can. j- . 

Senator Curtis. Also, any action of the convention is a mere ratifica- 
tion of what the president wants. 
M^Verdina. Exactly so. ■ 

Senator Ervin. I understand you to say that the president has the 
power to appoint international representatives. 
Mr.VERDiNA. That is right. _ 

Senator Ervin. Is there any limit ? And also that the international 
representative has the same vote in a national or international conven- 
tion as a duly elected delegate of a local ? 

Mr Verdina. There is no limit on the number appointed. 
Senator Ervin. The international president has the power to remove 
the secretary-treasurer of the local ? m 

Mr. Verdina. That is right. To remove the entire executive board 
and put it under trusteeship. m 

Senator Ervin. Is the international president's name spelled 
B-i-r-t-h-r-i-g-h-t? 

Mr.VERDiNA. That is right. 

Senator Ervin. The way that thing has been operated the members 
of the union have been denied their birthright as American citizens to 
have some voice in the management of their own affairs. 

Mr. Verdina. Exactly so. On the election which was held on Friday 
on the last day, the opposition requested equal watchers at the polling 
booths, and he denied that, too. All his watchers had big buttons on 
them because he was a candidate for president and they had to go 
through these watchers in order to vote. 

Senator Ervin. Some strange things are happening in America. 
Mr. Verdina. It certainly is. At this day and age it is strange doing. 
Senator Ervin. How are the delegates elected in the locals ? 
Mr. Verdina. By ballot vote, sir. I was an international represent- 
ative by virtue of my job. I could have went there without being 
elected. But in my local union we had an election by closed-ballot 
vote— secret-ballot vote— and I was elected one of the delegates. 

Senator Ervin. It is a strange thing to me, sitting here in these 
hearings month after month, as to how much arbitrary power is exer- 
cised by one or two men in the union. 

Mr. Verdina. In this particular case it is just one. 
Senator Ervin. That has generally been true in most of them. I 
am astounded by it. 

Senator Curtis. But the situation is not cured if you just remove 
that one. You still have a constitution and bylaws that permit it to 
happen again. 

Mr. Verdina. We submitted changes and amendments to the consti- 
tution which were cast aside by the law committee. He appoints the 
law committee, too. Every amendment or resolution that is sub- 
mitted by local unions is reviewed by the law committee, and if 
there is anything in these resolutions that would upset him personally, 
it goes into the waste basket. It never comes up on the convention 
floor. 

The Chairman. Mr. Verdina, I hand you a photostatic copy ot a 
letter dated November 28, 1956, addressed to the Waldorf-Astoria 



15408 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Hotel, apparently signed by you as the secretary-treasurer of local 
No. 760. Will you examine the letter and state if you identify it. 

Mr. Verdina. Yes, sir, Senator. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. That may be made exhibit 
No. 3. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 3" for reference, 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 15747.) 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions of this witness? I 
want to introduce a couple of more letters at this point. 

Mr. Kamerick, will you be sworn ? 

Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give this Senate 
select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Kamerick. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL E. KAMERICK 

The Chairman. Mr. Kamerick, you may retain your seat. You 
are a member of the staff of this committee ? 

Mr. Kamerick. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you have been since the committee was 
created ? 

Mr. Kamerick. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I hand you here a letter — two letters, in fact — 
dated March 7, 1956 ; one addressed to Mr. George Lauf ek, Meadow 
Gold Products Corp., Brooklyn, N. Y., signed by Joseph P. Heffer- 
nan, president, and it is on the stationary of Local 757 of the Ice 
Cream Drivers & Employees Union which, I understand, is affiliated, 
as it says on the stationery, with the International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and so forth. Will you exam- 
ine that photostatic copy ? 

Mr. Kamerick. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Where did you get it ? 

Mr. Kamerick. I secured this letter through subpena from the 
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. 

The Chairman. From its files ? 

Mr. Kamerick. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That letter may be made exhibit 3A. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 3A" for refer- 
ence, and will be found in the appendix on p. 15748.) 

The Chairman. It may be printed in the record at this point. It 
is elated New York, March 7, 1956, to Mr. George Laufek, Meadow 
Gold Products Corp., 777 Kent Avenue, Brooklyn, N. Y. 

Dear Sir : Your attention is called to the organizing drive of local 760, Barbers 
Union, against the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York City. 
Your cooperation is requested. 

I hand you another letter dated March 7, 1956, on the stationery of 
Major Liquor Distributors, Inc., 910 Nepperhan Avenue, Yonkers 3, 
N.Y., addressed to Mr. Wallace W. Lee, Jr., Hotel Waldorf-Astoria, 
and signed by Alfred Kean, general manager of Major Liquor Dis- 
tributors, Inc. 

I will ask you to examine that letter and state if you identify it. 

Mr. Kamerick. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR EIELD 15409 

The Chairman. Where did you procure it ? 

Mr. Kamerick. This was also secured under subpena from the 
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. 

The Chairman. It may be made exhibit 3B, and it may be printed 
in the record at this point. It is not necessary to read it. It simply 
recites that they undertook to make deliveries of refreshments and 
were unable to deliver because of the picket line. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit 3B" for reference, 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 15749.) 

(The text of the letter referred to follows :) 

Dear Sib : On March 6 and March 7 of this year we attempted to effect de- 
liveries of wines and liquors to the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel. Since pickets were 
posted at the delivery platform and since our drivers were instructed by their 
union representatives not to cross the picket line, it was impossible for us to 
effect the delivery. 

Kindly advise us when it will be possible for us to deliver this merchandise. 

Mr. Kennedy. The whole purpose of this picket line, Mr. Verdina, 
was to bring pressure on the Waldorf-Astoria ? 

Mr. Verdina. Not necessarily. 

Mr. Kennedy. The major effort was in order to bring pressure on 
the Waldorf-Astoria ? 

Mr. Verdina. No. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you say the major effort was, to influence 
the employees in the barbershop ? 

Mr. Verdina. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you have the picket line on at night, then ? 

Mr. Verdina. Because a hotel is open all night and employees go 
in and out of that place all night long. 

Mr. Kennedy. There are no barbers going in and out at that time. 

Mr. Verdina. I understand. But we wanted to convey the message 
to our union people who worked in the hotel who might come in 
contact with the barbers, which they do. 

Mr. Kennedy. But not employees that are on at 12 o'clock at night. 

Mr. Verdina. There is a barbershop up on the 12th floor, too, which 
is independently owned. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you keep the picket line at all the 
entrances ? 

Mr. Verdina. We did not keep the picket line in the evening in the 
front entrance. We only kept it on the service and employee entrance. 

Mr. Kennedy. You mean none of the employees can go in any other 
entrance ? 

Mr. Verdina. They can go in anywhere. 

Mr. Kennedy. If the purpose was not to stop deliveries of milk and 
other produce at night, why did you keep the picket line at all 
entrances ? 

Mr. Verdina. At nighttime there is nobody going in and out of 
the hotel. We know that the guests of the hotel would patronize the 
barbershop. We wanted to convey our message to the union people 
who worked in the hotel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why was it important to find out whether the Team- 
sters were going through the picket line ? Didn't you write all these 
people eventually and thank them for their help and support ? 

Mr. Verdina. I did not write. 



15410 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Weren't they written ? 

Mr. Verdina. They were written and thanked by our general presi- 
dent, Mr. Birthright. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can't sit there and tell the committee that you 
didn't know that the purpose was to bring the pressure on the 
Waldorf-Astoria. 

Mr. Glass. I submit, Mr. Chairman, this is argumentative. We are 
not seeking arguments but for facts. 

The Chairman. We are asking you for a fact. Is it a fact ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Glass. Let me have the question rephrased. 

The Chairman. I rephrased the question. Is that a fact ? 

Mr. Verdina. It was not a fact to me. 

The Chairman. What was the purpose to bring the Teamsters in 
at all except to influence the hotel ? 

Mr. Verdina. I didn't bring them in. 

The Chairman. That was the purpose, was it not ? 

Mr. Verdina. It was the purpose of the general president. 

The Chairman. It was to influence, to put pressure on the hotel? 

Mr. Verdina. I don't know, Senator. I told you I follow orders. 

The Chairman. You are not that dumb. 

Senator Ervin. You are not going to take back what you told me. 
You told me that the Barbers got the Teamsters to stop going there 
so the Teamsters could cut off the drink and victuals to the patrons of 
the hotel, so the patrons of the hotel could pressure the management 
of the hotel, so the management of the hotel could protest to the 
management of the barbershop, so the management of the barbershop 
could do something about the barbers joining your union. You told 
me that is the way it worked. 

Mr. Verdina. That is the way it worked. 

Senator Ervin. You don't want to take back the proposition that 
the Teamsters were persuaded not to cross the picket line, which 
cut off the food and beverages for the patrons of the hotel; is that 
not so ? 

Mr. Verdina. That is what happened. 

Senator Ervin. It was intended to happen that way, too, was it not ? 

Mr. Verdina. I don't know. 

Senator Ervin. You don't know that. You state on your oath, 
after having taken an oath to tell the truth, that you did not know that 
was the way it was intended to happen ? 

Mr. Verdina. If that was the intention of our general president and 
the way he worked it that way and it worked out 

Senator Ervin. He told you that he talked to Dave Beck down 
there and Dave Beck was going to stop the Teamsters from crossing 
the picket line, in that telephone conversation you had with him? 

Mr. Verdina. He said he would speak to Dave Beck. He didn't tell 
me what would happen. 

The Chairman. He told you what did happen. 

Senator Ervin. When he told you he was going to speak to Dave 
Beck, you thought he was going to say good morning Mr. Beck. Is 
that what you thought ? 

Mr. Verdina. I don't know, Senator, I wasn't there. 



IMPROPER ACTrVTTIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15411 

Senator Ervin. You have enough intelligence to draw some con- 
clusions, haven't you ? Are you telling us that you didn't think that 
he was speaking to Dave Beck so that Dave Beck would cause the 
Teamsters not to deliver food and drinks to the hotel ? 

Mr. Verdina. I wouldn't know that, Senator. I wasn't there. 

Senator Erven. You know that is what happened up in New York 
after he talked to Dave Beck ? 

Mr. Verdina. That is what happened. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

If not, the committee will stand in recess until 10 : 30 in the morning 

(Members of the select committee present at the taking of the recess 
were Senators McClellan, Ervin, and Curtis.) 

(Thereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the hearing recessed, to reconvene at 
10:30 a.m., Fridav, November 14, 1958.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



friday, november 14, 1958 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

in the Labor or Management Field, 

Washington, D.C. 

The select committee met at 10 :30 a.m., pursuant to Senate Resolu- 
tion 221, agreed to January 29, 1958, in the caucus room, Senate Office 
Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., presiding. 

Present: Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat, North Carolina; 
Senator Carl T. Curtis, Republican, Nebraska ; 

Also present: Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel; Jerome Alderman, 
chief assistant counsel; Paul Kamerick, assistant counsel; John J. 
McGovern, assistant counsel ; Ruth Y. Watt, chief clerk. 

Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order. 

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

Senator Ervin. Will you call the first witness? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, the first witness this morning is Mr. 
F. C. Sawyer. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Sawyer, will you come forward? 

Mr. Sawyer, will you take the oath ? 

Do you solemnly swear that the evidence, given before this Senate 
select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the truth, so help you God ? 

TESTIMONY OF F. C. SAWYER, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL 

Mr. Sawyer. I do. 

Senator Ervin. Suppose you give us your name, and your occupa- 
tion and your residence for the record. 

Mr. Sawyer. My name is F. C. Sawyer and I am executive vice 
president of the Burt Manufacturing Co., in Akron, Ohio, and I re- 
side at 3453 West Bath Road, Akron, Ohio. 

Senator Ervin. Do you have counsel ? 

Will counsel please identify himself in like manner for the record ? 

Mr. Rabe. My name is Herman E. Rabe, and I am an attorney in 
Akron, Ohio, licensed to practice law in the States of Ohio and Iowa, 
and my address is Rural Route 5, Box 311, Medina, Ohio. 

Senator Erven. Counsel will proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I believe the witness has a statement 
that he would like to submit to the chairman, and the committee, and 

15413 



15414 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

then he was going to read excerpts from the statement into the record 
if that was permissible from the chairman. 

Senator Ervin. That will be entirely satisfactory. If he doesn't 
want to read the entire statement, the entire statement will be made a 
part of the record, and he can make whatever references to it or what- 
ever readings from it that the witness desires. 

Mr. Sawyer. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have given a copy of the statement to the chair- 
man, have you? 

Mr. Sawyer. I have, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the statement that will be placed in the 
record. 

Mr. Sawyer. Yes. 

The Burt Manufacturing Co., of Akron, Ohio, is a corporation 
which has, since 1890, been engaged in the manufacture, assembling, 
and fabricating, to customers' specifications, of roof type ventilator 
equipment, wall louvers and special sheet metal fabrication primarily 
for installation on large building such as schools, commercial, public, 
government, and industrial buildings. Burt ventilators and equip- 
ment are sold throughout the United States, to owners, engineering 
firms, contractors and subcontractors engaged in the planning and 
construction of buildings. The company has a sales staff of its own 
in addition to having 65 sales representatives throughout the nation 
to facilitate the sale of its equipment. It employs approximately 
150 people at its plant of whom approximately 100 to 110 are factory 
workers. 

For many years the Burt Co. has had trouble with a union, known 
as the Sheet Metal Workers International Association and its local 
unions. 

This union controls the labor supply of skilled sheet metal workers 
in the construction industry and has over many years tried to prevent 
the use of Burt products in this industry. These efforts were only 
sporadic, however, until about 1946 when the number and effect of 
such incidents increased following the unionization of Burt's factory 
employees by the CIO union, the United Steelworkers of America. 

From 1946 to 1955 there were numerous instances where the Sheet 
Metal Union tried to prevent, or did prevent, the installation of Burt's 
products on construction projects because these products were not 
made by members of their union. However, their efforts during this 
period did not assume the character of a planned, intensified nation- 
wide boycott, but after the merger of the AFL and CIO in December 
of 1955 the boycott really assumed serious proportions. 

The Sheet Metal Workers Union has never represented the em- 
ployees at the Burt Manufacturing Co. plant. Prior to 1945 it had 
at various times exhibited interest in organizing some of Burt's em- 
ployees, but apparently was never interested in having as members 
any of the employees other than the few men who might be classified 
as journeymen sheet metal workers, because the union was operating 
strictly as a craft union. There has never been a contract between 
the Sheet Metal Union and the Burt Co. for any of Burt's employees. 

In 1942 the Steelworkers Organizing Committee organized some of 
Burt's employees and entered into a contract with the company for 
1 year at the end of which time that union allowed the contract to 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15415 

lapse No contract was in effect thereafter with any union, and in 
October 1945 the United Steelworkers of America was certified by 
the National Labor Relations Board as the bargaining agent for 
Burt's employees following an election conducted by the Labor Board. 
Negotiations between the company and that union thereafter resulted 
in a contract on April 24, 1946. . . 

Yearly contracts were negotiated until 1952 when a union shop 
contract was concluded. Successive contracts with the Steelworkers 
Union have continued from 1952 to date. Relations between the steel- 
workers Union and the company since 1946 have been somewhat 
strained at times as the result of disagreement and hard negotiations, 
but as a whole the relations have been quite good. During this period 
wage increases and fringe benefits equal to or better than the average 
in our area have been negotiated between the Burt Co. and the steel- 
workers Union. Relations between the company and its employees 
have been so satisfactory that very few grievances have been processed, 
and where grievances have been presented they have all been resolved 
with the exception of onlv one which went to arbitration. 

The Sheet Metal Union, however, has never been happy about the 
fact that Burt's employees were not enrolled as its members. It was 
unwilling or unable to convince the Burt employees of its value as 
a bargaining representative, and so far as I know it has never re- 
quested the Labor Board to certify it as the bargaining representative 
of our employees. But the Sheet Metal Union since 1945, has never 
relented in its campaign to get Burt's employees into its union. It 
has made a few attempts to start organizing our employees, but its 
principal efforts have been directed toward a campaign of harassment 
of the Burt Co. to compel it to force its employees into their union 
despite the employees' apparent satisfaction with the Steelworkers 
Union. 

In October 1946, after the conclusion of the first Steelworker con- 
tract, representatives of the Sheet Metal Workers Union exposed their 
vicious plan. A meeting was arranged in Akron between Burt repre- 
sentatives, Burt attorneys, a sheet-metal contractor, Mr. William 
Frost, the business asent of Sheet Metal Local No. 70 in Akron, and 
a Mr. Joseph Fredericks, a representative of the Sheet Metal Workers 
International Association out of its Washington headquarters. The 
meeting was arranged for the purpose of trying to find a solution to 
the problem presented by the refusal of Sheet Metal Union members, 
acting under Mr. Frost's instructions, to install $75,000 worth of Burt 
ventilators on a new factory building being erected for the General 
Electric Co. at Coshocton, Ohio. 

Mr. Frederick explained the reason for the union's action was that 
the Burt products were nonunion and scab made. It was explained to 
him that Burt's employees were members of the United Steelworkers 
Union under a contract with the company, but he said that made no 
difference to the Sheet Metal Union, and that, so far as it was con- 
cerned, even if the sheet-metal products were made by another A.F. 
of L. union, his union would consider them scab because they were not 
made by members of his union. 

He explained that the only way the Burt Co. could get its products 
installed by Sheet Metal Union members was for the company to put 
its employees into that union. 



15416 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

When the company's attorneys explained to him that the company 
could not do this under the law, he said that he was not interested in 
such matters, and that such a problem was one for the company to 
solve. When further pressed by the company for a solution to the 
immediate problem, Mr. Frederick suggested that the company might 
shut down its plant and put the word out on the "grapevine" to its 
employees that the way to avoid trouble in the future was for them to 
get into the Sheet Metal Workers Union. 

He said that the members of his union would not install products 
which were not made by its own members. The contractor explained 
that there was then no mass production manufacturer of ventilators 
of the type manufactured by Burt, which was organized by the Sheet 
Metal Union, but Mr. Frederick indicated that it was the position of 
his union that the products must be made by Sheet Metal Union mem- 
bers even if they had to be made by the hand process. The contractor 
then explained that to make these ventilators by hand would double 
the price of them. 

Thereupon, Mr. Frederick said that his union was not interested in 
the price of any product, and he didn't care if it cost twice as much 
if it was made by hand, so long as it was made by Sheet Metal Union 
members. 

After the certification of the Steelworkers Union by the Labor 
Board as the bargaining agent for Burt's employees in 1945, various 
Sheet Metal Union locals and the Sheet Metal International Associa- 
tion carried on a sporadic campaign to harass the Burt Co. so that it 
would compel its employees to join the Sheet Metal Union, but after 
the merger of the A.F. of L. and the CIO, in 1955, the campaign began 
in earnest. Prior to this time this union had principally confined its 
activities to the construction field and had very few members in any 
manufacturing plants. Following the merger its officers must have 
concluded that it would not be able to operate as it formerly had under 
the old craft union setup and they decided to invade the manufacturing 
field and organize employees in the fabricating plants. In 1956 they 
placed a special assessment upon its members to finance a nationwide 
organizing campaign, principally aimed at fabricating plants. The 
union advised its members, through its publications regularly mailed 
by the international association to all its members, that they should 
use their strength in the erecting field and refuse to handle, 'erect, or 
install sheet-metal products which were not made by Sheet Metal 
Union members. 

They undoubtedly realized that they might get into trouble by 
pursuing such tactics, so they developed a new theory as a justifica- 
tion for their boycott of products not made by their own union mem- 
bers. The international association has, since about 1939, had what 
is known as the standard form of agreement, and every local union 
requires the sheet-metal contractors with whom it does business, to 
sign some form of this standard agreement. 

This standard agreement provides, among other things, that it 
covers rates of pay, rules and working conditions of the employees 
engaged on work of sheet metal No. 10 gage, or lighter, including all 
work coming under the jurisdiction of the Sheet Metal Union. 

It also provides that the employer agrees that only journeymen 
sheet-metal workers shall perform such work. This union contends 
the meaning of such language to be that the employer-contractor, who 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15417 

signs such a contract, agrees that he will not handle, purchase or 
use in any manner, any sheet-metal work or materials not made by 
members of the Sheet Metal Union. 

An examination of the language of these contracts clearly shows 
that the language does not mean this, but nevertheless this union 
uses this argument as its principal support for its boycott of pro- 
ducts not made by its members. 

When its officers and agents have in the past attempted to, or actu- 
ally coerced or intimidated contractors in order to prevent them from 
using Burt's products they have within the last 2 years usually stated 
that they were not boycotting Burt's products, but were only expect- 
ing their contractor to live up to their strained interpretation of the 
standard agreement. It is further the union's justification for their 
boycott, that they are simply trying to preserve the work opportuni- 
ties for the members of their union. 

I would like now to relate to you some of the specific methods and 
examples where this union tried to harass the Burt Manufacturing 
Co. by coercing and harming Burt's customers, or prospective cus- 
tomers for the purpose of compelling the Burt Co. to force its em- 
ployees into the Sheet Metal Union. 

One method is to intimidate, in one manner or another, the architect 
who is drawing up the specifications for a construction project to in- 
duce him not to include Burt products in his specifications, or if he has 
included in the specifications, then to induce him to withdraw the Burt 
product and specify one made by the Sheet Metal Union. In July 
1956 I was told by an architect, Mr. Bert Stevens, of Akron, that he 
had been requested by a sheetmetal contractor on the job to remove 
Burt ventilators from the specifications because the Sheet Metal Union 
business agents had told him that their members would not erect Burt 
products. 

In April 1957 our company quoted prices on approximately $35,000 
worth of ventilator equipment for a new plant of the Western Electric 
Co. at Omaha, Nebr. The Brown & Kerr Co., of Chicago, 111., was 
awarded the sheet metal contract, but although our sales representa- 
tive in Chicago was led to believe that our bid was attractively priced, 
we were not given this contract. Mr. Kerr told both our sales repre- 
sentative in Chicago and myself, that he had been advised by one 
of the officials of the Sheet Metal Union in Chicago that Brown & 
Kerr Co. would not be able to erect the Burt ventilators if they were 
purchased for this job. Needless to say, we did not get the job. 

I have been told by a number of architects and contractors that 
the architects with whom they do business have said that they were 
afraid to specify Burt products, because of the trouble the Sheet 
Metal Union has caused over the installation of Burt ventilators. 

The widespread campaign is further exemplified by the fact that 
on March 26, 27, 28, and 29, 1957, we were advised by our sales 
representatives from such widely scattered points as St. Louis, Pitts- 
burgh, Cleveland, Boston, Washington, D.C., Detroit, and Parkers- 
burg, W. Va., that contractors and other persons in the sheet metal 
industry in their areas had advised them they could not purchase 
or use any Burt products because the Sheet Metal Union officials 
had told them that their members would not handle Burt's ventilators. 

Another technique used was the publication of "fair" lists. The 
international association published them in their official organ, the 



15418 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Sheet Metal Workers Journal, and the national director of the organi- 
zation, Mr. George Reese, stated in the Journal that the products on 
such lists were "acceptable for installation" by the members of the 
Sheet Metal Union. 

It is obvious that the international association was saying to all 
of its 60,000 members to whom the Journal is sent that products 
made by any manufacturer, not included in such "fair" list, were "not 
acceptable for in: allation" by members of his union. 

The Burt Manufacturing Co. was never included in any such "fair" 
lists. Business agents distributed these "fair" lists to the sheet-metal 
contractors and told them if they used products manufactured by 
concerns other than concerns like those on such lists, then the union 
considered that the contractor had broken his standard agreement 
with the union and he would have to take the consequences of such act. 

In instances where the union has not exerted sufficient pressure 
on the architect, owner, or contractor to cause him to refrain from 
ordering Burt products, the union has used another method, which 
has been quite successful in certain instances to prevent the use of 
our ventilators. 

This method is to withhold any sheet-metal workmen from the 
construction project until the contractor or owner agrees not to use 
the Burt products. This is very effective because the Sheet Metal 
Union controls practically all of the available supply of sheet-metal 
workmen in many areas in the United States. 

Furthermore, most of the sheet-metal contractors would be afraid 
to use sheet-metal workmen who were not members of the Sheet Metal 
Union, even if they could locate such work, because to do so would 
mean a picket line by the Sheet Metal Union which the members 
of the other unions working on the construction project would not 
cross and, therefore, a shutdown of the entire construction project 
would result. 

This method cost my company a $17,000 order in 1956 for ventila- 
tors on an $85 million stamping plant being built by the Chrysler 
Corp. at Twinsburg, Ohio. The order had been placed with our 
company but the Sheet Metal Union business agents threatened to 
picket the job if our ventilators were used, and for many weeks they 
withheld furnishing any sheet-metal workmen for many other types 
of sheet-metal work on this building which had nothing to do with 
the ventilators themselves. 

Finally, in desperation, the Chrysler Corp. required the contractor 
to cancel the contract for our ventilators because the failure to have 
any sheet-metal work done on the building was preventing the com- 
pletion of the building. 

Another example of this bad method was the refusal of local 70 
to furnish sheet-metal workmen in 1957 for a building being con- 
structed by the Municipal University of Akron. 

The contractor, Conditioned Air, Inc., of Charleston, W. Va., had 
contracts with the Sheet Metal Union to use only their union members, 
but despite numerous requests on its part to local 70 to furnish work- 
men for this job, the union refused to do so for a period of about 
3 months. 

All sheet-metal work on the building was thus stopped even though 
most of it had nothing to do with Burt ventilators, which were the 
target of the union's action. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15419 

Burt ventilators were not specified in the building contract, but the 
union was fearful that our ventilators would be used, and they de- 
manded, as a price for the union to furnish workmen, that the sheet- 
metal contractor and the university agree in advance that Burt venti- 
lators would not be used. 

A deadlock was broken only when Mr. C. A. Palmer, president of 
the Burt Manufacturing Co., and a loyal alumnus of Akron Uni- 
versity, agreed to donate the necessary Burt ventilators, worth about 
$2,500, to the university. 

Mr. Frost, business agent of local union TO, then had the audacity 
to say that since our company had donated the ventilators it should 
donate the labor of installing the ventilators by paying his members 
for doing the work of installation. These tactics of the union had 
been thoroughly exposed in a series of articles by the local newspaper, 
the Akron Beacon Journal, so the union heads apparently feared 
violent public reaction if they further delayed the construction of 
this public building, after our company had donated the ventilators, 
and they relented and furnished workmen for the job so the venti- 
lators were installed. 

However, the work on the building had been delayed from the first 
of November 1957, until sometime in January 1958. 

If products not made by members of the Sheet Metal Union are 
specified, or to be used on a building, this union sometimes uses the 
device of preventing the offending products from being unloaded 
at the job site . 

On the University of Akron job to which I have just referred, Mr. 
Lloyd Kenny, a business agent for the union in Akron, refused to 
allow sheet-metal material for this job to be unloaded from the truck 
on December 30, 1957. He refused to furnish sheet-metal workmen 
to unload the material, and the contractor was afraid to have anybody 
else unload this material because he knew that if he did so this union 
would place pickets on the job and cause the entire construction pro- 
gram to be closed down. 

The material was not unloaded at the job at that time, but was 
hauled away and stored in a warehouse, although the sheet-metal con- 
tractor needed it on the job. 

A classic example of this technique was employed by the union in 
1956 in connection with an order our company had had for $90,000 
worth of ventilators to be installed on a new engine plant which the 
Ford Motor Co. was building in Lima, Ohio. We shipped the first 
railroad carload of ventilators to the job where they arrived July 5, 
1956, but the union's business agent and steward told the sheet-metal 
contractor's foreman, who was a card-carrying member of the Sheet 
Metal Union, that these ventilators could not be unloaded from the 
railroad car, nor could they be used on the job because they were not 
made by their union. 

The union would not provide workmen to unload the railroad car, 
nor authorize other workmen to unload it, and the foreman was afraid 
to have the material unloaded, for fear of penalty against himself by 
the union, or for fear of having the entire construction project closed 
down. 

Despite frantic appeals by the sheet-metal contractor, and the gen- 
eral contractor, the union refused to budge from its position. 



15420 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The railroad company kept insisting to Burt Manufacturing Co. 
that we free this car of its freight, but we were unable to get it un- 
loaded from July 5 until September 17, 1956, in the meantime de- 
murrage charges were accumulating, which our company had to pay, 
and the other ventilators which we were manufacturing on this order 
were backing up in our factory because we were afraid to ship them. 

In August 1956, through the assistance of Mr. Peter McGavin, the 
assistant to George Meany, I personally obtained a meeting in Wash- 
ington with Mr. Robert Byron, general president of the Sheet Metal 
Workers International Association, and Mr. Edward Carlough, its 
secretary-treasurer, at which time I tried unsuccessfully to get these 
men to release this carload of ventilators. We were finally able to 
obtain their release through the personal intervention of James 
Mitchell, the U.S. Secretary of Labor, who contacted Mr. Carlough 
and asked for the release of this material, after I had gone to Wash- 
ington to meet with the Secretary of Labor, and the Congressman from 
our district, William H. Ayres, at a meeting arranged by Ayres. 

The union representatives are aware, well aware of the fact that 
their actions are illegal, under the secondary boycott provisions of the 
Taft-Hartley Act, if they directly stop workmen who are handling 
our ventilators. 

Therefore, in most instances the union tries to intimidate the con- 
tractor, architect, engineer, or building owner, rather than the work- 
men themselves, to prevent the use of our products on a job. In a 
great many instances the union representative tells the foreman of 
the sheet-metal workers on the job, who is usually a member of the 
Sheet Metal Union, that he should not handle Burt products, or prod- 
ucts not made by members of the Sheet Metal Union. These foremen 
have been well conditioned by the publication of the international 
union, and other instructions of union officials, or they may be in 
sympathy with the union's aim, and they are therefore easily induced 
to refrain from handling Burt's products. For instance, the super- 
intendent for the sheet-metal construction work on the Akron Uni- 
versity job in 1957 was instructed by the union not to handle any Burt 
products. 

Likewise, in 1954, on another University of Akron job a foreman, 
who was a member of the Sheet Metal Union, was instructed by Busi- 
ness Agent Kenny not to install the Burt ventilators which were then 
at the job site, until he heard further from the union, and therefore 
he did not attempt to have his men install the ventilators until Mr. 
Kenny released them a week or so thereafter. 

Still another method used by the union is to place their own mem- 
bers in fear that they will be fined or penalized by the union if they 
work on Burt products. 

In December 1955, business agent Kenny threatened the Wooster 
Sheet Metal Co. in Akron that the union would fine employees of this 
company who were members of the Sheet Metal Union if they con- 
tinued to work on Burt ventilators. 

That such threats had their effect is demonstrated by the fact that 
in May 1957 when two of this company's employees were instructed 
by their superior to install Burt ventilators on the Ohio Bell Tele- 
phone Building, both men refused. One man said, "We would be fined 
if we did by the local union," and the other one justified his refusal 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15421 

by saying that he was afraid of getting into trouble with the union 
if he handled our products. 

In January 1958 we were advised by a sheet-metal contractor in 
Canton, Ohio, that his men had been told by the Sheet Metal Union 
business agent, that they would each be fined $50 by the union if they 
were caught installing Burt ventilators. 

The fear of the union member of punishment at the hands of his 
union is understandable by an examination of the constitution of the 
international union which requires each member to take an oath to 
subscribe to and abide by the provisions of the constitution and all 
rules of his local union. The constitution asserts the broad jurisdic- 
tion of this union over all light sheet-metal work, provides for the 
standard form of agreement which the union says will not permit 
their members to handle products not made by their union members, 
and authorized penalties for members who transgress its provisions. 

In some instances union representatives threaten the employer with 
whom they have the standard form of agreement, that they will can- 
cel that contract if he uses Burt products. Such threats were made to 
the Wooster Sheet Metal Co. and Kasch Hoofing Co. in Akron, after 
other means of intimidation by the union had failed to prevent these 
contractors from using Burt products. 

Mr. Whittington, of the Kasch Roofing Co., said that he knew what 
these threats meant. He said that it meant the union would instruct 
his employees, who were members of the union, which was the major- 
ity of his employees, to quit working for him, and that the union 
would not furnisn him with other employees to carry on his business. 
He told the union representative that he interpreted this to mean that 
they were in effect closing down his business. The union representa- 
tive agreed that his interpretation was correct. 

In fact, the campaign of harassment against the Wooster Sheet 
Metal Co. had reached such a pitch that the owners of the business 
agreed in writing, at the union's insistence, that they would no longer 
use Burt products if the union would only allow them to install those 
which they then had on hand. It is terrifying to me, to think that 
in this country a businessman can be so intimidated by a union that 
he will enter into a written agreement not to use a product which he 
thinks is best adapted for his business. 

The same union tried to compel the Kasch Roofing Co. to sign an 
agreement that they would no longer use Burt products but the com- 
pany refused. 

In a few instances union representatives actually compelled their 
members to stop work because Burt ventilators were being used. In 
October 1957, Mr. Clarence Desch, a Sheet Metal Union business 
agent, went to the roof of a building in Cleveland on which the sheet- 
metal contractor, Mannen & Roth, had a crew of men installing Burt 
ventilators. Desch inquired of the foreman, who was a member of the 
union, if these were Burt ventilators, and he thereafter examined the 
contractor's shipping bills and invoices, and upon determining that 
they were Burt ventilators, he ordered the foreman to stop installing 
the ventilators until further word from the union. 

The crew of men were pulled off the work, removed entirely from 
that job and given to other jobs of the contractor elsewhere. 

31243—59 — pt. 41 5 



15422 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

In September 1956 Mr. Clifton D'Angulo, a Sheet Metal Union 
business agent, went on to the roof of the storage warehouse being 
constructed for the Chesapeake Storage Co. in Columbus, Ohio, and 
stopped the members of his union from installing Burt ventilators, 
and further required the removal of these ventilators from the con- 
struction project entirely. 

In this instance also, the foreman was a member of the Sheet Metal 
Union. The sheet-metal contractor on this job was the Tri- State 
Roofing Co., of Charleston, W. Va. 

Later in 1956 this same contractor had the contract for sheet-metal 
installation, including ventilators, on a building of Ohio University 
at Athens, Ohio, and also on a building for the Athens City High 
School. Tri-State requested approval of Burt ventilators, for the 
university building, from the office of the Ohio State architect, be- 
cause this university is a State-owned university. The State archi- 
tect's office refused to approve Burt ventilators, and stated in their 
letter : 

Due to an unfortunate labor situation currently existing, we are returning 
herewith, not inspected, all copies of the shop drawings for gravity roof ventila- 
tors for the subject project * * * which you forwarded to us under date of 
December 4. 1956. 

From experience on other projects we have learned that Burt Manufacturing 
Co.'s products are not acceptable in this State, currently (at least not on a state- 
wide basis) , to the AFL Sheet Metal Workers Union. 

This attitude of the State architect's office was brought to the atten- 
tion of Governor Frank Lausche, now United States Senator Lausche, 
who investigated the matter, and straightened out the architect's 
office on such procedure. However, despite repeated efforts on the 
part of Tri-State Roofing to obtain assurance from the Sheet Metal 
Union representatives in Columbus, or from Secretary-Treasurer Car- 
lough in Washington, that the union would install Burt ventilators on 
these two jobs, they were never able to obtain such assurance. 

Since they knew what to expect from the union if they tried to use 
Burt ventilators, as they had on the warehouse for the Chesapeake 
Storage Co., Tri-State canceled their contracts for Burt ventilators on 
both the Ohio University job and the Athens High School job. 

We have learned of some instances in which the sheet-metal con- 
tractor was, after considerable harassment by the Sheet Metal Union, 
permitted to install Burt products, but only after agreeing to pay a 
financial penalty to the union members. 

In May of 1956 our company shipped two carloads of ventilators as 
a part of a $35,000 order for ventilator equipment to be used on a fac- 
tory being erected for the Campbell Soup Co. at Napoleon, Ohio. We 
were informed by the contractor that the union business agents pre- 
vented him from installing our ventilators for almost 2 months, but 
finally relented and told him that he could use them in this instance, 
but that he would have to pay double time to their union members for 
all work performed in erection of the ventilators. 

This contractor told us that this experience had taught him his 
lesson, and that he would not thereafter attempt to handle any prod- 
ucts which were not manufactured and approved by the Sheet Metal 
Union. 

This pressure by the union upon the sheet-metal contractor places 
him in a very difficult position. In many instances Burt ventilators 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15423 

were written into the specifications of the construction contract, and 
the sheet-metal contractor was therefore bound by his contract to in- 
stall Burt ventilators, but if he attempted to do so he often faced the 
danger of serious trouble with the Sheet Metal Union. 

However, union business agents were entirely unsympathetic to the 
contractor's plight as exemplified by the statement of business agent 
William Frost to the Kasch Roofing Co. in Akron. When Mr. Whit- 
tington of the Kasch Co. explained that if he complied with the 
union's demands, and substituted ventilators made by the Sheet Metal 
Union members instead of the Burt ventilators as specified in the 
contract, which the Kasch Co. had signed, that his company was 
breaking its contract, Mr. Frost told him that under those circum- 
stances if he was to break any contract it would be better for him to 
break his contract with the owner who was constructing the building 
than it would be to break his contract with the union, by using Burt 
ventilators. 

Furthermore, in many instances, the owner who was having the 
building constructed, had specified that he wanted Burt ventilators 
but the position taken by this union would compel the contractor to 
ignore the desire of the owner of the building, and install equipment 
which he perhaps did not want. 

It is impossible for us to know the hundreds or perhaps even thou- 
sands of instances in which somebody in the sheet-metal construction 
field was harassed or intimidated concerning our products. We are 
certain that many instances occurred which we never heard about, but 
during the years 1956 and 1957 I do not believe that a day passed in 
which there was not reported to our company one or more of the acts 
of intimidation, or attempted intimidation, such as I have just related 
to you. 

You are probably wondering what our company has tried to do to 
protect ourselves or to solve our problem. Of course, as vice president 
in charge of sales, I did everything I could by my individual efforts, to 
assist the contractors to carry out their obligations and to install our 
products. The greater part of my time for several years has been 
consumed with this effort, rather than with my normal occupation of 
attempting to sell our products. 

Our attorneys have advised us that they held little hope for success 
by filing of lawsuits seeking an injunction or damages. It was 
their conclusion that the courts, either Federal or State, offered very 
little chance of success. They explained to us that the boycott pro- 
visions of the Taft-Hartley Act were ineffective because of the many 
loopholes. 

They further told us that since these tactics of harassment were 
occurring throughout the entire United States, that a great many 
lawsuits would need to be filed, and that it would be a very cumber- 
some and expensive process. Since we are a small company, we con- 
cluded that we could not embark upon such a costly campaign when 
it offered such little hope for success. 

We have requested the Committee on Education and Labor of the 
House of Representatives, and also this committee of the Senate, to 
investigate this boycott. We have at various times urged Ohio rep- 
resentatives and senators, as well as those of other States, to enact 
legislation to help solve our problem. Our attorneys have laid the 



15424 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

facts of this case before the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Depart- 
ment of Justice, to seek their assistance. 

At various times in recent years, our attorneys have contacted 
regional offices of the National Labor Relations Board, with respect 
to incidents which had occurred in their areas, but in all such instances 
we were given little comfort because of the inadequacy of present-day 
legislation to cope with such a problem. p 

In early 1957 I, with one of our attorneys, and Mr. David * eller, 
an attorney from the office of the general counsel for the United Steel- 
workers Union, had a meeting with Mr. Jerome Fenton, General 
Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board in Washington. 
Both the union and the company requested the General Counsel to 
initiate proceedings to grapple with this problem on a nationwide 
basis. Our request was taken under advisement. m 

In June 1957 we filed a charge with the regional labor board in 
Cleveland, against the international association, and 3 or 4 of its most 
active local unions. The board investigated for many months, and 
finally, in December 1957, issued a complaint charging the interna- 
tional and its locals with conducting a secondary boycott in violation 
of sections 8(b) (4) (A),(B),(C), and also with a violation of section 
8(b)(1)(A) of the Taft-Hartley Act, by carrying on a campaign 
designed to coerce the employees of Burt Manufacturing Co. in the 
choice of their collective bargaining representative. 

During all this time the boycott of our products continued un- 
abated until the Labor Board, in March 1958, obtained a temporary 
restraining order from the United States district court m Cleveland, 
Ohio, against the union to be effective until such time as the Labor 
Board itself made a complete determination as to the validity of our 

Since the issuance of the Federal court order there has been almost 
a complete cessation of the union's campaign against our company, 
as far as we know. In April 1958 an extensive hearing was held be- 
fore a trial examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and at 
the present time we are awaiting a report of the examiner, but we 
have no assurance that the recommendations of the trial examiner, or 
even of the National Labor Relations Board itself, will terminate our 
problem, if the ruling is adverse to the union. 

Since the possible legal remedies offer little hope for success we 
have devoted our principal efforts in the last 5 or 6 years toward find- 
ing a solution to our problem within the house of labor itself. We 
started with the officers of the Steelworkers Union, in our plant, and 
over the years we have kept them fully informed of the activities of 
the Sheet Metal Union, and the harmful effects it was having on our 
company. 

We continuously urged them to seek the assistance of the higher 
labor officials within their own union, or elsewhere, to try to correct 
the situation. We likewise have kept the representatives of the Steel- 
workers International Union, in our area, informed as to the various 
aspects of the problem, and entreated them to seek the help of the 
top officialdom of their union. 

We enlisted the aid of the secretary of the council of the CIO unions 
in Akron, and he tried to effect a solution in the Akron area by work- 
ing through the federation of the AFL unions in Akron, but he was 
unsuccessful. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15425 

We have contacted various district directors of the Steelworkers 
Union and have had many contacts with the top officials of the Steel- 
workers Union. I have kept fully informed at all times Mr. Oral 
Garrison, the assistant to Mr. David J. McDonald, president of the 
Steelworkers Union, concerning the developments and incidents as 
they occurred over the past several years. On a number of occasions 
I discussed the boycott with Mr. McDonald himself, and strongly 
urged him to use his efforts to help us solve our problem. 

When the AFL and CIO merged, a representative of each of the old 
federations were selected to help resolve jurisdictional problems which 
might arise between the unions which formerly belonged to either 
the AFL or CIO. I immediately presented our problem to Mr. Al 
Whitehouse, who was the representative of the CIO on jurisdictional 
matters, and who is the director of organization for the industrial 
union department of the merged AFL and CIO. Mr. Whitehouse 
discussed our trouble with Mr. Richard Gray, his counterpart from 
the old AFL, and with various other union leaders in the merged 
federation over a period of many months, but he finally told me that 
he was powerless to assist us in any way, and that the solution, if any, 
to our problem would have to be affected by someone with greater 
authority than he had. 

As a result of our continual prodding of the Steelworkers Union 
for action, on November 7, 1956, Mr. McDonald filed with George 
Meany a complaint against the Sheet Metal Union for its treatment 
of the Burt Manufacturing Co. 

On November 13, 1956, a meeting of Mr. Byron and Mr. Carlough, 
of the Sheet Metal Union, and officials of the Steelworkers Union, 
was held in the office of Mr. Peter McGavin, acting on behalf of Mr. 
Meany, to try to resolve the problem. Mr. McGavin's efforts met 
with no success. 

During the meeting Mr. Byron was asked by Mr. David Feller, at- 
torney for the Steelworkers Union, if the dispute could be settled 
by the Steelworkers turning over to the Sheet Metal Workers Union 
the employees of the Burt Manufacturing plant. Mr. Byron replied 
that it would settle the matter. 

This statement by Mr. Byron was consistent with the demand ex- 
pressed by him in a letter dated November 16, 1955, to Mr. B. W. 
Ohler, district director of the Steelworkers Union, in Cleveland, Ohio. 
Mr. Byron wrote this letter pursuant to a request from Mr. George 
Meany that his union discontinue their refusal to install Burt ventila- 
tors on a new high school in Medina, Ohio. Mr. Byron complied 
with Mr. Meany's request. 

In his letter Mr. Byron said : 

This company (Burt) has been nonunion for our organization for many years, 
and we have tried a number of times to organize them, but to no avail. 

We did not know that the Steelworkers had an agreement with the Burt 
Manufacturing Co., so called our business representative, Frost, to release the 
job. We hope in the near future, when your agreement with this company 
expires, that with your help we may be able to put them in our organization 
where they belong, as our fair contractors cannot compete with them. Their 
scale is at least $1 per hour less than the Sheet Metal Workers' scale. 

The same sentiments were expressed to me by Mr. Byron on Au- 
gust 1, 1956, in his office in Washington when he told me that the solu- 
tion to our problem was for our company to take its employees out of 



15426 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

the Steelworkers Union and put them into the Sheel Metal Workers 
Union. 

When the meeting in Mr. McGavin's office on November 13, 1956, 
failed to effect a solution the problem was, in accordance with the 
official procedure of AFL-CIO, placed on the agenda of the executive 
council for its meeting in January of 1957. At that time the execu- 
tive council designated three of its members to constitute a committee 
to decide this dispute between the two unions. The committee con- 
sisted of Mr. George Meany ; Mr. George Harrison, president of the 
Railway Clerks Union ; and Mr. Joseph Beirne, president of the Com- 
munications Workers Union, and this committee was given full power 
to resolve the problem. 

On February 18, 1957, this committee visited our plant in Akron, 
studied the facts involved, and on April 17, 1957, issued its decision. 

The decision reads : 

The committee unanimously finds, as a result of a study of all facts in this 
situation, that the actions of the Sheet Metal Workers International Association 
in putting pressure on the Burt Co. are in violation of section IV, article 3, of 
the AFL-CIO constitution, which protects the established collective-bargaining 
relationships of all affiliates. There is no question but the United Steelworkers 
negotiated and signed a union-shop contract taking effect on August 2, 1952. 

At no time insofar as we can ascertain have the Sheet Metal Workers directly 
challenged the Steelworkers to any election proceedings in the Burt plant. It 
is clear from the letter written by President Byron, of the Sheet Metal Workers 
International Association, to District Director Ohler, of the United Steelworkers, 
on December 16, 1955, that the actions of the Sheet Metal Workers International 
Association are designed to bring pressure on the Burt Co. for the purpose of 
inducing the Burt Co. to terminate its collective-bargaining relationship with 
the Steelworkers Union. 

The committee, therefore, renders this decision on behalf of the executive 
council, and directs that the Sheet Metal Workers International Association 
cease and desist from any actions designed to impair the collective-bargaining 
relationships of the United Steelworkers with the Burt Manufacturing Co. 

However, the Sheet Metal Union did not cease and desist with its 
boycott. 

As boycott incidents continued to arise we kept the United Steel- 
workers fully informed, and on a number of occasions informed Mr. 
Meany of the same incidents, but this did not stop nor slow down the 
boycott. 

In August 1957, the AFL-CIO executive council met in Chicago, 
and we exerted every effort to induce them to enforce the order of the 
Meany committee. Mr. Meany announced at that meeting that Mr. 
Byron, of the Sheet Metal Union, had agreed to cease and desist from 
any refusal of its members to install Burt products. 

The next day Mr. Byron, in a telegram to Mr. Meany, said that he 
had been misquoted. 

Mr. Meany, in a letter dated September 16, 1957, to Mr. David J. 
McDonald, stated with reference to Mr. Byron's statement that he was 
misquoted : 

I merely repeat again that President Byron told me in Chicago that his in- 
ternational association was not boycotting the Burt Co., and that he would see 
to it that his members would install the material in any place where they were 
working. He also promised to run down any complaint that representatives of 
the Sheet Metal Workers were putting on pressures to prevent the use of Burt 
equipment on any job. 

Up to the present time President Byron has not repudiated any of these state- 
ments to me. I must assume, until I receive notice to the contrary, that he will 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15427 

uphold the commitment made to me in Chicago. If you have any instance where 
(1) the representatives of the Sheet Metal Workers, since the Chicago meeting, 
have attempted to prevent the use of Burt equipment, or, (2) any instance where 
the Sheet Metal Workers are holding up any job by refusing to install Burt 
equipment, I would appreciate it if you would so advise me. 

Upon receipt of any information on specific job complaints I shall immediately 
contact President Byron, of the Sheet Metal Workers, and request him to live 
up to the commitment made to me in Chicago. 

Pursuant to this statement of Mr. Meany, our company kept Mr. 
McDonald and Mr. Meany fully informed of the many instances where 
the Sheet Metal Workers Union refused to install Burt products or 
continued with their campaign against Burt products. So far as we 
were able to ascertain, the AFL-CIO was unable to compel the Sheet 
Metal Workers Union to comply with the order of the Meany com- 
mittee. 

After considerable pressure was further applied within the AFL- 
CIO, its executive council, meeting in February 1958, adopted a reso- 
lution proposed by Walter Reuther barring boycotts by one affiliated 
union against another. This resolution was adopted pursuant to the 
AFL-CIO constitution which explicitly guarantees that the integrity 
of the affiliates of the federation shall be maintained and preserved. 
Thereafter, the executive council, upon the recommendation of Mr. 
Meany, established the impartial umpire system for the settlement of 
interunion boycotts. Mr. David Cole was selected as the umpire and 
to him was referred the Burt Manufacturing Co. case. 

The greater part of a year has passed since this action was taken, 
and no decision has yet been rendered by Mr. Cole, to my knowledge. 

After a long and fruitless search for a solution to our problem within 
the house of labor we have regretfully concluded that the AFL-CIO 
is unwilling to solve our problem or is incapable of reaching a solution. 

We will never know the full extent of the harm that has been done 
to our business by virtue of the Sheet Metal Union's campaign. We 
are aware of the fact that we have lost much business in the past 
because of this boycott which we otherwise would have obtained. We 
know this because we have been told by the contractors in many 
instances. 

However, I believe that much greater harm has been done to our 
business by the intimidation of businessmen in the sheet metal industry 
who have never told us that they feared to use our products, but they 
simply refrain from ever specifying or ordering any of our ventilators. 
We estimate that in the last 2 or 3 years we have lost on an average of 
$500,000 worth of business each year, and the total figure will probably 
run $3 to $4 million over the last few years. 

There is no moral justification for a secondary boycott, and there 
should be no legal justification for it. To attack certain employers, 
by injuring or destroying those with whom they do business, is inde- 
fensible. It is a weapon which is being used more extensively every 
year by different unions against innocent employers. I think that 
Congress intended to completely outlaw the secondary boycott in the 
enactment of the Taft-Hartley Act, but subsequent decisions of the 
Labor Board and of the courts have developed very serious weaknesses 
in this legislation which has, for all practical purposes, emasculated 
its effect. 



15428 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I respectfully suggest that the Taft-Tartley Act should be strength- 
ened with respect to secondary boycotts in the following manner : 

1. By making it unlawful to coerce secondary employers, as well as 
employees. 

2. By plugging the loophole which now permits the boycott by the 
union by preventing workmen from accepting work for the secondary 
employer, or by failing or refusing to supply workmen for the purpose 
of carrying out the boycott. 

3. Make the boycott unlawful whether it be one caused by the act 
of a single employee instead of the acts of two or more employees, as 
is required at present. 

4. Do not permit either the union or the employer to legitimatize 
a boycott by contract such as the standard form of agreement of the 
Sheet Metal Union attempts to do, or as the hot cargo clause in other 
union contracts would do. 

I know that there are other remedies suggested by evil practices in 
other industries, but I will not attempt to make any suggestions about 
them. 

Although great harm is caused to the primary object of the union's 
boycott, such as the Burt Manufacturing Co., and much damage is 
done to the business of the innocent secondary employer, I believe that 
the secondary boycott causes the most serious injury of all, to the 
public at large. The few examples I have cited show how much boy- 
cotts can harm the public by greatly increased costs of products, but 
what is more important they violate the fundamental right of every 
person or business to purchase and use any product he chooses. I be- 
lieve that the American people are entitled to expect legislation which 
will preserve such individual liberties against encroachment of any 
boycott no matter what the purpose of the boycott may be. 

Campaigns such as the boycott of the Sheet Metal Workers Union 
are attempts to establish monopoly control to the detriment of the 
public interest. The public is protected against such monopolistic 
campaigns by business concerns today, and labor unions should be 
subjected to the same controls and regulations. 

I sincerely believe that the spreading, pernicious harm caused by the 
secondary boycott by unions would be substantially eliminated if the 
unions engaging in such practices were made subject to the applica- 
tion of the antitrust laws. 

(Members of the committee present at this time are : Senators Ervin 
and Curtis.) 

Mr. Adlerman. Mr. Sawyer, you were the innocent party in the 
dispute between the Steelworkers Union and the Sheet Metal Workers 
Union ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Sawyer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Adlerman. You had no choice of what union you wished to have 
in your shop ? 

Mr. Sawyer. None whatsoever. 

Mr. Adlerman. You were not allowed to interfere or persuade your 
men to leave the Steelworkers Union and join the Sheet Metal Workers 
Union ? 

Mr. Sawyer. No, sir. 

Mr. Adlerman. That is a violation of the NLRB law as you under- 
stand it ? 

Mr. Sawyer. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15429 

Senator Curtis. If counsel would yield at that point, I would sug- 
gest that counsel would recount that in the original instance of 
recognizing the union the employer would have no choice? 

Mr. Adlerman. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. That is correct, is it not ? 

Mr. Sawyer. That is right. _„ . 

Mr. Adlerman. As a matter of fact, you had an NLRB election 

Mr. Sawyer. Back in October 1945. 

Mr. Adlerman. And you had the Steelworkers Union as your union 
in your shop since 1945 ? _ _ . . 

Mr. Sawyer. Since the contract was signed in April 194b. 

Mr. Adlerman. You have a union shop agreement now ? 

Mr. Sawyer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Adlerman. Can you tell us or estimate for us the fmancial loss 
that you sustained by reason of the dispute between the Steelworkers 
and the Sheet Metal Workers? i ' . , , A « « 

Mr Sawyer. As stated, we estimate, sir, that in the last 2 or 6 years 
we have lost on an average of $500,000 worth of business each year, 
and the total figure will probably run $3 to $4 million over the last 
few years. ■ . 

Mr. Adlerman. What remedy did you have? Did you seek an 
injunction on your own during this period of time? 

Mr. Sawyer. No, sir; we did not. An injunction is sought by the 
National Labor Relations Board as the result of a complaint filed. 

Mr. Adlerman. You had to proceed through the National Labor 
Relations Board, satisfy them that you had a valid complaint, and it 
was up to the National Labor Relations Board then to seek the injunc- 
tion for you ? . 

Mr. Sawyer. Yes, sir. That is extremely difficult due to the tact 
that ordinarily it is necessary to file a complaint in each area of the 
NLRB throughout the United States. 

Mr. Adlerman. In other words, you might have as many as 13 or 14 
different districts that you would have to apply it? 

Mr. Sawyer. Yes, sir ; that is right. 

Mr. Adlerman. Did they finally agree to start a proceeding in one 
district % 

Mr. Sawyer. Yes. After we had contacted Mr. Fenton we re- 
quested that it be considered on a nationwide basis. Then when it 
was filed in the northern Ohio district it was accepted on that basis. 

Mr. Adlerman. Is that considered rather an unusual step? Is this 
the first time that was done ? 

Mr. Sawyer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Adlerman. As I understand it, there is a Sheet Metal Manu- 
facturers Association ? 

Mr. Sawyer. Yes. 

Mr. Adlerman. Has the Steelworkers Union entered into an agree- 
ment with this association; the standard form of agreement? 

Mr. Sawyer. Has the Sheet Metal Workers Union entered into a 
standard form of agreement with the Sheet Metal Manufacturers 
Association ? 

Mr. Adlerman. Yes. 

Mr. Sawyer. No, sir. They enter into a standard form of agree- 
ment with each sheet metal contractor. The Sheet Metal Contractors 
Association is a national association of the various contractors. But 



15430 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

the national association does not enter into a standard form of 
agreement. 

However, there was an article in Heating, Air Conditioning maga- 
zine that indicated that an approach had been made by the interna- 
tional association to the Sheet Metal Contractors Association to enter 
into a boycott of any products which were not manufactured by the 
Sheet Metal Contractors Association. 

Mr. Adlerman. In other words, this agreement that was entered 
into between various sheet metal contractors and the union in effect 
was in the nature of a hot-cargo contract, was it not? 

Mr. Sawyer. Yes. 

Mr. Adlerman. Except it affected your goods rather than the 
transportation of goods. It affected the installation of your goods? 

Mr. Sawyer. Or the unloading or handling or the purchase. 

Mr. Adlerman. Did this have a serious effect on the purchase or 
use or installation of your goods in the construction of buildings? 

Mr. Sawyer. It controls it. In other words, this intimidation by 
the Sheet Metal Union on the sheet metal contractor, trying to force 
them to live up to their standard form of agreement states, or they 
state to the sheet metal contractor that they will be in violation of 
that agreement if they purchase, use, handle, or install any Burt equip- 
ment. Therefore, the contractor is afraid to purchase, use, or install 
Burt equipment. 

Mr. Adlerman. I have no further questions. 

Senator Ervin. As I understand it, in 1945 they had a representa- 
tive election in your plant or business, and your employees chose the 
United States Steel Workers to be their bargaining representative? 

Mr. Sawyer. Yes, Senator. 

Senator Erven. And they have continued to have the United Steel- 
workers as the bargaining representative ever since? 

Mr. Sawyer. Yes, sir. 

Senator Erven. The United States Steelworkers is a very powerful 
union, is it not ? 

Mr. Sawyer. It has a total membership, as I understand it, of ap- 
proximately 1,200,000. 

Senator Erven. Do you have any reason to think that the United 
Steel Workers cannot obtain as favorable a contract for the workers 
which it represents as bargaining agent as the Sheet Metal Union or 
any other union ? 

Mr. Sawyer. After sitting in with the negotiations since 1946 I 
can assure you, sir, they can. 

Senator Erven. So you would draw the inference from your ex- 
perience that the only question here or the only desire that could have 
been brought about by the Sheet Metal Union in obtaining repre- 
sentation tor your employees would be the benefits which would ac- 
crue to the Sheet Metal Union rather than to the employees, is that 
not so ? 

Mr. Sawyer. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. You stated that you have had harassment from 
1946 to 1958 when the district court issued a temporary injunction 
or restraining order ? 

Mr. Sawyer. Yes, sir. 

Senator Erven. On several occasions you were informed by the 
officials of the Sheet Metal Union that the only terms on which you 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15431 

could buy your piece with them would be for you in effect to compel 
your employees to take them as their bargaining representative 
rather than the United Steel Workers Union? 

Mr.SAWTER. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. That was from August 1947 when the Taft-Hartley 
law became the law and unfair labor practice on the part of an em- 
ployer, to attempt to influence the choice of the bargaining agent by 
his employees, is that not so? 

Mr. Lawyer. We are not permitted to tell our employees who must 
be their bargaining agent. . 

Senator Ervin. So this boycott which you have described in detail 
of your products by the Sheet Metal Union has been based, accord- 
ing to you by the officials of that union, solely upon the refusal of 
your company to engage in what would be an unfair labor practice 
under the Taft-Hartley law and compel your employees to take them 
as a bargaining representative rather than the union they had freely 
chosen to represent them ? 

Mr. Sawyer. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. I will ask you if a boycott of this nature if success- 
ful not only interferes with the rights, of employees, to freely choose 
their own representative but it has an inevitable tendency to minimize 
competition to the detriment of the consuming public? 

Mr Sawyer. Yes, sir ; it definitely does. During these various con- 
tacts that we have had with this union, the one incident m Chicago on 
the Johnson Outboard Motor Division in Waukegan, 111., at that par- 
ticular time when we were trying to get the release of the $35,000 
worth of ventilators we went to see one of the union officials ot the 
Sheet Metal Workers in Chicago. ' 

I took along Mr. John McKendrick who is a Steelworkers repre- 
sentative. Mr. McKendrick asked Mr. Krautman of that union if 
Burt ventilators could be installed and he said emphatically no. He 
also asked him if the Burt Manufacturing Co. had an AFL Sheet 
Metal Union, if that would solve the problem, even though we were 
located in Akron. . 

He still said no because they had a contract with a concern in Chi- 
cago named the Octagon Ventilator Co., and they were going to pro- 
tect those men in that plant and they were not going to permit other 
ventilators to come into that area. That same condition exists not only 
in Chicago, but also in other territories. 

Just as an example, in the New York area it has been a known pub- 
lic fact for many years that the New York local will not permit sheet 
metal products manufactured by companies outside of the New York 
area to be shipped into New York even though they belong to an 
AFL Sheet Metal Union. 

I had a large company which employs approximately well over a 
thousand sheet-metal members come from Baltimore, Md., to discuss 
this problem within the last few months, to ask what we thought about 
their possibility of setting up an AFL sheet metal plant outside of the 
New York area and to see whether or not they could get their products 
shipped in. • • i 

From their investigation they also were under the impression that 
thev would be unable to get any sheet metal products shipped into the 
New York area even though they were manufactured by an AFL 
Sheet Metal Union. 



15432 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ervin. Congress has passed a law which in effect says 
you could not accede to the demands of the Sheet Metal Union with- 
out perpetrating an unfair labor practice ? 

Mr. Sawyer. That is right. 

Senator Ervin. Then the Congress failed to give you any protec- 
tion based upon your compliance and observance with an act of 
Congress. 

Mr. Sawyer. That is as I understand it, Senator. 

Senator Ervin. I will make an honest confession. I sat down some- 
time ago after I came on this committee and tried to get an under- 
standing of the secondary boycott provisions of the Taft-Hartley 
law and candor compels me to confess that the more I studied it the 
more confused I became and the less I know about it, and I think that 
Professor Gregg, professor at the University of Virginia Law School, 
who wrote a book called "Law and Labor," stated that when Congress 
enacted the secondary boycott provisions of the Taft-Hartley law that 
it used very vague and indefinite language making it almost incom- 
prehensible and that thereafter the National Labor Relations Board 
and the courts in attempting to construe it made it inscrutable. That 
is substantially the statement. 

Maybe it is not the exact words but it is the substance of it. 

Do you have a question, Senator ? 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Sawyer, you have put a great deal of material 
and have consistently stated it in your paper. It will be very helpful 
to the committee. Now, this boycott has existed a matter of 12 or 14 
years, hasn't it? 

Mr. Sawyer. Since 1946, Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Now, as you see it, does the operation of this boy- 
cott deprive the ultimate customer of any right of free choice that he 
ordinarily would have in our free economy ? 

Mr. Sawyer. Yes, I definitely think it does, Senator. As pointed 
out in the statement where Mr. Whitington, of the Kasch Roofing Co., 
was told by a business agent that it would be better for him to break 
his contract with a customer in which the contractor or in which the 
customer had stated that certain products were to be used — it would 
be better to break that contract with the customer than to break his 
standard form of agreement with the Sheet Metal Union. 

In other words, they are not giving any recognition to what the 
public might want, but only what they want. 

Senator Curtis. In other words, if the boycott is continued and is 
to be successful from the standpoint of the Sheet Metal Workers 
Union, it definitely narrows the choice of merchandise available to 
customers ; is that right ? 

Mr. Sawyer. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And definitely in the long run, and no doubt in the 
short run too, that tends to raise prices rather than lower them. The 
more narrow the competition becomes, that is true; isn't that correct? 

Mr. Sawyer. That is correct, sir, and in fact if it was narrowed 
down to the point that if every ventilator or manufacturer in the 
United States was forced into the Sheet Metal Workers Union, it is 
not only probable but possible that prices could be controlled. 

Senator Curtis. As has been clearly pointed out here, it is a juris- 
dictional dispute and not a complaint of workers themselves by 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EN THE LABOR FIELD 15433 

reason of what they might determine substandard wages or working 
conditions. That issue is not involved at all, is it % 

Mr. Sawyer. No, Senator. The members in our local union, and 
our plant, have publicly and otherwise stated that they are very 
satisfied with the contract which they have with Burt Manufacturing 
Co., and that they do not want to change their affiliation, and they are 
very satisfied with the Steelworkers International Union. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Sawyer, I want to ask you a question or two 
that you may wish to let your counsel answer, or you may wish to 
advise with him. 

Keferring to this standard form of agreement that has been inserted 
in contracts, that has been likened to the "hot cargo" clause in the 
transportation industry, would such a contract that did not involve a 
labor organization but was merely between management, be lawful? 

(At this point, the witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Curtis. You may answer if you wish. 

Mr. Rabe. In my opinion definitely it would be unlawful, because 
it would be in restraint of trade, as long as it is an employer or business 
organization rather than a union. 

Senator Erven. If I may interrupt you on the same point, also if it 
was by transportation companies which happened to be common 
carriers, it would offend the common law or principle that a common 
carrier has to take and transport the goods of everybody without any 
distinction as long as they have the facilities, wouldn't it % 

Mr. Rabe. That is definitely true. I happen to know that person- 
ally because we represent some trucking companies who have had that 
same problem with the "hot cargo" clause. 

Senator Curtis. My own feeling in all of these matters of practices 
and invested powers, and so on, is that labor organizations should 
not be singled out for punitive legislation but that we should adhere 
to the principal of equality before them all. What is lawful for one 
group to do should be a privilege extended to all groups and vice 
versa, what is prohibited should be prohibited. 

In this boycott involving the Burt Manufacturing Co., I am think- 
ing of what you recited about the problem in the New York area. 
It has in a sense constituted an interference with interstate commerce, 
hasn't it ? 

Mr. Sawyer. I think so, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Now, referring to page 29 of your statement, you 
list certain loopholes or suggestions for changes in the law. Is it your 
opinion that corrective legislation ought to be enacted even though 
in your particular case the injunction now pending should become 
permanent and your case would be solved ? 

That still would not solve the problem generally as it affects a lot 
of people over the country, isn't that true ? 

Mr. Sawyer. Senator Curtis, the Burt Manufacturing Co. has had 
a serious problem. However, there are many, many other companies 
throughout the United States that are having this same problem 
day in and day out, sir. Even though the Burt Manufacturing Co. 
should get a permanent restraining order from the National Labor 
Relations Board, it does not solve the problems of all of these other 
companies. 

They should also have protection. 



15434 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. And likewise, if the current labor leaders, all fac- 
tions, would come to an agreement that would end in a solution for 
Burt Manufacturing Co., that would not solve the problem because 
by reason of retirement and determination and resignations and so 
on we do not know who the labor leaders will be 2 years from now, 
or 5 years from now, or in the future; isn't that correct? 

Mr. Sawyer. That is a very important fact, Senator. 

Senator Curtis. Now, referring to the specific suggestions on page 
28, I might ask your attorney this question : Are you familiar with 
the measure that has been pending in the current Congress, S. 76, 
about secondary boycotts ? 

Mr. Sawyer. I have read it, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Counsel, have you read it ? 

Mr. Rabe. Not recently, but I have read it. 

Senator Curtis. In reference to your first point that employers be 
included on the same basis as employees, that is definitely covered in 
the bill? 

Mr. Sawyer. Yes, I know it is. 

Senator Curtis. In reference to your third point, making the boy- 
cott unlawful whether it be one caused by the act of a single employee 
instead of the acts of two or more employees, is required because of 
the present act. This problem is also taken care of in S. 76. 

The present law, as I recall, uses the term "concerted action." That, 
of course, requires more than one person. Sometimes one key indi- 
vidual can be the object of the pressure, and so far as all practical 
purposes it has the same effect as concerted action; isn't that correct? 

Mr. Sawyer. That is correct. Just as an example, the foreman or 
the steward on a job is told by the business agent that he is not to 
permit the installation of the Burt equipment. Since he is the one 
that gives the orders, he just does not give the orders and that is just 
as effective as if he had told two or more of the workmen not to install 
or handle the equipment. 

Because they told one key employee, then it is not a violation 
according to the present interpretation. 

Senator Curtis. Now, point No. 4 is as follows : 

Do not permit either the union or the employer to legitimatize a 
boycott by contracts such as the standard form of agreement of the 
Sheet Metal Union, or as the "hot cargo" clause in other union con- 
tracts would do. 

S. 76 covers that point. We have language in there where it makes 
these acts unlawful notwithstanding a provision in a collective bar- 
gaining agreement, which I believe would be broad enough to take 
care of it. 

Now coming back to point No. 2, you suggest plugging the loop- 
hole which now permits the boycott by the union by preventing 
workmen from accepting work for the secondary employer or by 
failing or refusing to supply workmen for the purpose of carrying 
out the boycott. 

I believe S. 76 takes care of that. At the moment I am not pre- 
pared to cite the particular language we have in there. However, I 
am inclined to think that it does take care of that. If not, further 
attention will be given to it. 

It is your opinion, speaking as a citizen interested in our econonry 
generally, that even though your case might be settled either by in- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15435 

junction or by agreement of labor leaders and business leaders, for the 
good of our economy as a whole and the interest of workers situated 
such as yourself and businessmen, some legislation ought to be 
enacted. 

Mr. Sawyer. Definitely. 

Senator Curtis. You mentioned that your loss in sales probably 
ran around $500,000 a year. About how many people do you employ ? 
Mr. Sawyer. Approximately 150. 

Senator Curtis. A sizable portion of that $500,000 in sales, had 
you had that business, would be reflected back in wages in your 
locality? . 

Mr. Sawyer. Plus increased employment. We feel during the last 
several years that our company should have grown considerably, but 
we have been unable to expand because of this harassment. 

Senator Curtis. I know it would be a guess or an estimate, but 
would you put that guess that you probably would have taken on 50 
more employees or another 100 employees, or perhaps doubled? 
Mr. Sawyer. We believe so, sir. 

Senator Curtis. What is your opinion, based upon your intimate 
knowledge of these transactions, not on the ultimate consuming public 
but upon the businessmen who handled your products. You sell 
through jobbers, do you, or how do you sell ? 

Mr. Sawyer. We sell through manufacturers' representatives direct 
to the subcontractors, or the owners. 

Senator Curtis. So your customers are contractors ? 
Mr. Sawyer. Yes, sir; and we sell through what we call manufac- 
turers' representatives. 

Senator Curtis. Do you think that your customers have suffered? 
Mr. Sawyer. I believe that they have, sir. 
Senator Curtis. In what way ? 

Mr. Sawyer. I know they have suffered by the holdup and the 
delays on these various jobs. 

Senator Curtis. And just as the ultimate consumer who must pay 
for the building has his choice restricted under a practice that can 
only lead to higher prices, your direct consumer likewise has his 
choice restricted, too ; doesn't he ? 
Mr. Sawyer. Yes, sir. 

(At this point, members of the committee present are: Senators 
Ervin and Curtis.) 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I think that is all. I am going to 
make a request that is a little bit different from some of our other pro- 
ceedings because this secondary boycott does involve a legal question. 
I ask unanimous consent that at this point a copy of S. 76 may be 
printed in our record. 

Senator Erven. It will be included at this point. 
(S. 76 is as follows:) 

[S. 76, 85th Cong., 1st sess.] 

A BILL To amend the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended and for other 

purposes 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled, That the Labor Management Relations Act, 
1947, as amended, is hereby further amended as follows : 

(a) Section 8(b) (4) of title I of such Act is amended to read as follows: 
"(4) To exert, attempt to exert, or threaten to exert (regardless of the pro- 
visions in any collective bargaining or other contract) against an employer, or 



15436 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

employees of an employer, economic or any other type of coercion, by picketing 
or by any other means, where an object thereof is — 

"(A) causing or attempting to cause any employer or self-employed per- 
son to join any labor or employer organization ; 

"(B) causing or attempting to cause an employer or other person to cease 
doing business with any other person ; 

"(C) causing or attempting to cause any other employer to recognize or 
bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees 
unless such labor organization has been certified as the representative of 
such employees under the provision of section 9 ; 

"(D) causing or attempting to cause any employer to interfere with his 
his employees' right to join or refrain from joining a labor organization as 
set forth in section 7 ; 

"(E) causing or attempting to cause employees to join or refuse to join 
a labor organization except as provided in the first proviso to section 
8(a)(3) ; 

"(F) causing or attempting to cause any employer to assign particular 
work to employees in a particular labor organization or in a particular 
trade, craft, or class rather than to employees in another labor organization 
or in another trade, craft, or class, unless such employer is failing to con- 
form to an order or certification of the Board determining the bargaining 
representative for employees performing such work : Provided, That noth- 
ing contained in subsection (b) shall be construed to make unlawful a re- 
fusal by any person to enter upon the premises of any employer (other than 
his own employer), if the employees of such employer are engaged in a 
strike ratified or approved by a representative of such employees whom 
such employer is required to recognize under this Act : ". 

(b) Section 10(1) of title I of such Act is amended by striking out the first 
sentence and inserting in lieu thereof the following : "Whenever it is charged 
that any person has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of 
paragraph (4) (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), or (F) of section 8(b), the preliminary 
investigation of such charge shall be made forthwith and given priority over 
all other cases except cases of like character in the office where it is filed or to 
which it is referred." 

(c) Section 303 of title 3 of such Act is amended to read as follows : "Who- 
ever shall be injured in his business or property by reason of any act or acts 
which are made an unfair labor practice under section 8(b) (4) of the National 
Labor Relations Act, as amended, may sue therefor in any district court of the 
United States subject to the limitations and provisions of section 301 of this 
Act without respect to the amount in controversy, or in any other court having 
jurisdiction of the parties, and shall recover the damages by him sustained and 
cost of the suit." 

Senator Ervin. At this point I will ask Mr. Sawyer if he can 
identify this document. It apparently purports to be a blank printed 
copy of the standard form of union agreement used by the Sheet 
Metal Union and mentioned by you in the course of your testimony. 

Mr. Sawyer. This is the standard form of union agreement, Sen- 
ator, that is used by the Sheet Metal Workers Union with their sheet 
metal contractors. 

Senator Ervin. That will be marked as exhibit No. 4 and placed 
in the record. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 4" for ref- 
erence and may be found in the files of the select committee. ) 

Senator Ervin. I would judge from your statement about Mr. 
Meany's effort to settle this jurisdictional dispute between these two 
unions, that you can say about his job like Jehovah said about his 
job in "Green Pastures" : that being Jehovah is no bed of roses. 

Mr. Sawyer. No, sir; it definitely is not. 

Senator Ervin. The committee wants to thank you for appearing 
before us and giving us this information. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15437 

Mr Rabe. I wonder, Senator, if I might add one remark. The 
question was raised by Senator Curtis as to the solution for the Burt 
problem within the AFL-CIO, if that would be effective to help 
others, and I might say that Mr. Meany and the AFL-CIO Executive 
Council in considering the Burt boycott have specifically said that in 
their consideration and their treatment of it, it applies only to the 
Burt Manufacturing Co. and to no other company that might be m 

a %rsiwYE?H°owever, originally I would like to say that the Burt 
Manufacturing Co. case was the first case to be presented to the 
merged federation after its formation m December of 1955 and 
shortly thereafter, after we started getting some relief through the 
merged federation, other companies also started submitting their 
complaints to the federation for relief. 

At that time Mr. Meany stated that the Burt case would be the 
precedent established for the settlement of all other cases. However, 
after he visited our plant on February 18, 1957, and then issued his 
letter to the Sheet Metal Workers to cease and desist m April of 1957, 
then he, as stated by Mr. Rabe, said that it applied only to the Burt 
case because, as I understand it-he didn't state m the letter— because 
of the jurisdictional fight going on between the building trades de- 
partment and the industrial union department of the merged 

e Sen a ator*ERViN. Did the Sheet Metal Union at any time ask for 
an election to give your employees an opportunity to see whether 
they preferred it to be bargaining representative in preference to the 
United Steel Workers? 

Mr. Sawyer. They have never requested an election, feenator. 

Senator Ervin. Thank you, gentlemen. 

Call your next witness. , , 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. William Frost, Mr. Chairman, accompanied 

by his counsel. , 

Senator Ervin. Do you solemnly swear that the evidence given be- 
fore this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM 0. FROST, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 

MORTIMER RIEMER 

Mr. Frost. I do. . 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Frost, will you give us your full name and 
your occupation and your residence for the record ? 

Mr. Frost. William O. Frost. I live at 5923 Oxford Avenue, 
Akron, Ohio. 

Senator Ervin. Are you represented by counsel « 

AIt* Frost Yes. 

Senator Ervin. Will counsel please identify himself for the record? 

Mr Riemer. My name is Mortimer Riemer. I live at 3721 
Meadowbrook Boulevard, Cleveland, Ohio. I am a member of the 
Ohio bar and the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Frost, the chairman has been advised that you 
have not been entirely well lately and if at any time you want to rest 
just let us know and we will try to treat you with every consideration. 

21243— of) — i>t. 41 6 



15438 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Frost. Thank you. 

Senator Ervin. Proceed, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I believe Mr. Frost has a prepared 
statement that he has submitted in accordance with the rule. 

Senator Ervin. Do you desire to present your statement first? 

Mr. Frost. Yes. 

Senator Ervin. You may proceed. At any time you feel indisposed 
we will try to relieve you from testifying temporarily. 

Mr. Frost. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name 
is William O. Frost and I am the business manager of Sheet Metal 
Workers Local Union No. 70 of Akron, Ohio, an affiliate of the Sheet 
Metal Workers International Association, AFL-CIO. 

I appear before your committee today to testify about the Burt 
Manufacturing Co. of Akron, Ohio, as part of this committee's in- 
quiry into the problems of alleged boycotts. 

My local union is a small one of about 800 members. The interna- 
tional union is a union of skilled craftsmen, with about 100,000 mem- 
bers throughout the United States. It is one of the few unions whose 
members install what they fabricate. This is not a case of a giant 
union trying to harass and ruin a small employer. On the contrary 
it is a case of a small union trying to protect the legitimate interests 
of its members and to enhance and increase the work opportunities 
of those employees that it represents, in the fabrication, assembly, and 
installation of sheet-metal products. 

It is important to outline the background of the relations between 
the union and the Burt Manufacturing Co. The sheet-metal worker 
is a skilled mechanic. It takes at least 4 years of related on-the-job 
training to produce a reasonably skilled metalworker. 

But learning never ceases, and modern technological changes place 
additional burdens upon our members to increase their skills and 
adaptability. The demand for skilled workers is ever increasing. It 
has been estimated, for example, that for every 100 skilled craftsmen 
in 1955, we will need 124 in 1965. 

Today sheet-metal workers are called upon to fabricate and as- 
semble aircraft, missile and propulsion systems, wind tunnels, and a 
whole host and variety of modern complicated products. It is the 
job of the union to help produce the mechanics and draftsmen who 
do this. We do it through apprentice training programs licensed 
by local, State, and Federal agencies. Having produced a skilled 
craftsman, we cannot keep men in the trade unless the union is in a 
position to give some assurance that with the acquisition of skill will 
go reasonable guarantee of steady employment. No useful purpose 
is served to train a man who cannot be employed. 

The work of a sheet-metal worker in the past has been subject to 
seasonal unemployment. About 45 percent of our members are em- 
ployed in fabrication of sheet-metal products. Late fall until early 
spring was a period of unemployment for the 55 percent who worked 
on installation of those items. Over a long period of time there 
evolved the concept that the union had to become a union of crafts- 
men and not simply one of workers who would install products that 
were fabricated or made by others. 

In other words, what a sheet-metal worker undertook to install on 
any job, he also would fabricate and assemble. This meant that the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15439 

union would do more than furnish men at a labor rate to install sheet- 
metal products It meant in a positive way that the contractor would 
n?t onwlnsta 1 sheet-metal products but would fabricate and assem- 
ble what he contracted to install using sheet-metal workers to do all 

^TwSore, by contract with the sheet-metal contractor the union 
endeavors to d<?a total job of manufacturing, fabncatmg assembling, 
and installing sheet-metal products and where possible the work in- 
cludes all of these various steps or processes. 

As a result the sheet-metal contractor is able to provide subject to 
some fluSwof course, some semblance of year-ayonnd employ- 
ment because what he now installs are those products that he has 
Ssembled a S n e d fabricated in his own shop during that period of the 
„ D „ r w hen construction might not be possible. . 

7 Unde tS jurisdictional award that has been given to the 
international union covering the fabrication of sheet-metal products 
w^b orovide in our agreement with employers that it shall cover rates 
oToav and other working conditions pertaining to the manufacture 
f abrtation assembly, and installation of sheet-metal products and 
lar^e"e^en^skilled craftsmen, and apprentices will be em- 

Pl °T y he d empCers-c^gnize that the agreement not only protects the 

emoWs but helps the contractors as well. The agreement covers 

KS"s P well as the manufacture fabrication, and assem- 

blLg of sheet-metal products. It protects the employees because it 

^L^or^SSSlied under union conditions has been man 
ufacturld fabricated, and assembled under union conditions. Thus, 
the union tries to reverse the trend from a seasonal occupation of in- 
stallation craftsmen, when weather permits, to a year-around occu- 
bation no "totally dependent upon weather conditions. We can say 
E Kren ice that we have a trade which gives him the status of 
a sMM P c^sma^ and meets the demands of modern industry for 
the products it is called upon to produce. 

In the light of this background let us look into the Burt Manu 
factoring cfo., case a little more closely. Burt has been in business in 
Ikron for about 64 years. It manufactures ventilators, exhaust heads 
louvers, and other articles. Its products are similar in many respects 
to tiToM produced by employers under contract with the union. 

For more than 50 years Burt operated without any union. In 1941 
or 1942 Burt employees, dissatisfied with their working conditions, 
came to us and asked for organization. At that time their average 

hourlv wage rate was about 57 V2 cents an h ? ur - • . • w „ „o 

The Campaign of the union met with vigorous opposition. Wage 
increases wereVven to the employees, they lost interest m the union 
submitted to Burt's pressure, and nothing was accomplished in the 
1 ine of organization. In 1943, Burt employees again expressed an in- 
terest in the union. One of their principal complaints was their low 
hourlv rate. Conferences were held between union representatives and 
officials of the Burt Manufacturing Co., but a major stumbling block 
to agreement was Burt's low average hourly rate of pay and a refusal 
on the part of Burt to train apprentices. 

This dissatisfaction resulted eventually 111 1945, in the organization 
of the plant by the United Steel Workers. At that time the average 



15440 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

hourly rate was about half that being paid in the sheet-metal shops 
represented by my union. Our members were receiving a minimum of 
$1.67^2 cents per hour. Today the hourly rate of an employee in our 
shops is $3.54 plus 10 cents welfare per hour. 

Apprentices in the first half of their first year receive 50 percent 
of this hourly rate ; and in the last half of their fourth year, 90 percent 
of the rate. The ratio of apprentices to journeymen is one apprentice 
to four journeymen. The average rate being paid today by Burt 
Manufacturing Co., will show, I believe, upon investigation to be 
about $2.10 per hour. Thus, it is apparent that Burt enjoys a tremen- 
dous competitive advantage because of its wage rates over union shops, 
manufacturing or fabricating a similar line of sheet-metal products. 

This gross inequity will have the ultimate effect of turning our 
members into routine mechanics unable to produce products required 
by modern industry and seal off the job opportunity for the employ- 
ment of new men who seek to enter the field. 

The law, however, places definite limitations on the union. It can- 
not without risk and the possibility of a damage suit induce or encour- 
age the employees that we represent and employed by some other 
employer to refuse to install or handle or work upon Burt products. 
The law does permit the union to discuss these problems with our 
employers. In a competitive economy where we are trying to maintain 
stability of employment for our own members we are prevented by 
law from encouraging employees to exercise legitimate economic pro- 
tests against the use of Burt products. 

Burt, with the vast advantage the law gives it, as well as the ad- 
vantage which follows from the low hourly wage rates that it pays 
its employees, has a superior economic position in competition against 
union contractors. Burt produces its products, sells them in the com- 
petitive market, and then asks employers under contract with the 
union to install what it produces when our employers can manufac- 
ture, assemble, install the same or similar products. As a result, 
contractors would merely sell the labor of skilled craftsmen and be 
denied the opportunity of manufacturing and assembling the products 
that Burt insists it install. 

If this situation is permitted to continue, the union faces gradual but 
inevitable decline to a point where it will be a source of supply for 
workers to install sheet-metal products that have been made under 
adverse conditions by other employees working for other employers. 
We ask only that we be permitted to make every effort that the law 
will allow to protect our jurisdiction to keep the employment of our 
members steady, train apprentices, and encourage young men to enter 
the industry. 

In order to do this, however, we ask that employers who are under 
contract with the union live up to the terms and conditions of that con- 
tract. The union has the right to protect its own claim to work by 
insisting legally that employers under contract with it comply with 
the terms of their agreements and give the work covered by the agree- 
ment to employees represented by local No. 70. 

This union is not engaging in a secondary boycott against any of 
Burt's products or any other employer. It is not striking Burt nor at- 
tempting to force its employees out on strike. The union is not at- 
tempting to organize Burt employees. We have given assurance to 
President George Meany that this would not be undertaken and it has 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15441 

not been undertaken. Local No. TO, moreover, has not struck to en- 
force its contract with its employers. It has confined itself solely in 
its relations with signatory employers to legitimate efforts to make 
those employers comply with the terms of their agreements with the 
local union. . . . 

Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, unfair competition 
among employers, based upon lower wage rates to employees, tends to 
destroy the working conditions and wage standards of all employees. 
Frequently, we find ourselves in the unfortunate position of being 
criticized for inability to extend union conditions in the industry. 
We have a duty to protect those employers and to pledge contractually 
in accordance with the law that we will do everything within our 
power to obtain uniform wage and working conditions in the sheet- 
metal industry. Although Burt would have it appear that it is the 
employer suffering the hardship, this committee cannot ignore those 
employers who are in agreement with this union and who have every 
right to perforin the work which is now denied to them by the unfair 
competition of Burt. 

Thus, I think it is apparent, Mr. Chairman and members of the com- 
mittee, that the action of our union with respect to Burt is just one 
aspect of an honorable effort of a responsible craft union to protect 
wage standards and working conditions. Indeed, the union can do no 
less if it is to be worthy of the trust imposed in it by its members and 
the employees it is privileged to represent. 

Mr. Kennedy. I just want to ask you about these wage rates on 
page 4 that were mentioned here. You say : 

The average rate being paid today by Burt Manufacturing Co. will show, I 
believe, upon investigation to be about $2.10 per hour. 

What would the journeyman rate be at the Burt Manufacturing Co.? 

Mr. Frost. That is the overall picture. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are comparing it here to journeymen in the 
Sheet Metal Workers Union. What would the journeymen at the Burt 
Manufacturing Co. be paid? 

Mr. Frost. That $2.20 rate would be the average. 

Mr. Kennedy. Everybody employed by the Burt Manufacturing 
Co.? 

Mr. Frost. Yes. There would be some higher. As far as we could 
determine, that is about the average. 

Mr. Kennedy. Does that include the janitor and everybody ? 

Mr. Frost. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think it would be better if we could get a compari- 
son of those who are actually employed at Burt Manufacturing Co. 
who do the same work as the people who are members of the Sheet 
Metal Workers Union. That would be a more accurate comparison 
than just a comparison of the $3.54 an hour that Sheet Metal Workers 
employees get and an average of what everybody gets at Burt Manu- 
facturing Co. Maybe you can get that information and give it this 
afternoon if you don't have it now. 

Mr. Frost. I might state that we took a man at Burt that was get- 
ting 70 cents an hour in 1942, and he came over to our local and joined 
it and he went to work for $1.40 an hour and just doubled his wages 
from what he was receiving at the Burt Manufacturing Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. That would not necessarily show. We will have to 
get the accurate figures at this time unless you have them here. I 



15442 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

understand from talking to some of the other witnesses that the em- 
ployees receive a considerably higher figure than $2.10. 

Mr. Riemer. Mr. Kennedy, I do have a job classification chart of the 
Burt contract with the United Steelworkers effective June 3, 1957, 
which contains all of their rates. Since then the contract has been 
amended and there has been an additional wage increase, I think, of 
12.5 cents per hour. I will be glad to submit that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you submit that to the chairman ? 

Mr. Riemer. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. We are going to have a representative from the 
Steelworkers Union testify and maybe he would put more information 
in the record on it. 

Senator Erven. You say this is not the prevailing rate at the Burt 
Manufacturing Co. This has been changed since then ? 

Mr. Riemer. There have been increases, as I understand it, Mr. 
Chairman, of 12.5 cents an hour. 

Senator Ervin. How did you get this ? 

Mr. Riemer. That is a photostat of an exhibit introduced in the 
district court proceeding or in the trial before the trial examiner of 
the National Labor Relations Board. I don't know which proceeding 
it came from. 

Senator Ervin. Introduced by whom ; do you know ? 

Mr. Riemer. I can't answer that question. It was introduced by 
the Board or General Counsel. 

Senator Ervin. All I want to do is to be sure that it is identified. 

Mr. Riemer. It is authentic, sir. 

Senator Ervin. This is supposed to be the rates agreed on by the 
United Steelworkers Union ? 

Mr. Riemer. Sir, those are the rates contained in the 1957 contract 
between the United Steelworkers and Burt Manufacturing Co. 

Senator Ervin. And offered in evidence in the injunction hearing? 

Mr. Riemer. I believe, sir, it was offered in evidence in the Labor 
Board case. It was not pertinent, probably, in the district court pro- 
ceeding. 

Senator Erven. I will withhold ruling on it until we have an oppor- 
tunity to go into it. If I understand your paper right, you take the 
position that the Sheet Metal Union has a right to organize both the 
fabricators and what I would call the installers of sheet-metal prod- 
ucts? 

Mr. Frost. Mr. Chairman, our trade is a trade that we take the jot) 
from the blueprints and from the sheet — sheet-metal sheets — and we 
lay it out, we have our draftsmen, and a lot of our work has to be 
tailored, made specific to a job. We don't only erect but we do fabricate. 
All our shops fabricate. 

Senator Ervin. That is the point I was trying to make : You take the 
position that your union should organize both those who fabricate 
sheet-metal work and those who install it ? 

Mr. Frost. Yes. Any time our employer gives part of our work 
away our members lose that amount of work. 

Senator Erven. Your ultimate objective of your union, therefore, is 
to try to get a monopoly as bargaining agent for those who fabricate 
as well as those who install ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 15443 

Mr. Frost. We want employment. When we get a contract in one 
of our shops to do work, we feel that members of our union have a 
right to perform it. 

Senator Ervin. That is your objective. That is the objective of 
your union ? 

Mr. Frost. Yes ; to perform that work on the contract. There is no 
monopoly on that, as far as that goes. 

Senator Ervin. I am not an expert in this field. I would assume, 
though, that the working hours of those who install sheet-metal work 
are dependent to some substantial degree upon weather conditions; 
aren't they ? 

Mr. Frost. A lot of our work is dependent on weather conditions. 

Senator Ervin. And those who work purely in fabricating sheet 
metal products work under circumstances where they are protected 
from the weather ? 

Mr. Frost. That is true. Also on a lot of bad days where our shop 
has the fabrication our men go into the shop and work in the shop on 
bad days when they can't work outside. 

Senator Ervin. That is not true in all instances, is it? There is a 
great deal of loss of time due to weather by those who install sheet 
metal products? 

Mr. Frost. Yes. 

There is a loss of time on outside work. 

Senator Ervin. They should be paid higher than those who have a 
steady job to meet both ends, isn't that true ? 

Mr. Frost. That is true. 

Senator Ervin. The hourly rate of those who install is ordinarily 
in the very nature of things higher than those who fabricate ? 

Mr. Frost. That is true. Years ago when I worked at the trade our 
shop sometime would build up to maybe 100 to 125 men in the summer- 
time in good weather. We would drop down to maybe 30 men in the 
wintertime. 

I made thousands of these ventilators myself. We made them dur- 
ing the winter and we put them in stock. So when a job would be 
available we would have them already made. That used to be our 
winter's work. If we had not fabricated we would have lost a lot 
more time than we did. 

Senator Ervin. It is readily understandable that if your union had 
a complete monopoly of both it would have more jobs at its disposal. 
That stands to reason. The thing that troubles me from the evidence 
I have heard here is — the evidence that has been offered on behalf 
of the Burt Manufacturing Co. — would indicate that your union 
failed to pursue the methods by law to become the bargaining agent 
of those who work for the Burt Manufacturing Co. 

Did your union ever seek to obtain a National Labor Eelations 
Board supervised election to give the employees of the Burt Manu- 
facturing Co. an opportunity to say whether they preferred the Sheet 
Metal Union to the United Steelworkers ? 

Mr. Frost. We had 63 of the Burt's employees signed to an applica- 
tion in about 1941 or 1942 out of 80 employees. At that time after 
three or four meetings with the Burt Manufacturing Co. there was 
an increase granted to the boys and then they lost interest. 



15444 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ervin. That has been 17 years ago; 16 or 17 years. Is 
there any time in the last 16 or 17 years that the Sheet Metal Union 
attempted to obtain representative election to give the employees of 
the Burt Manufacturing Co. an opportunity to say whether they 
preferred them to the United Steelworkers ? 

Mr. Frost. We have never contacted Burt employees ever since 
they joined the Steelworkers. We never contacted them and had 
any talk or anything like that with them, toward representing them. 
We realized when the Steelworkers went in there as a union that they 
had a right to represent them. 

Senator Ervin. I believe you admitted that your union had boy- 
cotted the use of products of the Burt Manufacturing Co., did you not? 

Mr. Riemer. I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman. I don't think the 
witness has admitted a boycott. 

Senator Ervin. Let us put it another way. You have admitted 
that your union undertook to discourage a third person from using 
the products of the Burt Manufacturing Co., if I understood you 
right? 

Mr. Frost. We only asked our contractors to live up to our agree- 
ment, and that is to manufacture and fabricate the material we were 
using on the job. It might have been one company or it might have 
been a dozen companies. We have always asked our employers to 
manufacture everything they could within reason with our boys that 
belonged to the union. 

Senator Ervin. In the course of those conversations did you inform 
them that the Burt Manufacturing Co. did not employ the members 
of your union to fabricate their products. 

Mr. Frost. We always asked them to live up to our agreement. 

Senator Ervin. Did you ever talk about the Burt Manufacturing 
Co. by name and make a request of the contractors ? 

Mr. Frost. More than likely once in a while Burt would be dis- 
cussed just as other ventilators. 

Senator Ervin. I am trying to get a very plain and simple answer. 
Your union — as actively attempted to persuade contractors who 
install sheet metal products and users of such products from using 
such products manufactured by the Burt Manufacturing Co., have 
you not ? 

Mr. Frost. Yes. 

Senator Ervin. And your ultimate object in that activity has been 
to obtain representation or become the bargaining agent of the work- 
ers of the Burt Manufacturing Co. ? 

Mr. Frost. No. We wasn't interested except only having our con- 
tractors live up to our standard form of union agreement. 

Senator Ervin. You don't mean that you wanted to put the Burt 
Manufacturing Co. at a disadvantage economically and had no 
objective whatever in view? 

Mr. Frost. No. It was the idea of getting work for our members. 
That is what we wanted the work for. It might have been a dozen, 
as I say, different products. 

Senator Ervin. Was your object merely to keep the people who 
worked for the Burt Manufacturing Co. from having any work to do ? 

Mr. Frost. No. It was the idea of getting our contractors to live 
up to the agreement they had with our union. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 15445 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Frost, are you telling the committee that you 
were not interested in anyway in your union becoming the bargaining 
representative of those who worked at the Burt Manufacturing Co. ? 

Mr. Frost. No. I was not interested in representing the Burt 
Manufacturing Co. employees. 

Senator Ervin. You didn't even want them to join your union? 
Is that what you are telling this committee ? 

Mr. Frost. I had tried in 1941 and 1942 and I failed and from that 
day on when they went to the Steelworkers we forgot about them 
altogether. It was their privilege to belong to whatever union they 
wanted to. We did not interfere. We only wanted to get our con- 
tractors to live up to our standard form of agreement. 

Hundreds of times there would be different articles that our shops 
could make, and we also tried to get them to perform that work with 
our members. That was my duty as the agent representing the union. 

Senator Ervin. If I understand the English language, you are stat- 
ing positively that after 1941 and 1942 your union was not doing any- 
thing whatever to become the bargaining agent and had no desire to 
become the bargaining agent of the employees of the Burt Manufac- 
turing Co. 

Mr. Frost. That is right. 

Senator Ervin. Your sole objective, then, was to put the Burt Manu- 
facturing Co. employees out of the job ? 

Mr. Frost. No ; we were trying to keep our own men employed. 

Senator Ervin. In practical effect, you did not desire to represent 
the employees of the Burt Manufacturing Co., but you merely desired 
to persuade the public not to use any products that were manufac- 
tured by them ? 

Mr. Frost. We were only trying to get work, as I say, and get our 
contractors to comply with our union agreement. If Burt wanted 
to have the Steelworkers in there, that was their business. If the 
boys wanted to belong to the Steelworkers, that was their business. 
It wasn't ours. We were powerless. They didn't come to us and we 
didn't go to them. 

Senator Ervin. All your interest was to get the monopoly on the 
work for your men in that industry and anybody that was represented 
by anybody else would just go out of business ? 

Mr. Frost. No. We pick up new contractors right along who sign 
agreements with us. We have no monopoly on our work in Akron. 
There are all kinds of companies that sign agreements with us, and 
we sign them and they go along with us. 

Senator Erven. What was your position in the union with reference 
to Mr. Byron ? Do you know Mr. Byron ? 

Mr. Riemer. Mr. Byron ? 

Senator Ervin. I believe that was the name. 

Mr. Frost. You are referring to our president ? 

Senator Ervin. Yes. He was the president of your overall inter- 
national ? 

Mr. Frost. That is right. 

Senator Ervin. Were you ever present in any conversations that he 
had with officials or representatives of Burt Manufacturing Co. in 
which he said that what he was interested in was getting them to 
recognize your union as the bargaining agent for their employees? 



15446 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Frost. He never anything to me. 

Senator Ervin. You never heard any conversation between the 
president, Mr. Byron, and officials of the Burt Manufacturing Co. to 
the effect ? 

Mr. Frost. No. I was never at any meetings. 

Senator Ervin. So if you had obtained your objective, your objec- 
tive would have prevented the sale of any products of the Burt Manu- 
facturing Co. for no purpose whatever except to get a monopoly of 
the work for the members of your union ? 

Mr. Frost. No ; repeat that, please. 

Senator Ervin. You had no desire at any time for your union to 
become the bargaining agent of the employees of the Burt Manufac- 
turing Co., and your sole objective was to persuade the public to cease 
to use the products of any company whose fabricating employees were 
not represented by your union ? 

Mr. Frost. We have no right to seek any right to represent Burt's 
employees. We knew that. We never tried it. All we ever tried to 
do was the same as any other union does, the Carpenters and all the 
way down the line, try to get work for our members. We all do that. 

Senator Ervin. And take work away from other people ? 

Mr. Frost. Not exactly. Work under the buildings trade, we have 
certain jurisdiction for each trade and each craft, and we try to live 
up to that. This work we feel in the sheet metal field, when we sign 
an agreement and bargain to do that work, all we ask our contractors 
to do and ever did was to live up to the agreement. 

Senator Ervin. All you asked them was to use no products made 
by anybody except those made by men who belonged to your union ? 

Mr. Frost. If they bought that stuff, our men would walk the 
streets. There would have been no work for our men. 

Senator Ervin. In other words, there is not enough work to go 
around ? 

Mr. Frost. There is not enough work today. We have men unem- 
ployed. 

Senator Ervin. And your whole object was that if there was going 
to be a shortage of work to let the employees of other companies not 
represented by your unions suffer the economic effects of a lack of 
employment ? 

Mr. Frost. I have been paid by the Sheet Metal Workers Union to 
represent them, and my duty was to do everything possible to get them 
work. That was my job and I tried to do it. 

Senator Ervin. You were not interested in getting additional mem- 
bers for the Sheet Metal Union ? 

Mr. Frost. Yes. We have taken in a good many members over a 
period of years. 

Senator Erven. But not ones represented by other unions ? 

Mr. Frost. No. We have no right to raid other unions. Whenever 
anybody came and wanted to join our union we were glad to take him 
in. 

Senator Ervin. You do recognize that it is an unfair labor prac- 
tice for a union to attempt to coerce an employer into compelling his 
employees to affiliate with the union, don't you ? 

Mr. Frost. Yes. 

Senator Ervin. That is resort to a boycott for those purposes? 

Mr. Frost. That is right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15447 

Senator Ervin. In other words, you realize that it is a violation of 
the Taft-Hartley law to resort to a boycott to compel recognition of a 
union, don't you ? 

(At this point, the witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Frost. I don't know. I can't answer that. 

Senator Ervin. You don't know that ? 

Mr. Frost. No. 

Mr. Riemer. Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Frost means that it does 
raise certain legal implications and he is not a lawyer and prefers not 
to answer it. I would be glad to answer. 

Senator Ervin. I would think that a man who had his position with 
the local would know that. I find a lot of labor people know a whole 
lot more about the law than I do notwithstanding the fact that I am 
a lawyer and they are labor. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Frost, you concede that the employees of Burt 
are unionized ? 

Mr. Frost. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Do you question in any way that their union was 
properly selected ? 

Mr. Frost. No. 

Senator Curtis. To your knowledge, either directly or indirectly, 
has a suggestion ever been made by anyone connected with your union 
that this controversy with Burt could be settled if the Sheet Metal 
Workers became the representative of the Burt employees? 

Mr. Frost. I don't think that would ever come up. I think they all 
realized that there was no way that Burt's employees could be turned 
over to us. Who could turn them over to us ? There is nobody who 
has that authority. Only themselves. 

Senator Curtis. That was not my question, who could turn them 
over. My question was, to your knowledge have you or anyone else 
connected with the Sheet Metal Workers or anybody else ever made 
the suggestion in any form that this controversy over Burt products 
could have been settled if the Sheet Metal Workers became the bar- 
gaining agent for the Burt's employees ? 

Mr. Frost. I can only speak for myself and the answer is "No." 

Senator Curtis. You never heard that proposition discussed ? 

Mr. Frost. I never heard or would enter into something like that. 
It might have been said at sometime but realizing that nobody would 
have the power to turn them over to us, onlv the employees on a vote 
out in that shop. Nobody would have the right to suggest anything. 

Senator Curtis. I understand that. 

Mr. Frost. It might be a passing remark or something like that. 
But as far as myself is concerned it is "No." 

Senator Curtis. As far as you are concerned, but do you know 
whether or not anybody else ? 

Mr. Frost. That was testified in court. That was brought up in one 
of the meetings we held. I didn't hear it said at that time and I so 
testified in court. I didn't hear the remark made. 

Senator Curtis. Who was alleged to have said it ? 

(At this point, the witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Frost. McKendrick, I believe, of the Steel Workers. I would 
not be sure of that but I believe it was Mr. McKendrick of the Steel 
Workers. 

Senator Curtis. What did he say in substance? 



15448 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Frost. I didn't hear the remark. It was testified that if they 
turned that union over to us that would answer the question or he was 
supposed to have said it. I don't remember because I didn't hear the 
remark made at that time. It was testified that the remark had been 
made during a meeting sometime. 

Senator Curtis. Who had made the remark ? 

Mr. Frost. Mr. McKendrick was supposed to have made it. 

Senator Curtis. Who was Mr. McKendrick ? 

Mr. Frost. He is a representative of the Steel Workers. 

Senator Curtis. But who was he referring to ? 

Mr. Frost. He was supposed to have been speaking to me but wit- 
nesses in the trial said then that I was not talking and I didn't hear it 
made and I didn't answer him. 

Senator Curtis. Your position is confined to your own actions as an 
individual. You are not speaking for anybody else ? 

Mr. Frost. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. You did hear Mr. Sawyer's statement ? You were 
here this morning? 

Mr. Frost. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. You heard his recitation of these various acts 
and transactions that had taken place ? 

Mr. Frost. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Are Burt products — ventilating products — manu- 
factured by different process than the usual process of concerns where 
the sheet-metal workers do manufacturing ? 

Mr. Frost. The sheet-metal shops and the sheet-metal contractors 
cover quite a field. We have some small shops that does furnace 
work. Others that do small work that would not have equipment. 
We have large shops that could manufacture the same as Burt has. 

Senator Curtis. Do both competitive groups use a similar process 
in the manufacturing ? 

Mr. Frost. We have got shops that do, yes. 

Senator Curtis. But in the main, do they? What I am getting 
at, aren't the shops you are speaking of where you have representa- 
tives once that involve more hand labor and less what might be 
referred to as an assembly line production ? 

Mr. Frost. You are right. A lot of our shops are small shops. 
We have not too many large shops in our district. All I can speak 
for is my own district. I don't know. I am not acquainted with 
any other district. Only for my own district, we have got maybe 
half a dozen or so large shops that is capable of manufacturing. A 
large percentage doesn't go in for that type of manufacture. 

Senator Curtis. Those larger shops do not go in for the type of 
manufacturing done at Burt ? 

Mr. Frost. One or two of our shops have ; yes. 

Senator Curtis. Most of them do not ? 

Mr. Frost. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. From the standpoint of the ultimate consumer, 
should he have a right, if he so chooses, to purchase a product made 
by the most efficient and less expensive method whether we are talk- 
ing about automobiles or anything else. 
_ Mr. Frost. We never question the owner's right or the contractor's 
right. But as I said before, we have asked our contractors as much 
as possible to live up to the standard uniform agreement and use our 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15449 

men in the manufacturing. We do find we can compete pretty well 
with any other article put on the market, as far as that goes, at the 

price. 

Senator Curtis. But as consumers, do you concede that the con- 
sumer has a right to have a choice of buying products made by 
various production processes in order for him to buy those products? 

Mr. Frost. Yes ; I think so. 

Senator Curtis. Do you believe that management should be given 
the right to select a particular union for their own employees ? 

Mr. Frost. No; I don't believe so. I think that is wrong. 

Senator Curtis. You would not be in favor of amending the law 
so that the management could pick out the bargaining agent ; would 
you? 

Mr. Frost. No. 

Senator Curtis. You made reference to employee relations with 
the Burt Co. early in the forties. You implied that you thought 
some of their working conditions and wages were substandard. While 
I do not concede that is a material point in this particular matter we 
have under consideration, I would like to ask you, do you contend 
now that the Burt employees are not vigorously and adequately 
represented by a bargaining agent ? 

Mr. Frost. I am not acquainted enough out there to answer that 
question. 

Senator Curtis. How long have you been in the labor field ? 

Mr. Frost. Twenty-some years. 

Senator Curtis. You do not have an opinion whether or not the 
Steel Workers Union does a vigorous and thorough job in represent- 
ing their members? 

Mr. Frost. No ; I am not acquainted with that. I couldn't say one 
way or the other because I am not acquainted with what they are 
doing. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervin. Anyway you would not classify the United Steel- 
workers as a company-dominated union ; would you ? 

Mr. Frost. No. 

Senator Ervin. Counsel, a minute ago you started to say that Mr. 
Frost was a layman when I asked him a question about whether he 
considered a boycott — I am using the word "boycott" in the sense of 
pressure and not what is legal — a boycott which is designed to compel 
recognition of a union as a bargaining agent is illegal under the Taft- 
Hartley law. You said you would give your opinion. I would be 
glad to give you an opportunity to let you do it before we complete 
with Mr. Frost's testimony. 

Mr. Eiemer. Now, sir? 

Senator Ervin. Yes. 

Mr. Riemer. Mr. Chairman, I think under section 8(B) 4(A), if 
the union — let us say Mr. Frost's union — induced employees of an- 
other employer to refuse to handle Burt products, the purpose of that 
inducement being to force a contractor recognition from Burt for Mr. 
Frost's union, that would clearly be a section 8(B) 4(A) violation. 
There is no question about that. I think the decisions of the Board 
and the Board are crystal clear. But we submit that we have never 
done that. 



15450 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ervin. I am going to admit this exhibit that you say was 
offered in the hearing before the trial examiner as exhibit No. 5. 
(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 5" for refer- 
ence and will be found in the appendix on p. 15750.) 

Senator Ervin. We are not so technical in our methods. I believe 
counsel has some questions to ask. 

Mr. Kennedy. Actually the solution for the Burt Manufacturing 
Co. would be to have their bargaining agent of its employees the 
Sheet Metal Workers Union ; isn't that right ? 
Mr. Frost. I don't see how that could be brought about. 
Mr. Kennedy. But that is the solution for them. You say it can't 
be brought about but that is the solution as far as the Burt Manu- 
facturing Co. is concerned. The boycott or whatever you call it the 
pressure would end if that came about. 

Mr. Frost. If Burt was a signer of our agreement it would be a 
different situation, that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Until that occurs your pressure is going to continue ? 
Mr. Frost. No. I would say, Mr. Kennedy, that our sole object is 

that we are fighting everyday 

Mr. Kennedy. You told me you are trying to get work for your 
sheet metal workers. I understand that. Just on this question, the 
pressure to not handle Burt Manufacturing Co. goods is going to 
continue until they have as their representative or the employees have 
as their bargaining representative the Sheet Metal Workers Union « 
Mr. Frost. What I don't like, Mr. Kennedy, is that every job goes 
out. We have a dozen different things specified or maybe they ask 
about, and we try to get the contractor agree that we make the stuff. 
So all the time Burt is not involved. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are not answering the question. I will phrase 
it another way. 

Senator Ervin. If the employees of the Burt Manufacturing Co. 
were some of your boys, then you would not exert any pressure to keep 
people from using products manufactured by them, is that not so ? 

Mr. Frost. If they were members of our union I would be required 
to represent them and fight for them. 

Mr. Kennedy. You are saying that you are not interested in hav- 
ing that come about. The only solution for the Burt Manufacturing 
Co. is to go out of business? 

Mr. Frost. There is no way I can do anything about this. Under 
the law I cannot bother the employees out there. I have to stay away. 
Mr. Kennedy. So what you were trying to do actually was to put 
the Burt Manufacturing Co. out of business because you don't want 
to become the bargaining agent of its employees. You say that is 
illegal. You are going to continue the pressure because of these 
agreements that you have. So therefore what you are trying to do 
is to put the Burt Manufacturing Co. out of business ? 

Mr. Frost. This fight has been going on for 50 years or more. 
Mr. Kennedy. That is fine. Just answer the question. 
Mr. Frost. Burt has been doing pretty well. They are enlarging 
their plant. They are not going out of business. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am not saying that they are going out of busi- 
ness. I am not saying that you will be successful. What you are 
attempting to do from your explanation here before the committee 
is put the Burt Manufacturing Co. out of business. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15451 

Mr. Frost. No. If we are to give up all our fabrication our con- 
tractors are going out of business. It will be such a thing that we 
won't have any sheet-metal job shops. The contractor will buy all 
the stuff. We will become a gang of erectors. We won't need journey- 
man sheet-metal workers. 

Our shops have hundreds of thousands of dollars of investment and 
if we don't use the equipment our shops will go out of business and 
our boys will be on the street. So all we are fighting for is self- 
preservation. . 

Mr. Kennedy. In order to maintain self-preservation the Burt 
Manufacturing Co. must go out of business? 

Mr. Frost. No ; I wouldn't say that. They have been in business 

66 years. . 

Mr. Kennedy. You tell me what the Burt Manufacturing Co. can 
do in order to make peace with you ? 

Mr. Frost. There are a lot of fields that they are continuing to sell 
in and will continue to sell. There are the same as our contractors. 
There are a lot of places we can't work. 

Mr. Kennedy. You want them to go out of business as far as any 
relation with the Sheet Metal Workers are concerned ? 

Mr. Frost. No ; I don't want them to go out of business. I want 
to get a job and get paid for. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tell the committee what the employees of the Burt 
Manufacturing Co. can do ? 

Mr. Frost. I am sorry; I can't answer that question. I don't 
know. 

Mr. Kennedy. The reason that you can't answer the question is 
that there is nothing that they can do that will satisfy you. That is 
the plain fact. 

Mr. Riemer. I don't think, Mr. Kennedy, that is the plain fact. I 
think you are jumping to a conclusion and you are conjecturing. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am asking the witness a question. Can he give me 
an answer? What can the Burt Manufacturing Co. do or what can 
the employees do in order to make peace with the Sheet Metal Work- 
ers Union ? He says he is not interested in becoming their bargain- 
ing agent. The Steel Workers will remain in there. As long as they 
do you will continue the so-called boycotts and the pressure. So 
there is only one solution and it appears to me what you are attempt- 
ing to do is to put them out of business. 

Senator Ervin. It reminds me of a girl who came to me one time to 
get a divorce from her husband. She told me about all his miscon- 
duct. I said, "You must have known him before you married him." 
She said, "Yes." I said, "How long?" She said, "All my life. -We 
lived in the same neighborhood." I said, "Did he behave like this 
before you were married?" She said, "Yes." "What did you marry 
him for?" "He just kept hanging around, and I didn't see any other 
way to get rid of him." 

It seems to me that is the alternative that the Burt employees have. 
If you keep hanging around with this pressure, the only thing they 
can do is to form a marriage with the Sheet Metal Workers. They 
have no other way out. 

Mr. Riemer. Mr. Chairman, there is a comment made on page 10 
of Mr. Sawyer's statement concerning the donation of labor. I 



15452 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

would respectfully request the chairman to address a question to Mr. 
Frost so he can answer that. I submit it is not an accurate statement. 

Senator Ervin. We would be glad for Mr. Frost to make any com- 
ment he may care to. 

Senator Curtis. May I inquire what document you are referring 
to? 

Mr. Riemer. I am referring to page 10 of the statement of Mr. 
Sawyer wherein it is stated that Mr. Frost had the audacity to say 
that since our company had donated the ventilators it should donate 
the labor of installing the ventilators by paying his members for doing 
the work of installation. I would like Mr. Frost to be permitted to 
make a comment with respect to the accuracy of that statement. 

Mr. Frost. That statement is wrong. When we held the meeting 
with Mr. Harding of Akron University he informed me that Burt has 
offered to donate the ventilators to Akron University. I said if they 
would donate the ventilators more than likely the union would donate 
the labor to install it. We did donate. And the Akron University was 
furnished the ventilators free. 

Mr. Kamerick. Mr. Frost, your local 70 has an agreement with the 
Wooster Sheet Metal & Roofing Co. ? 

Mr. Frost. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kamerick. How long has that contract been in effect ? 

Mr. Frost. About 20 or 21 years. 

Mr. Kamerick. It was in effect in December 1956 ? 

Mr. Frost. Yes. 

Mr. Kamerick. You are acquainted with Mr. William F. Rosenblatt, 
a partner in that firm ? 

Mr. Frost. Yes. 

Mr. Kamerick. Did you arrive at an agreement with Mr. Rosen- 
blatt approximately the first of December 1956 ? 

Mr. Frost. Yes. 

Mr. Kamerick. Relating to the use of Burt material ? 

Mr. Frost. Burt was one of the items included in the argument 
we had there that day. 

Mr. Kamerick. Mr. Chairman, we have what purports to be a copy 
of that agreement. Perhaps the witness could identify it. 

Senator Ervin. Perhaps you might examine this paper and see if 
you can identify it as being a copy of the contract? 

Mr. Frost. This is not it. This was given to me and we refused to 
accept it. There is another one later drawn up that we did sign and 
accepted. 

Senator Ervin. You say that is not a copy of the agreement ? 

Mr. Frost. It is not. 

Senator Ervin. That was tendered to you but you declined to agree 
to it ? 

Mr. Frost. Yes. 

Mr. Kamerick. In what respects did the final agreement differ from 
this? 

Mr. Frost. Let me see it again, please ? 

Mr. Kamerick. There are some changes in the middle ? 

Mr. Frost. Yes. We were having an argument with the Wooster 
Sheet Metal over furnace tailings. We asked them to also state in 
here that they would comply with our standard form of union agree- 
ment. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15453 

Mr. Kamerick. They say that, I believe. 

Mr. Frost. This is not the one we signed. There is another one 
where they did say they would comply with the standard form of 
union agreement. 

Mr. Kamerick. Did you mention that they had permission to use 
what Burt material they had on hand in that agreement I 

Mr. Frost. I couldn't recall. I believe it was. There was about 
seven jobs there they had the material for and they said if they were 
allowed to use that they would comply with the agreement in the 
future. They also had a large stock of furnace fittings which we 
agreed they would make with our members from their own. 

Mr. Kamerick. Mr. Chairman, the wording of this agreement is 
as follows : 

The following jobs are permitted to use Burt vents as per the specifications ; 
and therefore there are listed seven jobs, one church, four schools, two com- 
mercial buildings. 

It goes on to say that they have these vents in stock and after they 
have used the Burt stock they have on hand — 

We will further use up our stock of furnace fittings and in the future install 
only AFL manufactured items. 

Is that the substance of your agreement ? 

Mr. Frost. I don't think so. We wouldn't accept that because we 
wanted them to say that they would comply with our union agreement 
in the future and they did. 

Senator Ervin. That says they could use up what they had on hand 
and after that they would comply with AFL products ? 

Mr. Riemer. No, Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt. The agreement 
as presented or the letter as presented was inseparable to Mr. Frost 
because it referred to AFL products. The final revision released some 
jobs and Mr. Kosenblatt of Wooster Sheet Metal then agreed to com- 
ply with the standard form of union agreement. 

Senator Ervin. In other words, that was in effect substituted for 
the reference to AFL ? 

Mr. Riemer. That is right. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Frost, the committee thanks you for appearing 
and testifying and we hope you don't feel any worse from having 
been here. 

Mr. Kiemer. Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted just a word? 
Much of what has been said this morning is in dispute between Mr. 
Sawyer and Mr. Frost and presumably other witnesses that may fol- 
low and I would like to call to this committee's attention this fact. 

That we completed in the spring of 1958 a very extended trial before 
a trial examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and this 
entire subject matter is under review by that trial examiner on al- 
leged violations of the Taft-Hartley Act. We are awaiting that de- 
cision. I would certainly not want anything said here today in any 
way to prejudice either way the decision of the trial examiner be- 
cause that has to be decided on the record made in that trial. 

Senator Ervin. I don't think anything said here would do that. I 
think they would only go by the record before them. 

Mr. Riemer. Thank you, sir. 



21243— 59— pt. 41- 



15454 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ervin. We will make this last letter an exhibit for refer- 
ence only, and will be marked "Exhibit No. 6." That is the agreement 
we have been talking about. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 6" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Frost, you are excused with the understanding 
that we will give you reasonable notice if we need you further. 

The same goes for Mr. Sawyer. 

We will recess now until 2 :30 p.m. 

(Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., Friday, November 14, 1958, the hearing 
recessed to reconvene at 2 :30 p.m., same day.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

(The hearing was resumed at 2:30 p.m., Senator Ervin presiding.) 

Senator Ervin. The committee will be in order. 

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

Senator Ervin. Counsel will call the first witness. 

Mr. Kamerick. We would like to call on Mr. O. L. Garrison. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Garrison, do you solemnly swear that the evi- 
dence you shall give this Senate select committee shall be the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Garrison. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF 0. L. GARRISON, ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 

DAVID E. FELLER 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Garrison, give us your full name and your 
residence and your occupation, for the record, please. 

Mr. Garrison. My name is O. L. Garrison. I am assistant to the 
international president of the United Steelworkers of America, and 
I reside at 1060 South 26th Road, Arlington, Va. 

Senator Ervin. You are represented by counsel, are you ? 

Mr. Garrison. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Counsel, will you please identify yourself for 
the record ? 

Mr. Feller. My name is David Feller. I am associate general 
counsel of the United Steelworkers of America, and my home is at 
7106 Lavrock Lane, in Bethesda, Md., and my office is at 1001 Con- 
necticut Avenue NW, in Washington. 

Mr. Kamerick. How long have you been in your present capacity ? 

Mr. Garrison. I have been in my present position since the merger 
of the AFL-CIO in December of 1955, and prior to that I was as- 
signed to the CIO by the Steelworkers. 

Mr. Kamerick. In your capacity as assistant to the president, are 
you familiar with the general development of the situation we were 
discussing this morning relating to Burt Manufacturing Co. ? 

Mr. Garrison. Yes, sir ; I am. 

Mr. Kamerick. As I understand it, the United Steelworkers of 
America were certified as bargaining agents for Burt in 1945 ; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Garrison. That is right. 

Mr. Kamerick. On October 22, 1945 ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15455 

Mr. Garrison. I believe that is approximately the date. 

Mr. Kamerick. A few days after that, the Steelworkers issued a 
charter to a local to represent the Burt employees ? 

Mr. Garrison. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kamerick. That local is local 1159 ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Garrison. Yes. 

Mr. Kamerick. Did you subsequently sign a contract with the Burt 
Manufacturing Co.? 

Mr. Garrison. Yes. I will have to refer to the exact date. It was 
in 1956 when the contract was signed, along about June of 1956. 

Mr. Kamerick. Do you mean 1946 ? 

Mr. Garrison. Yes, pardon me, it was 1946. 

Mr. Kamerick. The date I have is April 24, 1946. 

Mr. Garrison. I have it in the record, but I didn't recall the exact 
date. 

Mr. Kamerick. To continue with the contract for a moment, you 
had a somewhat revised contract which you signed with the Burt 
firm in 1952? 

Mr. Garrison. Yes. 

Mr. Kamerick. Calling for a union shop ? 

Mr. Garrison. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kamerick. And, as I understand it, the union shop agreement 
is a provision whereby membership in the United Steelworkers is a 
condition of employment. 

Mr. Garrison. That is right. 

Mr. Kamerick. When was this difficulty in Burt of getting their 
products installed first brought to your attention, Mr. Garrison? 

Mr. Garrison. The first time it came to my attention was when I 
went into the Washington office of the Steelworkers in December of 
1955, through a telegram from our district director, Mr. Ohler, to 
President Meany of the AFL-CIO, and to Mr. McDonald, which was 
referred to me. 

Mr. Kamerick. What was the nature of that telegram? 

Mr. Garrison. That the Burt Manufacturing Co. was having diffi- 
culty in having ventilators made by them installed on the Medina High 
School of Medina, Ohio. 

Mr. Kamerick. In inquiring into this, did you learn that this diffi- 
culty had been experienced before ? 

Mr. Garrison. Yes, I learned that it had been going on for some 
time at different intervals, but apparently became more pronounced 
after the merger of the two organizations. 

Mr. Kamerick. That was in December of 1955 ? 

Mr. Garrison. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kamerick. What action did you take when you learned about 
this situation, Mr. Garrison ? 

Mr. Garrison. I got in touch with Al Whitehouse, who is director 
of the Industrial Union Department of the AFL-CIO, and who is also 
a director of the Steelworkers Union in one of our districts. He and 
I went to see Frank Bonadio, who was a member of the Sheet Metal 
Workers, and also secretary of the metal trades department of the 
AFL-CIO, to see what could be done to get the job started. 

Mr. Bonadio went with us to the Hamilton Hotel in Washington 
and introduced us to Mr. Cronin, the vice president of the Sheet 
Metal Workers. This was dealing with another matter. There were 



15456 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

others pending at the time, and we talked to Mr. Cronin about 
the Johnson Motors, which was in his area, and I also contacted, as I 
recall, Mr. McGavin, of Mr. Meany's office, and at different times I 
talked to Mr. Richard Gray, president of the metal trades depart- 
ment, and to various people in attempts to get the different jobs as 
they came to my attention straightened out, so that work could 
proceed. 

Mr. Kamerick. Do you have recollection of a letter early in 1956 
in which the Steelworkers, presumably President McDonald, wrote 
confirming the fact that the Steelworkers did have a contract with 
Burt Manufacturing Co. ? 

Mr. Garrison - . Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kamerick. Could you tell us what occasioned the necessity for 
making such a statement ? 

Mr. Garrison. Well, it was because of the numerous cases that had 
come up where they had refused to install the products manufactured 
in the plant of the Burt Co., which was under contract to our 
organization. 

Mr. Kamerick. Was the allegation made that Burt was, in fact, 
nonunion ? 

Mr. Garrison. It had been so stated in a communication signed by 
Robert Byron, president of the Sheet Metal Workers International 
Association, that he had considered it, or their organization had con- 
sidered Burt Manufacturing Co. nonunion. 

Mr. Kamerick. Do you have that letter immediately at hand? 

Mr. Garrison. I have a copy of Mr. Byron's letter; yes. It is 
addressed to our district director, P. W. Ohler. 

Mr. Kamerick. I believe this is a copy of your letter dated De- 
cember 16, 1955. 

Mr. Garrison. Yes. 

Mr. Kamerick. Would you read that letter, please. 

Mr. Garrison. Yes. [Reading :] 

Dear Mb. Ohleb : We have received copy of your telegram addressed to Presi- 
dent Meany relative to the high school job at Medina, Ohio, where the Burt 
Manufacturing Co. is furnishing sheet metal ventilators. This company has been 
nonunion for our organization for many years and we have tried a number of 
times to organize them but to no avail. We did not know that the Steelworkers 
had an agreement with the Burt Manufacturing Co., so called our business 
representative Frost to release the job. We hope in the near future when your 
agreement with this company expires that, with your help, we may be able to 
put them into our organization where they belong, as our fair contractors can- 
not compete with them. Their scale is at least $1 per hour less than the Sheet 
Metal Workers' scale. 

We hope with the merger that all of us can work together closer to straighten 
out some of the firms which have been giving us a hard time. 

Again, if they used our labor, we know it would increase their business. 

Extending best wishes for the holiday season, I am, 
Fraternally yours, 

Robeet Byron. 

Senator Ervin. That is December 16, 1955 ? 

Mr. Garrison. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And it is written on the letterhead printed with the 
titles "Sheet Metal Workers International Association, 642 Trans- 
portation Building, Washington 6, D. C, Robert Byron, General 
President." 

Mr. Garrison. Yes, sir ; that is right, 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 15457 

Senator Erven. This is a photostatic copy of this letter and I will 
admit this in evidence as exhibit No. 7. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 7" for reference 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 15751.) 

Mr. Kamerick. Did you communicate with Mr. Gray, president 
of the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL- 
CIO on this matter, in August of 1956 ? 

Mr. Garrison. I addressed a letter to Mr. Gray on August the 29, 
1956, after I had various conferences, personal conferences with him. 

Mr. Kamerick. What was the general substance of that letter ? 

Mr. Garrison. Well, it dealt with three instances, the Ford Motor 
Co. at Lima, Ohio, the warehouse of the Army engineers at Columbus, 
Ohio, and a hospital at Louisville, Ky., American Viscose Co., at 
Roanoke, Va., where the sheet metal workers were refusing to install 
equipment made by Burt Manufacturing Co. He had advised me on 
previous personal conferences that he hoped to be able to clear up 
the situation, and I asked him, in the communication to do what he 
could to get the matter straightened out. 

Senator Erven. I wish you would look at this letter I am handing 
you, and see if }'ou can identify that as a copy of the letter that you just 
referred to. 

Mr. Garrison. Yes, sir, it is. 

Senator Erven. This is a Thermo-Fax copy, I believe. 

Mr. Garrison. Yes, sir ; this was made on the Thermo-Fax machine 
in our office. 

Senator Ervin. The Thermo-Fax copy can be marked as an exhibit, 
Exhibit No. 8, for the record. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 8" for reference, 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kamerick. In the next few months, Mr. Garrison, did any 
further activity take place with reference to the situation at Burt? 

Mr. Garrison. Well, there were numerous telephone calls I received 
from Mr. Sawyer, vice president of the Burt Co., and telegrams and 
communications from the company listing new situations where the 
Sheet Metal Workers had refused to install their equipment. 

On November 7 of 1956, the situation had reached a point where 
President McDonald addressed a communication to President Meany, 
of the AFL-CIO, urging him to have the Sheet Metal Workers cease 
and desist from boycotting the products of the Burt Manufacturing 
Co. or, failing to do that, requesting him to call a special session of 
the executive council of the AFL-CIO to deal with the matter. 

Mr. Kamerick. Was such a special session called ? 

Mr. Garrison. No ; a special session was not called. It was referred 
by President Meany to the regular winter meeting of the council in 
February of 1957 at Miami Beach. 

Mr. Kamerick. Was the matter taken up at that meeting ? 

Mr. Garrison. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kamerick. What action was taken there ? 

Mr. Garrison. A committee was appointed by the council, consist- 
ing of President Meany, Vice President George Harrison, and Joseph 
Beirne. 

Mr. Kamerick. Could you identify the organizations of Presidents 
Harrison and Beirne ? 



15458 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Garrison. Vice President Harrison is president of the Railway 
Clerks, and Mr. Beirne is president of the Communications Workers 
of America, AFL-CIO. The committee was instructed by the council 
to visit the plant of the Burt Manufacturing Co. to make an on-the- 
spot investigation, and a decision as to the complaint of the 
Steelworkers. 

I might say in the meantime, in between those times, we had a meet- 
ing in Mr. McGavin's office between the two representatives of the two 
organizations, the Sheet Metal Workers and the Steelworkers, in 
which we attempted to have the matter straightened out, but where we 
failed, on November 13, 1956. 

Mr. Kamerick. Did this committee actually visit the plant in 
Akron ? 

Mr. Garrison. Yes, sir ; they did, on February 18, 1 believe, was the 
date they visited the plant. 

Mr. Kamerick. I know they eventually made their decision, but 
prior to that did you have a communication with reference to any addi- 
tional activity by the Sheet Metal Workers ? I am referring specifi- 
cally to a telegram of March 27. 

Mr. Garrison. From Mr. Sawyer, of the company, yes, to Mr. Mc- 
Donald. The telegram stated that since the committee had visited the 
plant that the Sheet Metal Workers — in the words of the telegram — 

redoubled its efforts to apply pressure to the company with the result that they 
have interfered with many more jobs and caused more contractors to cause greater 
loss to our company. 

Senator Ervin. I am handing you a paper to see if that is a Thermo- 
Fax copy of the telegram to which you make reference. 

Mr. Garrison. Yes. 

Senator Ervin. The Thermo-Fax copy will be made exhibit No. 9. 

(The telegram was marked "Exhibit No. 9" for reference, and may 
be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kamerick. Mr. Garrison, was reply made by the subcommittee 
of the executive council and was it transmitted to Mr. McDonald by 
letter dated April 17, 1957 ? 

Mr. Garrison. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kamerick. Would you give the general substance of that letter ? 

Mr. Garrison. The committee found, so the letter states, upon visit- 
ing the plant — and they also visited another plant in the area that was 
under contract to the Sheet Metal Workers — and the committee ren- 
dered the decision on behalf of the council directing the Sheet Metal 
Workers International Association to cease and desist from any actions 
designed to impair the collective-bargaining relationships of the 
United Steelworkers with the Burt Manufacturing Co. 

Senator Ervin. This letter conditions findings made by the com- 
mittee to the effect that at no time had the Sheet Metal Workers 
attempted to challenge the representation by the Steelworkers through 
an election ? 

Mr. Garrison. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Also, the committee found that the boycott was 
resorted to — boycott against the Burt Co. — for the purpose of coercing 
the company to — or for the purpose of substituting the Sheet Metal 
Workers for the Steelworkers as bargaining agents, rather to make the 
company cancel its contract with the Steelworkers ; is that not right ? 

Mr. Garrison. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15459 

Senator Ervin. I wish you would look at this paper, Mr. Garrison, 
to see if you can identify that as a Thermo-Fax copy of the letter you 
have been discussing. 

Mr. Garrison. Yes ; that is a copy of the letter. 

Senator Ervin. That will be marked and received as exhibit No. 10. 

(The letter was marked "Exhibit No. 10" for reference, and will 
be found in the appendix on p. 15752.) 

Mr. Kamerick. Mr. Garrison, this section which the subcommittee 
found the Sheet Metal Workers in violation 

Senator Curtis. Just a minute. Referring to that letter, is that the 
letter where George Meany says that the committee unanimously finds 
as a result of the study of all the facts in this situation that the actions 
of the Sheet Metal Workers International Association in putting pres- 
sure on the Burt Co. are in violation of section 4, article 3, of the AFL- 
CIO constitution which protects the established collective-bargaining 
relationships of all affiliates ? There is no question but that the United 
Steelworkers negotiated and signed a union-shop contract taking effect 
August 2, 1952? 

Mr. Garrison. Yes, sir ; that is part of the letter. 

Senator Curtis. That was in the nature of a directive because 
it says: 

The committee therefore renders this decision on behalf of the executive 
council and directs the Sheet Metal Workers International Association to cease 
and desist from any action designed to impair the collective-bargaining relation- 
ship of the United Steelworkers with the Burt Manufacturing Co. 

That appears to be dated April 17, 1957. Did they cease and desist ? 
Did that end it? 

Mr. Garrison. No, sir. They continued, or we continued to get 
numerous protests after that from the company that they were still 
pursuing the same course of action. 

Senator Curtis. That is all at this point. 

Senator Erven. Right at that point, Mr. Garrison, I assume that this 
protest which the Steelworkers had filed with the AFL-CIO was one 
which was recognized bv the rules of the AFL-CIO in matters of 
this kind? 

Mr. Garrison. Yes ; it is the procedure followed under the constitu- 
tion of the AFL-CIO. 

Mr. Kamerick. Mr. Garrison, this section 4, article 3, of the AFL- 
CIO constitution ; that is the provision popularly known as the anti- 
raiding provision? 

Mr. Garrison. I don't have a copy of the constitution. 

Mr. Feller. Article 4, section 3, is the provision that each affiliate 
shall respect the collective-bargaining relationship of each other 
affiliate of the AFL-CIO. 

Mr. Kamerick. You have already stated that the activity did not 
cease. Did you then come into possession of a letter forwarded to you 
by President Meanv in the nature of a response by President Byron, 
of the Sheet Metal Workers? 

Mr. Garrison. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kamerick. Could vou tell the committee the substance of that 
letter? 

Mr. Garrison. You mean Mr. Byron's letter ? 

Mr. Kamerick. Yes ; Mr. Byron's letter. 



15460 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Garrison. It is dated — Mr. Byron's letter to Mr. Meany is 
dated May 8, 1957, acknowledging President Meany's letter of April 
17, where he gave them the decision of the committee. 

Senator Ervin. For the purpose of the record at this point, Mr. 
Garrison, I wish you would examine this paper I hand you and see 
if you can identify that as a Thermo-Fax copy of the letter to which 
you just referred. 

Mr. Garrison. Yes; this is it. 

Senator Ervin. The Therrmo-Fax copy will be received as exhibit 
No. 11. 

(The letter was marked "Exhibit No. 11" for reference, and may be 
found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Garrison. Mr. Byron in his letter denies that their actions were 
designed to bring pressure on the Burt Co., but he says that it is un- 
derstandable that his letter of December 6, 1955, could be so construed. 
He goes on to state in his letter that : 

It pledged to you and the executive council of the AFL-CIO thnt at no time in 
the future and under no circumstances will Sheet Metal Workers International 
Association seek to establish a collective-bargaining relationship with Burt 
Manufacturing Co. — 

that it has no present intention of attempting to organize the em- 
ployees of Burt now represented by the Steelworkers, and will not 
make any such attempt in the future, and that it will at no time con- 
sent to become collective-bargaining representative of the employees 
of Burt now represented by the Steelworkers under any circum- 
stances. 

The foregoing assurance is given to you in the belief that such assurance 
constitutes compliance with the decision and order of the subcommittee. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, there is a sentence in Byron's letter 
to Mr. Meany that you have just referred to that is quite significant 
referring to the Sheet Metal Workers Union, on page 2', in the middle 
of the paragraph — 

and that it will at no time consent to become the collective-bargaining representa- 
tive of the employees of Burt now represented by the Steelworkers Union under 
any circumstances. 

To me it looks like their position is so untenable. They say at no 
time would they ever become the bargaining agent. This did not 
happen, but suppose that your union ceased to appeal to those work- 
ers and they of their free choice chose the Sheet Metal Workers. They 
take the position here they would not represent them. Yet they also 
take the position with contractors and subcontractors and ultimate 
customers that Burt products are never to be installed. So it leads 
everybody to a blind alley. According to their position, there is 
nothing to do but for Burt to fold up and for the men to be out of 
employment. Is that not true ? 

Mr. Garrison. That would be my interpretation of that in view 
of the actions that they have taken and had taken in the past. 

Senator Curtis. Instead of denying a boycott here, it is a rather 
brazen cold-blooded one, I think. 

Mr. Kamerick. Mr. Garrison, did the boycott or whatever it is 
called cease at that time ? 

Mr. Garrison. The activities did not cease in refusing to install 
the products of the Burt Co. The information that I had from the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15461 

company following that action was that they changed their tactics 
to some extent. That is, instead of being open and aboveboard in 
telling the contractors that they could not install the product and that 
they had to buy from their contractors, that they did it in a more 
roundabout way, but it had the same effect where orders were just 
not placed with the company. 

Mr. Kamerick. Did President McDonald have occasion to com- 
municate with President Meany on June 10, 1957? 

Mr. Garrison. Yes. He addressed another communication to 
President Meany on June 10, 1957, supplementing his letter of May 
16 in which he called attention that they were still continuing their 
activity. In this letter of June 10, he pointed out five specific in- 
stances where they were refusing to handle the equipment. 

Senator Ervin." Mr. Garrison, at this point I hand you a paper 
and ask you whether or not you can identify that as a true copy of 
the letter you have just referred to . 

Mr. Garrison. Yes. 

Senator Erven. That will be received as exhibit No. 12. 

(The letter was marked "Exhibit No. 12" for reference, and may be 
found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kamerick. Mr. Garrison, did you come into possession, by 
way of Mr. Meany, of a letter from Mr. Byron in the nature of a 
response to Mr. McDonald, of July 19 ? 

Mr. Garrison. Yes. On July 23, 1957, President Meany sent to 
President McDonald a copy of a letter he had received from President 
Byron, of the Sheet Metal Workers, dated July 19. 

Senator Ervtn. Mr. Garrison, I hand you a paper and ask you if 
you can identify this paper as a Thermo-Fax copy of the letter to 
which you have just referred. 

Mr. Garrison. That is the letter of July 19. 

Senator Ervin. The copy will be received as exhibit 13. 

(The letter was marked*"Exhibit No. 13" for reference, and may be 
found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kamerick. What is the general import of that letter, Mr. Gar- 
rison ? 

Mr. Garrison. President Byron denies that their activities were di- 
rected against the Steelworkers or against the Burt Co. Briefly, that, 
as was testified this morning by Mr. Frost, they were merely protecting 
their contracts and asking for enforcement of their own contracts. 

Mr. Kamerick. Was this subject discussed at a meeting of the 
executive council of the AFL-CIO in Chicago in August 1957 ? 

Mr. Garrison. I am not able to say whether there was any dis- 
cussion in the council meeting at that time. While I was in Chicago 
I was not in attendance at the meeting. However, there was a meet- 
ing held between President McDonald and President Meany and, I 
believe, Mr. Sawyer — I am not sure — in which Mr. Meany advised of 
a conversation that he had had with Mr. Byron in which Mr. Byron 
indicated that they were going to cease any activity against the 
Burt Co. 

Mr. Kamerick. Did Mr. Meany communicate his understanding of 
that arrangement to Mr. McDonald ? 

Mr. Garrison. Yes ; he did. After Mr. McDonald had written Mr. 
Meany on September 11, President Meany replied on September 16 
giving his interpretation of the conversation. 



15462 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Erven. Mr. Garrison, I wish you would look at that paper 
I hand you and see if you can identify that as a true copy of the letter 
to which you have just referred. 

Mr. Garrison. Yes ; it is, sir. 

Senator Ervin. The letter will be received as exhibit 14. 

(The letter was marked "Exhibit No. 14" for reference and may be 
found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kamerick. Did any change take place in the practices of the 
Sheet Metal Workers ? 

Mr. Garrison. We continued to receive complaints from the com- 
plaints from the company as to the degree — whether it lessened or 
not I could not say at the moment without checking through the 
records — but it did not solve the problem. Mr. Meany in that com- 
munication stated that any specific incidents which were called to his 
attention when they refused to install the products, that he had as- 
surance from Mr. Byron upon Mr. Meany contacting him that they 
would proceed with the work, but we continued to receive complaints 
from the company. 

Mr. Kamerick. That takes us up to August of 1957. Has any 
material change taken place since that time, Mr. Garrison ? 

Mr. Garrison. The question went before the executive council again 
in February of 1958 in Miami Beach, and the result of that was a 
resolution adopted by the council pertaining to all jurisdictional mat- 
ters and boycott matters which could not be settled between the or- 
ganizations were to be referred to an impartial arbitrator, Mr. David 
Cole, for adjusment. This so-called Burt case was one of those that 
was referred to the arbitrator, and is now pending before him. He 
has not held a hearing on it, but it has officially been referred to him 
by Secretary-Treasurer Schnitzler of the AFL-CIO and we are wait- 
ing for a notice of a hearing before him. 

Mr. Kamerick. Is that hearing being held up pending the result of 
the present NLRB proceedings ? 

Mr. Garrison. Not to my knowledge. It has been postponed a 
couple of times. After we had received notice that the arbitrator 
would hear the Sheet Metal and Steel cases, that is. At almost the 
last minute we have been notified that it had been postponed because 
the Sheet Metal Workers asked for a postponement. Their reason for 
asking for a postponement I am not familiar with. But it has been 
postponed a couple of times by the arbitrator. 

Mr. Feller. May I add something here ? 

Senator Ervin. Yes. 

Mr. Feller. The pendency of the Board case has taken a little of 
the edge of the urgency off the AFL-CIO proceeding, though I don't 
think it has been particularly held up because of that, and it should 
be disposed of in the internal machinery of the federation. But as I 
understand it, there are now no complaints and there have been none 
since the injunction or indeed since before the injunction — since the 
AFL-CIO council resolution in February 1958 — that there have been 
refusals to install Burt ventilators. At least as far as I know, we 
have received none. 

Mr. Garrison. I think we have received one since that time. We 
have received one protest, not from the Burt Manufacturing Co., but 
from a company where sheet-metal workers had refused to install 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15463 

equipment, not since the injunction was issued, but since the action of 
the executive council in February. It came to our office, I think, in 
April and I transmitted it. It is from Burt. 

I have several here. I thought it was from another company. One 
came from Mr. Sawyer on March 29 of this year. Of course, that 
was prior to the injunction. It was transmitted to Mr. Schnitzler and 
Mr. Schnitzler's office told me yesterday that it had been transmitted 
to the arbitrator along with the other papers. 

Senator Ervin. My recollection of Mr. Sawyer's testimony is that 
it is in complete corroboration of the statment made by Mr. Feller, to 
the effect that the course of behavior of the Sheet Metal Workers had 
changed after the issuance of the temporary injunction. 

Mr. Garrison. We have had no calls from the company, or I believe 
no correspondence, since the issuance of the injunction, or the raising 
of complaints on it. So I have taken no action since that date. 

Mr. Kamerick. How many companies, if you can tell us offhand, 
are in a position similar to Burt ? 

Mr. Garrison. I think there are none of them to the extent of Burt. 
I have in my possession I believe three other companies that are pend- 
ing before the arbitrator, that is, as between Sheet Metal Workers and 
Steelworkers. I say they are just individual cases that have arisen. 
It is not a prolonged situation like this. But they are before the 
arbitrator for disposition. 

Mr. Kamerick. Do you consider that a permanent solution is still 
in the future ? 

Mr. Garrison. Of the Burt situation ? 

Mr. Kamerick. Yes. 

Mr. Garrison. My feeling is that when we have our hearing before 
the arbitrator and he issues the decision that certainly should 
straighten it out as far as as the two organizations are concerned, 
because there can be no argument with his decision. It is agreed that 
he is the arbitrator and that is the action of the council to refer to 
him for final judgment. 

Mr. Kamerick. The action of the subcommittee of the same council 
did not reach a permanent solution, is that correct? 

Mr. Garrison. That is true. This a later action by the council and 
I believe a stronger action intended to take care of all such situations 
that arise where the council in that case was only handling the one 
particular instance. 

Mr. Kamerick. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. 

Senator Curtis. I would like to ask you right on that point, assum- 
ing that so far as the Burt case is concerned and the arbiter completes 
his findings, there will be a settlement, there would not be any pro- 
tection to Burt Co. or any other company concerned as far as the law is 
concerned. It would be more or less an agreement. 

Mr. Garrison. An agreement between the organizations, a family 
agreement, more or less. 

Senator Curtis. A change of personalities and one thing or another 
could create additional problems, could it not? 

Mr. Garrison. No, I don't see that a change of personalities would. 
I assume you refer to the leaders of organizations. 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Garrison. I would think that the arbitrator's decision would be 
binding on any successors to the present officials of either organization. 



15464 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. What would be the penalty for disobeying that 
arbitrator's decision ? 

Mr. Garrison. That would be up to the executive council to de- 
termine. 

Senator Curtis. It would not purport to cover anything but the 
Burt case. 

Mr. Garrison. I assume that the arbitrator will handle each case 
separately on its merits. The decision in the Burt case, I assume, 
would only apply to that case. Mr. Feller might comment. 

Mr. Feller. I think the previous question as to what happened to 
the previous subcommittee, the answers may be a little deceptive un- 
less you understand that the AFL-CIO constitution, like other con- 
stitutions, is not a static document. The constitution itself in lan- 
guage only says that no affiliate shall interfere with the collective bar- 
gaining relationship of any other affiliate. The subcommittee that 
was appointed and went out to Akron was acting under that provision. 
President Byron's letter was an ostensible answer to the requirement 
that under that provision they not interfere with an existing collective 
bargaining relationship. 

In February of this year, however, the executive council, pursuant 
to its powers under the constitution, and interpreting that provision, 
decided that any boycott of union made goods, whether or not there 
was an interference with a collective-bargaining relationship, would 
be regarded as a violation of that constitutional provision, and pro- 
vided that such boycott cases could be handled through this arbitra- 
tion machinery. That was a step forward as far as the council was 
concerned and I think that is a decision of the council in interpreting 
and applying the constitution. It would apply not only to the Burt 
case, but provides that machinery for the determination of these dis- 
putes in other cases which did not exist at the time of 1957 when the 
original subcommittee went out to Akron to investigate the situation. 
Whether it will work in all cases, nobody knows, but in all human 
institutions, you only hope it will work and you make an effort to 
see that it works. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Garrison, did the Sheet Metal Workers ever 
say, directly or indirectly, that the solution was for them to have the 
organization of the Burt employees ? 

Mr. Garrison. Mr. Byron said it in his letter to Mr. Ohler, and at 
the meeting with Mr. McGavin in November, I believe it was, the let- 
ter was presented, I believe by Mr. Feller, and Mr. Byron and Mr. 
Carlough, the secretary-treasurer of the Sheet Metal Workers were 
present, and Mr. Carlough made the remark that he was of the same 
opinion as the letter said, but he certainly would not have put it in 
the letter. So I assume 

Senator Curtis. Was that Mr. Frost's attitude, too ? 

Mr. Garrison. Mr. Frost? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Garrison. He was not in the meeting that I am referring to. 

Senator Curtis. I do not have a transcript of the National Labor 
Relations Board proceedings of Sheet Metal Workers and others in 
the Burt Manufacturing Co. case No. 8 CC 68, but I hold here a copy 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15465 

of the brief of the General Counsel to the trial examiner, and here 
is what he says : 

Byron acknowledged that his organization's members had refused to install 
or handle Burt equipment on many jobs, and when Sawyer asked him why 
such action was not taken Byron said, "The Burt Manufacturing Co. did not 
belong to the Sheet Metal Workers, but belonged to the Steelworkers," and 
later on, "Until the Burt Manufacturing Co. took their men out of the Steel- 
workers and put them over to the Sheet Metal Workers, Burt would continue 
to have trouble," and they referred to pages 91 and 92 of the transcript. 

Is that in conformity with what you believe the situation to be? 

Mr. Garrison. That is my opinion. That was their thinking. 

Senator Curtis. That was the brief of the Counsel to the trial 
examiner which was not one of the parties, and in the brief of the 
Burt Co. in the same proceeding- 1 find this : 

In mid-1956 in a meeting of Akron AFL-CIO representatives at Poppa Joe's 
Restaurant to try to solve the boycott of Burt, Frost told McKendrick of the 
Steelworkers that the problem could be resolved by Steelworkers turning their 
Burt membership over to local 70. 

And they refer to page 1420 in the transcript. Who is McKendrick? 

Mr. Garrison. He is a staff representative of the Steelworkers that 
is in that area where the Burt Manufacturing Co. operates. 

Senator Curtis, And local TO is the Akron local of the Sheet Metal 
Workers ? 

Mr. Garrison. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Did you know anything about that meeting? 

Mr. Garrison. No ; I knew nothing of that meeting. 

Senator Curtis. But in general you support the position that it was 
contended that if the employees of Burt were turned over to the Sheet 
Metal Union that would solve the problem ? 

Mr. Garrison. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever discuss with any Sheet Metal Union 
representatives the question of what union should represent Burt's 
employees ? 

Mr. Garrisox. No, sir; not that I recall. 

Senator Curtis. Are any Steelworker-organized plants, other than 
Burt, having boycott trouble with the Sheet Metal Workers Union? 

Mr. Garrison. Yes. I said here I believe four cases are pending 
before the arbitrator, but they are minor in comparison to the Burt 
situation and only one situation — I mean where there is only one in- 
stance that has come to our attention — and we have protested to the 
AFL-CIO and it has been referred to the arbitrator. 

Senator Curtis. Who are these cases ? 

Mr. Garrison. There is one in Ohio, the Arrowlite Co., which also 
makes louvers and ventilators and ductwork. I don't have the papers 
on it here. The Wheeling Steel Corp., the Aluminum Co. of America. 
These are the ones pending before the arbitrator. There have been 
several others in the past, but insofar as I know they have been han- 
dled locally and have not reached the point where we have had to file 
protests with the AFL-CIO. These are the ones actually pending 
now before the arbitrator. 

Senator Curtis. And these that are pending before the arbitrator, 
how did they happen to come to your knowledge I 



15466 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Garrison. Ordinarily our district Steelworkers' director in the 
area makes a protest or calls the matter to the attention of President 
McDonald, and he in turn sends it to Secretary-Treasurer Schnitzler 
for reference to the arbitrator under the resolution adopted at the 
February meeting. 

Senator Curtis. They are usually initiated by your local people in 
the region who are complaining ? 

Mr. Garrison. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. In three or four cases that you have read you have 
made an appropriate filing to have an arbitrator determine them. 

Mr. Garrison. Yes ; they are now all referred to the arbitrator. 

Senator Curtis. At this time is there any other action that you 
have taken with reference to those other cases other than Burt? 

Mr. Garrison. No; nothing on those except to refer them to the 
AFL-CIO to go to the arbitrator. 

Senator Curtis. And there are some that apparently may have 
been settled in the field. 

Mr. Garrison. Yes. We have had a few in other organizations 
than the Sheet Metal Workers, but we have been able to settle them as 
between the two organizations. They have been minor in character 
and very easily adjusted when it is just a local situation that has arisen. 
When we contact the international office of that union, we are usually 
able to straighten them out without any difficulty. 

Senator Curtis. While you regard the Burt case as the more impor- 
tant one, these others that you referred to were sufficiently important 
that you asked for an arbitrator's decision. 

Mr. Garrison. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Feller, I would like to ask you, since 1945 
when the Steelworkers Union was certified by the NLRB as the bar- 
gaining agent for Burt employees, has the Sheet Metal Workers Union 
ever shown any interest in the Burt employees ? 

Mr. Feller. My answer will be hearsay, but relying in part upon 
information which the Senator probably has, in the NLRB proceeding 
it is my understanding that there was testimony that as late as the 
spring of 1956 a business agent working under Mr. Frost approached 
members of the Steelworkers Union at the Burt Manufacturing Co., or 
they approached him. Anyway, there were discussions as to the pos- 
sibility of transferring representation over to the Sheet Metal Workers 
Union. 

Senator Curtis. Some time in 1956 ? 

Mr. Feller. In the spring of 1956. Again I have not read the testi- 
mony, I will have to say. The Steelworkers had no participation in 
the NLRB proceeding. As a matter of fact, we feel that there are 
some difficulties in the theory under which the Board is proceeding 
which we did not entirely agree with. In the testimony and relying 
on the General Counsel's brief, a copy of which I have, Business Agent 
Kidney telephoned the then president of the Steelworkers Union, 
identified himself as a business agent for the Sheet Metal Workers 
Union, and told him that he would like to talk to them about the 
possibility of getting the Burt boys into the Sheet Metal Workers 
Union. I understand there was also evidence — again I am only repeat- 
ing from the General Counsels' brief — that he reported this conversa- 
tion to Mr. Frost. So Mr. Frost was aware of that conversation which 
he had in the spring of 1956. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15467 

Senator Curtis. In the Burt Co.'s brief 

Mr. Feller. I have not seen that. 

Senator Curtis. No ; that I referred to a little while ago, that same 
brief on page 7, he says : 

Local 70 thereafter continued their efforts to secure Burt employees*. Frost 
told Kidney of the visit of Burt employees to the office of local 70 and Kidney 
contacted Griffith, president of the Steelworkers local at Burt, to discuss the 
possibility of getting the Burt boys into the Sheet Metal Workers Union. 

Mr. Feller. You are referring to the same testimony I am, except 
to a different document. 

Senator Curtis. Yes. They refer to pages 1501 and 1502 of the 
transcript. Did the Sheet Metal Union ever contact the Steelworkers 
at Burt any other time other than this 1956 incident that you recall ? 

Mr. Feller. Not that I personally know of. There was testi- 
mony about an earlier matter and there was the meeting in Mr. 
McGavin's office in 1956. That was a discussion with us at the interna- 
tional union level and not at the local level. 

Senator Curtis. And then, of course, there was the matter dis- 
cussed in Byron's letter of 1955, and we placed that in the record. 

Mr. Feller. Yes. There was some discussion also in the transcript 
of the Board's case, I am informed that was in 1954, at a time where 
the Steelworkers were on strike at Burt, and the Sheet Metal Workers 
offered assistance to the strikers. I assume that along with that was 
the in -lied j-ivitr^ion that "If you accept help, you might come into 
our organization." 

You have to examine the testimony before the Board to find out 
the precise nature of that testimony. 

Senator Curtis. When was that ? 

Mr. Feller. In 1954. 

Senator Curtis. That was when they were having contract nego- 
tiations or having a strike ? 

Mr. Feller. They had a strike ; yes. 

Senator Curtis. They had a strike there ? 

Mr. Feller. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. At that time, the Sheet Metal Workers Union 
offered assistance ? 

Mr. Feller. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Well, did you, Mr. Feller, ever discuss with the 
Sheet Metal Workers Union representatives the question of what 
union should represent Burt's employees ? 

Mr. Feller. In the meeting in Mr. McGavin's office, I think that 
I asked the representatives of the Sheet Metal Workers Union who 
were there whether it would solve the matter if the employees were 
represented by the Sheet Metal Workers, and the answer was "Yes." 

Senator Curtis. Do you remember who gave that answer ? 

Mr. Feller. At the moment I couldn't be sure enough to tell you. 
It was either Byron or Mr. Carlough. 

Senator Curtis. And whoever it was that answered was not over- 
ruled by the others present at the time ? 

Mr. Feller. Oh, no. It was quite clear that that was the intention. 

Senator Curtis. Now, have the Steelworkers Union aggressively 
represented the Burt employees since they have been recognized? 

Mr. Feller. To the best of our ability. 

Senator Curtis. That is your opinion, too, Mr. Garrison? 



15468 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Garrison. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. And you had some strikes and contested negotia- 
tions ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Garrison. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you wish to say something on that ? 

Mr. Feller. No. 

Senator Curtis. Do your members receive any fringe benefits at 
Burt? 

Mr. Feller. We have almost the standard Steelworkers fringe 
package, and not quite. We don't have a supplemental unemploy- 
ment benefit plan but we do have a pension plan, an insurance, and 
all of the other fringes that you normally have in our Steelworkers 
contract. 

Senator Curtis. This is separate and apart from social security ? 

Mr. Feller. Yes ; in addition to that. 

Senator Curtis. What type of insurance do you have ? 

Mr. Feller. I can't give you the details. 

Senator Curtis. Does it involve health and accident, or is it group 
life, or what? 

Mr. Feller. Group life, and health and accident, and it involves 
hospitalization, and it has surgical benefits. 

Senator Curtis. And then I suppose there are the usual things 
about vacations and holidays ? 

Mr. Feller. Yes ; vacations and holidays, and sick leave. 

Senator Curtis. What is the value per hour of the fringe benefits ? 

Mr. Feller. It has been estimated, and I won't guarantee this 
estimate. 

Senator Curtis. I understand. 

Mr. Feller. That it is worth somewhere in excess of 50 cents 
an hour. 

Senator Curtis. And you say that is near the standard package of 
fringe benefits that the Steelworkers Union have ? 

Mr. Feller. Our general program is to have surgical and hospitali- 
zation, and life insurance, and sick and accident, pension payments, 
and supplemental unemployment benefits programs in all of the com- 
panies with which we deal, and we have not received all of the benefits 
from this company yet, and I hope very much that we will in the 
future. 

Senator Curtis. Are there some other companies where you could 
not have quite all of your whole program ? 

Mr. Feller. Oh, yes. 

Senator Curtis. How does this compare with plants organized by 
other unions ? 

Mr. Feller. Well, all other unions, do you mean, or have you any 
particular union in mind ? 

Senator Curtis. Just in general, I want to know how this is. You 
can limit it any way you want, but I want a general idea of your com- 
parisons. 

Mr. Feller. Generally speaking, the Steelworkers Union likes to 
pride itself that we have one of the highest wage scales generally in 
the country, and in our steel plants, and again here the wage scale is 
not quite as high as we have in basic steel although it is fairly close. 
Generally speaking, and I assume that this is the meaning of the 
Senator's question, the industrial unions that organize on a manufac- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15469 

turing plant basis of a greater part of their total economic package 
in terms of fringe benefits than do organizations which from the 
nature of their industry do not have the same continuity of employ- 
ment, particularly craft unions, and building trades unions, where a 
larger percentage of their wage package is in terms of the wage dollar 
and a much smaller percentage in terms of fringe benefits. 

Senator Curtis. In the light of that, how do your fringe benefits 
compare with the Sheet Metal Union's fringe benefits? 

Mr. Feller. I don't know the specific benefits they have, although 
I did think Mr. Frost said they had 10 cents an hour welfare fund 
this morning, and if that is correct, then obviously ours are con- 
siderably in excess of theirs. 

But that is not meant to be critical of the Sheet Metal Workers 
Union, because the nature of the industry is different, and the col- 
lective-bargaining packages have to be differently distributed between 
different types of unions and different types of industries. 

Senator Curtis. I understand that, and I think it is well you made 
the statement for the record, because we want to be fair to everyone 
concerned. Does the Sheet Metal Union have wage rates m fabri- 
cating plants different than the rates for the installation work m 

the field? TTr , 

Mr. Feller. Again, I have never seen a Sheet Metal Workers con- 
tract covering a manufacturing plant of the kind that is involved in 
Burt. It is my understanding that, generally, craft unions, who also 
organize industrially as the Sheet Metal Workers Union has at- 
tempted in recent years to do, do not and camiot because of the nature 
of the economics of the situation, attempt to get the same type of 
journeyman rates which are used for building trades craftsmen and 
construction sites in everyday f actory employment. 

I know this is true of unions such as the IBW, and I understand it 
is true of the Sheet Metal Workers, and I have been told, and I can- 
not guarantee the reliability of this, that in the plants of the same 
general character as the Burt plant the Sheet Metal Workers have 
wage scales which are not in excess of those that the Steelworkers 
have and, in fact, may very well be lower, but again, I don't know. 

It is not fair to compare a journeyman craftsman's rate, a man 
who works when the weather is good, and works for one employer or 
another from time to time, with the rate paid for day in and day out 
employment in a factory under an industrial type agreement covering 
a production worker, who is guaranteed seniority arrangements and 
has permanent employment, and has fringe benefits far in excess of 
those obtained by the journeyman on the outside. 

Senator Curtis. And these differences in wage rates are recognition 
of the differences in the type of the operation, and the continuity of 
the employment, and the continuity of the same employer; is that 
not right ? 

Mr. Feller. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. How do the rates and fringe benefits received by 
the Steelworkers at Burt, compare with those received at other fabri- 
cating plants organized by other unions such as the Auto Workers and 
the Machinists ? 

Mr. Feller. I don't know that I can give you an answer to that. 
Again I have been told that our rates are as high as, and benefits as 



21243— 50— pt. 41- 



15470 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

high, at Burt as other manufacturers in a similar type of operation 
and organized by. other unions, but I have no information on that. 

Senator Curtis. You have not examined contracts, but it is your 
opinion that the rates and fringe benefits at Burt are not far out of 
line or maybe they are a little better. 

Mr. Feller. That certainly is our opinion, and I think it is im- 
portant to make clear that this is not an attempt, in our view, of a 
union to protect itself against substandard conditions in a competitive 
industry. 

I would say that there is a lot of justification for — I will use the 
word even — a "boycott," where you have an industry organized under 
good wages and good working conditions and an attempt is made to 
undercut those wages and working conditions by the entrance into the 
field of an unorganized employer. Unless something is done he may 
very well destroy the wages and working conditions which the union 
has been able to establish in its own shop. We don't think that this 
is that kind of a situation. 

Senator Curtis. That is not the problem involved in this case. 

Mr. Feller. No, and if it were we would certainly have lost our 
self-respect as a union, and I think we have a lot of self-respect as a 
union. 

Senator Curtis. In other words, in your opinion it boils down to a 
question of somebody turning the Burt employees over to the Sheet 
Metal Workers. 

Mr. Feller. I think that was the idea of the Sheet Metal Workers 
Union, and I think I will say that I think the union disassociates it- 
self completely from the proposals made by the Burt Co. as to the 
matter of settlement of this. I think that we will be able to settle it 
within the house of labor where it ought to be settled, and certainly it 
ought to be given an opportunity to be settled there. 

Senator Curtis. That is all I have. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Garrison, the committee wants to thank you 
for coming before the committee and giving the committee the benefit 
of your evidence. I don't have any reason to think that the committee 
will want to reexamine you for further evidence, but you would agree 
to come back without being resubpenaed if the committee needs you 
further and gave you reasonable notice ? 

Mr. Garrison. I wasn't subpenaed, and I came back on notice, and 
I will be glad to come back again at any time that you might require 
my services. 

Senator Ervin. Thank you. 

Mr. Garrison. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kamerick. I would like to call Mr. Peter McGavin. 

Senator Ervin. Come forward please, Mr. McGavin. 

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. McGavin. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF PETER M. McGAVIN 

Senator Ervin. Mr. McGavin, will you state your full name, your 
occupation, and your residence for the record. 

Mr. McGavin. Peter M. McGavin, assistant to the president, AFLr- 
CIO, 601 Landon Koad, Bethesda, Md. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15471 

Senator Ervin. You are aware that under the rules of this com- 
mittee you have a right to counsel. Do you waive that right? 
Mr. McGavin. Yes ; I waive the right to counsel. 
Senator Ervin. Proceed. 

Mr. Kamerick. Mr. McGavin, in your capacity as assistant to 
President Meany, you have had considerable contact with the two 
unions involved in what has been entitled the "Burt case" ? 

Mr. McGavin. I have had meetings with both of the representatives 
of the international unions. 

Mr. Kamerick. Could you tell the committee when this situation 
first came to your attention, roughly ? 

Mr. McGavin. Roughly, I think it was in 1956. I do not have my 
file with me. 

Mr. Kamerick. I have had information here that there was a meet- 
ing on the 13th of September 1956. Would that sound right ? 
Mr. McGavin. That would be approximately right. 
Mr. Kamerick. Could you tell us briefly what transpired at the 
meeting, and the results ? ..... 

Mr. McGavin. Well, I will have to go back a little bit m my 
memory. You see, I handle all of the cases concerning the affiliates 
of the AFL^CIO where there is any dispute of any kind. To tell you 
word for word what happened at that meeting, I cannot, but I can 
remember that I called the parties together to try to arrive at an 
agreement between the two parties. 

Mr. Kamerick. Was any meeting of the minds accomplished at 
that meeting? 

Mr. McGavin. Not that I recall, sir. _ 

Mr. Kamerick. This committee has been informed that in De- 
cember of that year, 1956, it was decided that this matter should be 
brought to the executive council of the AFL-CIO. Did anything 
transpire prior to that decision that caused the council to decide to 
take that action? 

Mr. McGavin. Well, I will put it this way : Whenever there is a 
dispute filed with the president's office, under the constitution I would 
attempt by bringing the parties together to settle that dispute. You 
will recall that there are perhaps over 200 disputes filed, and I would 
say 99 percent of those disputes were settled upon a meeting called by 
myself. Those that could not be settled were referred to the execu- 
tive council, and that is why the executive council had it. 
Mr. Kamerick. They took this subject in January 1957, as I recall. 
Mr. McGavin. January or February of 1957. 
Mr. Kamerick. January 30 is the date I have here. 
Mr. McGavin. That is approximately right. 

Mr. Kamerick. What action was taken by the executive council? 
Mr. McGavin. As I recall, the executive council appointed a three- 
man committee, composed of President Meany, Vice President Har- 
rison, and Vice President Beirne, to handle the dispute. 

Mr. Kamerick. Mr. Harrison is president of the Railway Clerks 
and Mr. Beirne is president of the Communications Workers of Amer- 
ica? ! 

Mr. McGavin. That is correct, and executive council members of 
the AFD-CIO. 

Mr. Kamerick. Yes. This subcommittee visited the Burt plant 
at Akron, so we have been informed. 



15472 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. McGavin. It is my understanding, sir. I did not accompany 
them to the plant. 

Mr. Kamerick. Are you familiar with the decision that this sub- 
committee arrived at ? 

Mr. McGavin. I am familiar with the decision. 

Mr. Kamerick. Could you give it to us in general terms ? 

Mr. McGavin. As I recall, the decision of the subcommittee was a 
decision notifying the Sheet Metal Workers from interfering in any 
way with the collective-bargaining relationship between the United 
Steelworkers of America and the Burt Manufacturing Co. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, by interfering with the collective- 
bargaining arrangement, did they also direct them to cease and desist 
from their refusal to install and these other activities ? 

Mr. McGavin. Senator, I have not got the letter in front of me, and 
I do not know. 

Senator Curtis. You are referring to the letter that Mr. Meanv 
wrote ? 

Mr. McGavin. I think you are referring to that letter. 

Mr. Kamerick. We have heard testimony to that effect and we have 
a copy of the letter here. 

Senator Curtis. You might look at the letter and let me know. 1 
would like to know what you mean by just ordering them not to inter- 
fere with a collective-bargaining arrangement. • I wonder if it went 
any further than that. 

Senator Ervin. I think you will find the cease-and-desist order in 
the last paragraph. 

Mr. McGavin. I think the last paragraph is perhaps exactly what 
I said. 

The committee therefore renders this decision on behalf of the executive council 
and directs that the Sheet Metal Workers International Association cease and 
desist from any action designed to impair the collective-bargaining relationship 
of the United Steelworkers with the Burt Manufacturing Co. 

Senator Ervtn. Just above that, they found in substance that the 
actions of which the Steelworkers had complained were done by the 
Sheet Metal Workers for the purpose of inducing Burt Co. to cancel 
the bargaining contract with the Steelworkers. That is in the para- 
graph just above that. 

Mr. McGavin. You are referring to President Byron's letter to the 
United Steelworkers of America of December 16, 1955. 

Senator Ep.vin. 1 am referring to the finding of fact made by the 
committee in that letter in the paragraph just above the cease-and- 
desist order. 

Mr. McGavin [reading] : 

The committee unanimously finds that, as a result of a study of all facts in this 
situation, the actions of the Sheet Metal Workers International Association in 
putting pressure on the Burt Co. is in violation of article 4, section 3, of the 
AFL-CIO constitution. There is no question but the United Steelworkers nego- 
tiated and signed a union-shop contract taking effect on August 2, 1952. At no 
time insofar as we can ascertain have the Sheet Metal Workers directly chal- 
lenged the Steelworkers through any election proceedings in the Burt plant. It 
is clear from the letter written by President Byron, of the Sheet Metal Workers 
International Association, to District Director Ohler, of the United Steelworkers, 
on December J 6, 1955, that the actions of the Sheet Metal Workers International 
Association are designed to bring pressure on the Burt Manufacturing Co. for 
the purpose of inducing the Burt Co. to terminate its bargaining relationship 
with the Steelworkers Union. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15473 

Senator Ervin. That is right. Thank you. 

Senator Curtis. Did they obey that cease-and-desist order from the 
time they received it ? 

Mr. McGavin. As I remember, President Byron wrote a letter to 
President Meany sometime after that and complied with that directive. 

Senator Curtis. His letter said he complied ? 

Mr. McGavin. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Do you have any independent knowledge whether 
or not there were other instances of the applying of pressure? 

Mr. McGavin. I do not know, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You don't know, either way ? 

Mr. McGavin. No, sir. 

Mr. Kamerick. Did the situation come to your attention again 
after the subcommittee visit? 

Mr. McGavin. Sir, the situation came to my attention very little 
after it was put into the hands of the executive council, very few 

Mr. Kamerick. What would be the disposition of communications 
from the Steel workers relating to that subject matter? They would 
not go to you after the subcommittee acted ? 

Mr. McGavin. Thev perhaps would go to me, sir ; yes. 

Mr. Kamerick. Did you have any further meetings resulting from 
any of these communications ? 

Mr. McGavin. I can't recall, sir, if we had any meetings after. 
After the subcommittee of the executive council rendered its decision, 
I do not recall if I called any meetings. I do not recall if I did or 
not after that. 

Mr. Kamerick. There was one meeting between the time the sub- 
committee visited Akron and the time when they rendered their deci- 
sion. Do you think possibly that was the last meeting you presided 
over ? 

]\Ir. McGavin. I wouldn't want to say it was, because I have had 
numerous meetings with different affiliates. I would not want to 
pin myself down to that. 

Senator Ervin. I think what he is driving at— do you know 
whether, in fact, ultimately this matter was referred to arbitration ? 

Mr. McGavin. Oh, yes; I know that. Arbitration— I don't think 
it is the proper word. * It was referred to Mr. Cole for recommenda- 
tion, and I just want to correct one thing. I am pretty sure that 
Air. Garrison would bear with me when I state that Mr. Cole does 
not arbitrate or decide jurisdiction. He decides disputes between 
the affiliates, and only that. 

Mr. Kamerick. Is the decision of Mr. Cole binding upon the Sheet 
Metalworkers? 

Mr. McGavin. I am pretty sure the decision or the recommendation 
that would be handed down would be given to the executive council 
and that would be the executive council's action to take, whether it 
would be binding or not. 

Senator Curtis. The fact that Mr. Meany incorporated it in a 
letter, such as he did: does that make it binding on the Sheet Metal 
Workers ? 

Mr. McGavin. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kamerick. Other than the submission of this matter to Mr. 
Cole, have any developments since the subcommittee rendered the 



15474 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

decision after their visit to Akron come to your attention in any way 
at all ? 

Mr. McGavin. That, again, I could not answer because after the 
subcommittee rendered its decision, and it was answered, and if I 
remember correctly, it was sometime in May, and then we acknowl- 
edged that letter of Mr. Byron of compliance in the latter part of 
May or the middle of May, then to the best of my knowledge I didn't 
handle the case too much after that. Whether or not I held meetings 
or whether or not there were further instances of infraction, I do 
not recall. But I do recall then it was referred to the executive council 
in August 1957. 

Mr. Kamerick. Your purpose in having any meetings at any time 
would be to try to bring the contending factions within labor together ; 
is that right ? 

Mr. McGavin. Yes. On that score I would like to state that I 
would estimate 97 percent of the cases of the disputes between interna- 
tional unions of the AFL^CIO have been settled and straightened out. 

Mr. Kamerick. Do you have any idea how many meetings you had 
with relation to this matter ? 

Mr. McGavin. I would have to estimate. Off and on I would say 
I had, between all parties concerned, maybe four or five, maybe more. 
I don't know. 

Mr. Kamerick. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Erven. I want to thank you for coming before the com- 
mittee. I presume you would agree to come back on reasonable notice 
if we should see fit to question you further on this matter. 

Mr. McGavin. Yes, sir, on reasonable notice. 

Senator Ervin. Thank you. 

Mr. Kamerick. Mr. Edward F. Carlough. 

Senator Ervin. Will you stand up and be sworn ? Do you solemnly 
swear that the evidence you shall give before this Senate select com- 
mittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God ? 

Mr. Carlough. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF EDWARD F. CARLOUGH, ACCOMPANIED BY 
COUNSEL, CLARENCE M. MULHOLLAND 

Senator Ervin. Will you give us your name, occupation, and resi- 
dence for the record. 

Mr. Carlough. My name is Edward Carlough, C-a-r-1-o-u-g-h. I 
live at 5437 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D.C. Occupation is 
sheet-metal worker. I am the general secretary-treasurer of the Sheet 
Metal Workers International Association. 

Senator Ervin. Are you represented here by counsel ? 

Mr. Carlough. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Will counsel please identify himself for the record ? 

Mr. Mulholland. Clarence M. Mulholland, 740 National Bank 
Building. 

Senator Ervin. Do you have a statement, Mr. Carlough ? 

Mr. Carlough. Yes, sir. 
m Senator Ervin. Would you proceed to give your statement at this 
time, please ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15475 

Mr. Carlough. My name is Edward F. Carlough. I reside in 
Washington, D.C., and am the general secretary-treasurer ot bheet 
Metal Workers International Association. _ 

It is my understanding that your committee is presently under- 
taking an investigation of alleged boycotts involving the Burt Manu- 
facturing Co. of Akron, Ohio, and some of the local unions affiliated 
with our international association. 

It will be my purpose to cooperate with your committee to the 
fullest extent of my ability, but I should like to observe at the outset 
that I have had little opportunity to refresh my recollection ot some 
of the facts which may be involved. I received information ot this 
hearing last Monday evening in Nephi, Utah, where our interna- 
tional union was entering the sixth week of a very important court 
trial in which I have been actively participating and which is still m 
progress. I was unable to get away until last night, and by flying 
all nVht arrived here this morning. Our request for a postponement 
of this hearing or for a delay in the presentation of my testimony- 
was denied. . _ 

With the permission of your committee I should like to make some 
general observations as to the policy of our international union in 
connection with the subject under consideration before I discuss the 
Burt case. 

For many years our union has represented journeymen sheet-metal 
workers who fabricate as well as erect sheet-metal products used in 
the building and construction industry. Over the years we have been 
able to establish wage rates and conditions of employment which 
have been of substantial benefit to the men whom we represent. We, 
in conjunction with employers, have established and continue to op- 
erate what we consider to be an excellent apprentice training pro- 
gram which, because of the favorable wage rates of skilled mechanics, 
attracts many young men to our trade. 

The success of this program and, I might say, the very existence 
of our organization as a trade union, depend upon our ability to 
retain for our members the jurisdiction over sheet-metal work which 
traditionally has been performed by them and the rates of pay cover- 
ing such work. From the standpoint of our members, such a pro- 
gram is felt necessary to preserve job opportunities and conditions 
so essential to their welfare. 

In an effort to protect their work and prevent it from being con- 
tracted to others, our local unions generally negotiate provisions in 
their collective-bargaining agreements which provide that sheet-metal 
contractors shall fabricate construction items coming within our con- 
tract jurisdiction in their own shops and with their own employees. 
Such agreements also provide that if purchases of prefabricated items 
are made they will be made from companies in collective-bargaining 
agreement with a local union affiliated with our international union. 

This is by no means a novel arrangement confined to Sheet Metal 
Workers local unions. For many, many years other labor organi- 
zations have insisted that their employers protect the job opportuni- 
ties of their employees by similar means. We have never felt that 
it was wrong for us to urge our employers to agree to the fabrication 
in their own shops of items coming within our contract jurisdiction 



15476 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

or, in the alternative, to purchase such items from companies in agree- 
ment with another Sheet Metal local union. 

The sole purpose of this arrangement is to preserve work for the 
skilled mechanic and to protect his wages and conditions of em- 
ployment. It is difficult for me to see how such a practice could be 
considered to be beyond the bounds of legitimate trade-union activity 
even though it might result in some restrictions on the use by our 
employers of products manufacturing by others. 

The Burt Co., manufactures and sells sheet metal ventilators, grilles, 
louvers, and other sheet metal products. It is not and never has been 
in collective bargaining agreement with any local union affiliated with 
our international union. Its employees have for some time been rep- 
resented by the United Steelworkers of America. I am informed that 
in a number of instances during the last 20 years employees of sheet 
metal contractors who hold agreements with our local unions have ob- 
jected to installing Burt products because they were purchased from 
companies not in agreement with a sheet metal worker local union in 
violation of such agreement. This led, in some instances, to delays in 
installation and in others to cancellation of orders for Burt products. 

It is my understanding that the usual procedure in these cases was 
for the business agent of our local union to call the attention of the 
involved sheet metal contractor to instances where such products were 
being installed ; to call his attention to the fact that it was a violation 
of his contract with the union and to try to convince the contractor 
that he should live up to his agreement. In the event the contractor 
refused to comply with the agreement, the business agent might file a 
grievance against him under the grievance clause of the agreement 
or he might refuse to refer additional sheet metal workers to such 
contractor when he requested assistance in obtaining additional em- 
ployees. 

There were apparently a few instances where our members re- 
fused to handle or install Burt products after they had arrived at the 
job site, but in these instances, if, upon investigation, the interna- 
tional union found it to be a fact, it has been our policy to request the 
business agent to order the men back to work, pointing out that the 
failure to do so would be a violation of existing law. 

Efforts have been made through the public press and elsewhere to 
create the impression that our organization has singled out the Burt 
Co., for special treatment and that we have embarked upon a program 
which is intended to put them out of business. It has also been said 
that our purpose is to raid the Steelworkers and to obtain recognition 
for ourselves in the Burt plant. 

Nothing could be further from the truth. 

I cannot emphasize too much or too often that our sole purpose in 
enforcing our agreements with our contractors is for the protection 
of job opportunities for our members and the elimination of the un- 
fair competition from employers, of which Burt is one, who receive 
such competitive advantage from the payment of lower wage rates. 

We sincerely believe that if we are denied this right of self-preser- 
vation, the employees whom we represent will gradually but surely be 
reduced to the function of merely installing prefabricated items manu- 
factured at low wage rates by employees of other companies. Our 
wage rates will in turn be lowered, our apprentice training program 
placed in jeopardy, and the skilled manpower of our trade reduced. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15477 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we consider our union 
to be an honorable and responsible one, dedicated to the welfare of 
the people we represent. Although the Burt Co. contends that it is 
suffering economic hardship as a result of our agreements with our 
employers, I trust that you will recognize that the other side of the 
picture is one which demonstrates the need for a continued right of 
employees to fight against a competitive situation which endangers 
their living standards. We believe it is our duty to fight for that 
right. 

It has already been severely curtailed by existing laws which prevent 
us from encouraging those whom we represent to refuse to handle or 
install products made by other employers, regardless of its effect upon 
their work opportunities. It would seem manifestly unfair to impose 
any further restrictions. This would be particularly true if we should 
be precluded from including our own employers to perform work 
which they have every right to perform and which would otherwise 
be denied them by unfair competition from other employers. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we feel that our activi- 
ties in this situation are justified and necessary for the preservation of 
the rights of those whom we represent and should not be prohibited 
or curtailed. 

Senator Erven. If I interpret your statement correctly, you state 
that under the interpretation that you place on this so-called agree- 
ment that your union insists on putting in collective-bargaining agree- 
ments it is an agreement on the part of the employers that they will 
boycott everything else except things manufactured in their own 
plants or manufactured in plants in which your union has a local? 

Mr. Carlough. Could I elaborate a little on my statement? I say 
I just came in here. I just took a shower and had coffee and came 
down here at 10 : 30. I would like to give a little history of the back- 
ground of the organization. 

Senator Erven. First, would you mind telling me whether you agree 
with my interpretation. You say you put in your collective-bargain- 
ing agreements agreements which provide that the contractors shall 
fabricate construction items in their own shops and with the employees 
that you represent ? 

Mr. Carlougii. That is right, sir. 

Senator Erven. And also provide that if purchases of fabricated 
items are made they must be made from companies in collective-bar- 
gaining agreement with a local union affiliated with your international 
union. 

In other words, I construe that to mean, according to your interpre- 
tation of your bargaining agreements, that you require every person 
you contract with to agree to boycott everybody or all items or products 
that are not fabricated by members of your union. 

Mr. Carlough. We don ? t consider that forcing anybody to boycott 
anybody. 

Senator Ervin. If the English language means what I understand 
it to mean, and if you put down here what you mean, you admit that 
your collective-bargaining agreement with employers requires those 
employers to boycott all products not made by people who are repre- 
sented by one of your locals ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Carlough. Sir, if you would let me explain. I am just speak- 
ing now as an international man from the Sheet Metal Workers, not 



15478 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 



from a local representative. They have their own agreements which 
is a standard form of agreement which our international has got 
nothing to do with it. They sit in their collective bargaining in their 
own locality between the local union and the association employers 
in that locality. L J 

I would like to explain a little bit that we do all different phases 
o± work bitting here this morning listening to all the statements you 
would think it was only the Burt Manufacturing Co. We do about 
8 or 10 different phases. We do all ventilation, all air conditioning 
all warm-air heating, all leaders and gutters, all coppersmith work, 
all blowpipe and duct-work systems, all acoustic ceiling. We have 
an organization that has a lot of branches in it. In every one of our 
shops there are inside men and outside men and they are inter- 
changeable one with the other. They go inside today and outside 
tomorrow. In our trade 45 percent of the work is manufacturing; 
55 percent of our work is erection on the outside. 

We sit down and bargain with our employer and he bargains for 
probably the whole job. He takes in ventilators, warm-air heatino- 
or air conditioning, he does the whole job. If I could give you an 
instance of what I am trying to bring out, we take the city of "Wash- 
ington here. They may have four people bidding on the job in the 
association. Two jobs, two will get it and two won't get it. The two 
people who get the one may do it at what he bid for; the other one 
goes around and peddles it and gets it cheaper. 

When that happens it causes poor relations between our union and 
the contractors in the city because he says how do I have to pay that 
$3.80 and $4 an hour and this fellow does not do that? In our agree- 
ments they agree, and we don't make them agree, it is negotiated^that 
they will, at the price they bid, pay the prevailing wages in shops or 
outside shops. 

Senator Ervin. At the bottom of page 2 and top of page 3 on this 
standard form and the interpretation you put on this standard form 
of agreement— first, is this standard form of agreement furnished to 
the locals by the international ? 

Mr. Carlough. But it can be changed any way. It is only as a 
guide. The international has their own agreements with national 
contractors. 

Senator Ervin. You have not answered my question. 

Mr. Carlough. Yes, sir. 

Senator Erven. It was very simple. 

Mr. Carlough. It is sold to them. 

Senator Erven. It is sold to the locals by the international ? 

Mr. Carlough. And it can be changed. 

Senator Erven. Your interpretation, if it is not changed, is this, is 
it not? 

Mr. Carlough. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. That the employer agrees that he will not use any 
products on the job except those that are manufactured by the em- 
ployees who are members of the local which represents them— your 
local? J 

Mr. Carlough. That is right, sir. 

Senator Erven. Or if he goes outside of articles fabricated by his 
employees that he will only purchase those articles from other com- 
panies whose employees are represented by one of your locals. 






IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15479 

Mr. Carlough. That is right. 

Senator Ervin. In other words, your whole agreement provides that 
the employer is to boycott everybody else on the face of the earth ? 

Mr. Carlough. No. We say he has a right to buy that and we have 
a right to violate his agreement 

Senator Ervin. You say if he buys them elsewhere he violates his 
agreement with you ? 

Mr. Carlough. That is right, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Your agreement is that he will not buy them any- 
where else ? 

Mr. Carlough. We don't say that. 

Senator Ervin. That is exactly what this means. 

Mr. Carlough. I listened this morning and I remember the case we 
had recently in NLRB. They must have put in the Burt ventilators, 
the sheet-metal workers, because in that case they had 110 men. 

Senator Ervin. Let me put a question to you : 

Senator Curtis is an employer, and he makes a bargaining agreement 
with one of your locals which is embodied in the phraseology of your 
standard form of contract. 

Mr. Carlough. Yes, sir. 

Senator Erven. Then here is the Burt Manufacturing Co., or say 
me, I am another man engaged in fabricating this, and my employees 
are represented by the United Steelworkers. Senator Curtis gets a 
contract for a third party and he buys the material from me, and that 
would be violating a contract made with your local ? 

Mr. Carlough. That is right. 

Senator Ervin. Yes? 

Mr. Carlough. I would say this, Senator. Listening to the steel- 
worker this morning, they have agreements also with the Burt Manu- 
facturing Co. If tomorrow morning the Burt Manufacturing would 
take 50 percent of that work and sublet it out, and lay 50 percent of 
the steelworkers off, I would guarantee you that there would be a 
picket line 4 feet deep around there, and I would not blame them. 

Senator Ervin. I am not talking about whether your agreement is 
wise or prudent, sound or unsound. But the interpretation you place 
on it, as I understand it, is that it provides for boycott of everybody, 
a boycott of all materials not manufactured by persons who are repre- 
sented by a local affiliated with your international. 

Mr. Carlough. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. I would like to ask you at this time this question : 
I followed with interest your statement here in which you presented an 
argument in favor of the standard form of agreement, and the actions 
that you have performed in reference thereto. Did the Sheet Metal 
workers present that same argument to the subcommittee of the 
executive council of the AFL-CIO ? 

Mr. Carlough. We used that same argument, Senator, in every 
meeting we have had and to the Federal courts on injunction, and also 
to the NLRB on which we are waiting for a decision now. Yes, sir; 
we have. 

Senator Curtis. And the subcommittee, later ratified by the execu- 
tive council, ruled against you, did it not ? 

Mr. Carlough. Not on that, sir. Not on that, sir. They ruled 
against us, sir — if I may explain. 

Senator Curtis. All right. 



15480 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Carlough. On the bargaining rights involving somebody else 
bargaining rights and only through the letter which was read off here 
this morning from Mr. Byron, and if you read the letter, he misunder- 
stood. He did not hide anything. It was a letter to Meany about a 
job. He wrote to Ohler in a good spirit because we had just merged 
the AFLr-CIO. It was 11 days later. Mr. Byron misunderstood one 
part of the constitution which said voluntary merger. He was writ- 
ing to that gentleman in a very friendly letter. He wished him his 
greetings. He was not trying to hide. 

We definitely were never trying to get the Burt people. We knew 
we couldn't get them and we didn't try. We were convicted on it, 
but I think unjustly so. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Meany's letter does say the committee unani- 
mously finds as a result of the study of all the facts in the situation 
that the actions of the Sheet Metal Workers International Association 
in putting pressure on the Burt Co. are in violation of section 4. 
article 3, of the AFL-CIO constitution, which protects the established 
collective bargaining relations of all affiliates. You say that prior to 
that you did submit all this argument in justification that you have 
submitted here today. 

Mr. Carlough. No. I am talking about saying our standard form 
of agreement. We have always said that. But this was a different 
thing we were convicted on. 

Senator Curtis. Let me ask you again: This argument that you 
presented today in defense of the course taken by the Sheet Metal 
Workers Union, did you or did you not present that argument to the 
subcommittee of the executive council of the AFLr-CIO ? 

Mr. Carlough. We were never called down to the subcommittee of 
the AFL^CIO. 

Senator Curtis. But they did investigate it on the premises. 

Mr. Carlough. They investigated on a job site and I was with 
them. Nothing was brought up. We were never even called down 
there after they got back to Washington, sir. So we could not pre- 
sent that argument. 

Senator Curtis. But in the course of their investigation the points 
you brought out here were called to their attention ? 

Mr. Carlough. The investigation was in Burt's manufacturing 
plant. We walked around the plant and looked at the work. Then 
we went to another plant that we had under agreement 2 miles away, 
looked at the work, said nothing, went back, made the decision with- 
out calling us in, and that is the decision you read. We were never 
called in for a hearing before the three-man committee in Washington. 

Senator Curtis. You disagree with this letter of Mr. Meany's ? 

Mr. Carlough. Yes, sir ; I do. 

Senator Curtis. Did the Sheet Metal Workers Union abide by it ? 

Mr. Carlough. Yes, sir. We answered that letter, sir. 

Senator Curtis. I didn't ask you if you answered the letter. Did 
you abide by the directive ? 

Mr. Carlough. With what they said ; yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Beginning April 17, 1957, you did cease and desist? 

Mr. Carlough. Our interpretation of their cease and desist was, yes, 
sir. 

Senator Curtis. According to your interpretation ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15481 

Mr. Carlough. Ours, yes, sir. We so stated in our letter to them. 

Senator Curtis. I will ask you this way : In your interpretation of 
cease and desist, what did you stop doing that you were doing before ? 

Mr. Carlough. We never was doing it. We said in the letter. We 
reaffirmed something we didn't do. 

Senator Curtis. I will ask my question again. You say that you 
did comply according to your interpretation. In complying, what did 
you stop doing ? 

Mr. Carlough. We didn't stop doing. We never did what they 
accused us of, sir. 

Senator Curtis. In other words, you continued the same course 
after Mr. Meany's letter as you did before ? 

Mr. Carlough. May I read ? 

Senator Curtis. No, I want an answer to that question. Did you 
continue with the same course after Mr. Meany's letter as you were 
following before ? 

Mr. Carlough. I don't understand what you mean by after Meany's 
letter which we were following before. I don't know what you mean 
by following before. 

Senator Curtis. I am not trying to define it. Did you follow the 
same course of conduct in reference to all matters related to Burt 
after the letter as you had been doing before ? 

Mr. Carlough. I would say, yes. We didn't do nothing before and 
we didn't do nothing after. 

Senator Curtis. You didn't change after the letter? 

Mr. Carlough. Didn't change. We had nothing to change, for 
under that constitution they tried us. 

Senator Curtis. Then their direction to cease and desist, you didn't 
cease and desist doing anything. 

Mr. Carlough. Our interpretation of cease and desist was not to 
impair the bargaining relations of the Burt Manufacturing Co., and 
the Steelworkers, which we never did do. To make it sure that we 
wasn't, we reaffirmed that we hadn't done it but if they said we did 
it we would stop doing it. But we had nothing to stop. We never 
did do it. 

Senator Curtis. In other words, you continued just as you had be- 
fore the letter ? 

Mr. Carlough. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Now, how come that the Sheet Metal Workers 
Union continues to violate section 4, article 3 of the AFL-CIO con- 
stitution ? 

Mr. Carlough. We don't, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Meany says you do. 

Mr. Carlough. I differ with Mr. Meany. 

Senator Curtis. Under the constitution and bylaws of the AFL- 
CIO, who has final interpretation of the constitution ? 

Mr. Carlough. Mr. Meany and his executive board, I assume. 

Senator Curtis. Is there anything in the constitution that permits 
an affiliate to overrule a decision. 

Mr. Carlough. I believe, sir, and this is my own opinion, that Mr. 
Meany and his executive board realize that that part was not in the 
constitution, and a year ago in Miami, Fla., the executive board made 
another one by saying you would have to accept everybody's goods, 
and if vou don't, then it goes to Mr. Cole. 



15482 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. You are referring to the one of February 7 ? 

Mr. Carlough. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. That says AFL-CIO constitution in article 28 and 
article 3, section 4, explicitely guarantees the integrity of each affiliate 
of the federation shall be maintained and preserved : 

These constitutional provisions and basic principles of the trade union morality 
require that no affiliate of the AFL-CIO should engage in a boycott or similar 
activity of goods or materials manufactured or produced by employees repre- 
sented by another affiliate of the AFL-CIO. 

The AFL-CIO executive council, to implement and enforce the AFL-CIO con- 
stitution, resolves and directs : 

1. That no affiliate of the AFL-CIO shall engage in any boycott, cessation of 
work, or refusal to transport, install, or otherwise work on or with materials 
which have been manufactured or processed by workers represented by any 
other affiliate. All disputes concerning charges of violation of the obligation 
herein imposed shall be settled under the procedures applicable to the no- 
raiding provision, article 3, section 4, of the AFL-CIO constitution. 

That was February 7, 1958. 

Mr. Carlough. That was after we was convicted on this. 

Senator Curtis. After February 7, 1958, did the Sheet Metal Work- 
ers Union in any instance refuse to install or otherwise work on Burt 
products ? 

Mr. Carlough. To my best knowledge I couldn't tell you the date, 
sir, but I would say this, if they did, we would call them up and ask 
them to return their me?i. I don't think we had any after that. We 
may have. I am. not too sure of it. We would tell them to return their 
men. 

I don't believe there is one job, sir, that has not been erected by 
sheet metal workers that has been held up. We haven't got the agree- 
ment, as I say. But we tried to talk them to putting the men back. 

Senator Curtis. You would say there has been none ? 

Mr. Carlough. I believe no, sir. I have been away 6 weeks, and 
I don't know what is in the office now. There could be something in 
there right now for all I know. 

Senator Curtis. I am not talking after the court injunction. I am 
talking about after February 7, 1958. 

Mr. Carlough. Yes, I believe there was one or two, sir. I believe 
the Burt Manufacturing was corrected. 

Senator Curtis. I notice in this resolution passed on February 7, 
1958, it makes no reference to the standard form of agreement being 
a defense against it. 

Mr. Carlough. That wouldn't have nothing. That is our pre- 
rogative to sit down with our own contractors and negotiate agree- 
ments, so the AFL would have nothing to do with that, sir. 

Senator Curtis. I know, but they cover the situation and this is 
after a long deliberation. They flatly prohibit one affiliate from 
engaging in any boycott, cessation of w 7 ork or refusal to transport, 
install, or otherwise work on or with material which has been manu- 
factured or processed by another affiliate. 

Mr. Carlough. I think there is a case, but I am not too sure of 
it, under that, that they are taking the Sheet Metal Workers interna- 
tional before Mr. Cole on that. If there is one, and I am pretty sure 
there is one. 

Senator Curtis. Do you contend that you had not been prior to 
February 7, 1958, doing anything prohibited by this resolution ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15483 

Mr. Carlough. What was that, sir ? What date, sir ? 

Senator Curtis. Would you read it. 

(Question read by the reporter.) 

Mr. Carlough. As I may say, before you say these resolutions, 
is it retroactive what we did before. I say it was not as far as Burt 
at any time. 

Senator Curtis. Did you do anything that is prohibited in this 
resolution of February 7, 1958, prior thereto ? 

Mr. Carlough. I don't know if we did anything prohibited, but 
we have an NLRB case against us right now. We are waiting for 
a decision. It is a question of whether we are right or wrong in that. 

Senator Curtis. You still contend that your course of action since 
Mr. Meany's letter of April 17, 1957, is the same now as it was 
before ? 

Mr. Carlough. We would not violate any of our agreements with 
our employers or cancel any agreements because of Mr. Meany's letter 
until we find out whether we are right or wrong. That is a volun- 
tary organization. Mr. Meany cannot dictate the terms of our agree- 
ments with our contractors. 

Senator Curtis. Yes, but I understood that you took the position 
you had not done anything in the first instance, and so after Mr. 
Meany ruled you didn't change your conduct. 

Mr. Carlough. I believe we did, sir. I say that is February 17. 
I know we had five or six or seven cases before that date. I don't 
think we had anywhere near that. We had one case. So we must 
have done something to correct it. A lot of times a case comes up, 
it is in California. We may not hear anything about it. They may 
try to straighten it out a week or two and then they call the interna- 
tional. There may be cases like that that are straightened out on the 
local level that we know nothing about. 

Senator Curtis. You are not taking the position that the locals 
did live up either to Meany's letter or to this resolution of February 
7,1958? 

Mr. Carlough. I cannot speak for all my locals. I would say for 
the best of their ability they tried to live up to it, because we haven't 
got hardly any complaints, so they must have. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Senator Erven. Suppose that the Burt Manufacturing Co. came 
to you and said : "Mr. Carlough, your local unions are persuading the 
people not to purchase or use our products and we want to get along 
on good terms with you. We want to stay in business. We want 
to protect our investment. We want to stay in business and we would 
like to be able to sell our products without any interference from the 
Sheet Metal Workers, and I would just like to know" — this is Burt 
Manufacturing Co. now and not me — "what we can do to get your lo- 
cals to put an end to this activity they are directing toward our 
products." What would you tell the Burt Manufacturing Co.? 

Mr. Carlough. They did come up and asked a little further than 
that. They asked us how could they get in and get our agreement. 
Mr. Sawyer asked us that, 

Senator Ervin. What did you tell them? 

Mr. Carlough. We told them that he nor anybody else could 
do that. It was up to the members to vote what local imion the 
members wanted to go into. 



15484 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ervin. In other words, you told them if they went into 
some local union, the local union could put an end to this practice ? 

Mr. Carlough. He asked us he would like to come into the Sheet 
Metal Workers, how we could do it. He asked Mr. Byron and 
myself. We told him we couldn't do it and he couldn't do it because 
the membership themselves decided the union of their choice they 
would go into. 

Senator Ervin. But you told him that if his employees decided 
to drop the United Steel workers as their bargaining agent and select 
one of your unions — local unions — as their bargaining agent in place 
of the Steelworkers, then this would be ended ? 

Mr. Carlough. I certainly did not, sir. Never. 

Senator Ervin. Isn't that what you told me just a minute ago? 

Mr. Carlough. No, I didn't tell you just a minute ago at all. I 
said this: That Mr. Sawyer come up and asked Mr. Byron and our- 
selves that — that mainly all the stuff was sold to a sheet metal con- 
tractor in affiliation with us and he would like to know how he could 
come in and get an agreement with us. 

We told him he couldn't do it. He has an agreement with Burt 
and he could not do it. 

Senator Ervin. You told him the only way this could be ended 
would be for his employees, not him, to be affiliated with one of your 
local unions? 

Mr. Carlough. No, sir, I didn't. 

Senator Ervin. Did you tell him that he could end it that way ? 

Mr. Carlough. No, sir, I did not. 

Senator Curtis. Where did this conversation take place? 

Mr. Carlough. In our general office between Mr. Byron and myself 
and Frank Bonadio, the secretary of the building trades council who 
brought him over. 

Senator Curtis. Brought who over? 

Mr. Carlough. Mr. Sawyer of Burt Manufacturing. 

Senator Curtis. When was that ? 

Mr. Carlough. I believe it was 1956. I am not too sure. 

Senator Curtis. Do you remember what month ? 

Mr. Carlough. I don't know. I believe August or something like 
that. Was it August ? I thought it was August. 

Senator Ervin. You told him that there was not any way on earth 
for him to have these practices ended except that his employees could 
affiliate with one of your locals. That you couldn't do that for him 
and he couldn't do that. But his employees could get it ended by 
affiliating with one of your locals. Didn't you tell him that? 

Mr. Carlough. No, I didn't. That is what he said in court. My 
testimony in Federal court 

Senator Ervin. Would you tell me how you told him he could get 
this ended ? 

Mr. Carlough. I didn't tell him. 

Senator Ervin. You told him there was no way on earth to get it 
ended ? 

Mr. Carlough. No, sir. 

Senator Ervin. What did you tell him ? 

Mr. Carlough. I told him I couldn't do anything for him as far as 
getting an agreement for us. I think I straightened out a job right 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15485 

then, I don't know where it was ; I straightened out two or three jobs 
for Mr. Sawyer. 

Senator Ervin. Did you tell him that there was nobody on earth that 
could not give him any relief ? 

Mr. Carlough. No ; I don't think. 

Senator Ervin. I want you to tell me how you told him he could 
get relief. 

Mr. Carlough. He came down originally about one job held up. 
He started talking about he would like to get an agreement, and we 
told him we couldn't do nothing about it. 

Senator Ervin. Did you ever tell him that if his employees, of their 
own volition, affiliated with one of your locals as their bargaining 
agent maybe they could do it for him and put an end to it ? 

Mr. Carlough. No, sir. That would be nothing up to me to do. 
He would have to affiliate 

Senator Ervin. Then you didn't give him any information that 
there was any way on the face of the earth that he could ever get this 
changed ? 

Mr. Carlough. No, sir. I done what he did. I called the people 
up to release the job that was being held up at the time. That is what 
he mainly came down for. 

Senator Ervin. In other words, as far as you are concerned, you 
left him without hope in this world ? 

Mr. Carlough. Without what? 

Senator Ervin. Without hope in the world of finding any way in 
which he could have an end put to these activities. Is that what you are 
telling us? 

Mr. Carlough. I didn't tell him nothing at all about he hasn't got 
any hope in the world, because the Burt Manufacturing has been in a 
long time, 68 years, and they have been doing business for 68 years, 
and still doing it. 

Senator Ervin. You never mentioned one of your locals to him ? 

Mr. Carlough. No, sir ; I certainly did not. Not about affiliating ; 
no, sir. 

Senator Ervin. What did you say about a local ? 

Mr. Carlough. He spoke about one local, I don't know what it was, 
holding up the work. I straightened out two jobs for him that way. 
I called the people up and directed them back to work. 

Senator Ervin. You never said anything about the local could do 
it? 

Mr. Carlough. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. This meeting that you are talking about, with Mr. 
Sawyer, was Mr. Byron present ? 

Mr. Carlough. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Referring back again to the brief of the General 
Counsel to the trial examiner in case CC 68, the attorney for the trail 
examiner on page 5 says this : 

Byron acknowledged that his organization's members had refused to install or 
handle Burt equipment on many jobs, and when Sawyer asked him \\h ; such 
action was taken, Byron said "The Burt Manufacturing Co. did not belong to 
the Sheet Metal Workers, but belonged to the Steelworkers, and that until the 
Burt Manufacturing Co. took their men out of the Steelworkers and put them 
over to the Sheet Metal Workers Burt would continue to have trouble." 

That is taken from pages 91 and 92 of the transcript. 

21243^59— pt. 41 9 



15486 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Carlough. Who was supposed to make that statement, sir? 

Senator Curtis. It is taken from the transcript and it is cited by 
the brief of the General Counsel to Trial Examiner William F. 
Scharnkow, and it is signed by Edward A. Grupp and Philip Fusco, 
attorneys for the General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board, 
eighth district. 

Mr. Carlough. That is Mr. Sawyer's statement. That is what Mr. 
Sawyer says. 

Senator Curtis. But the attorney for the Government agency in- 
volved apparently relied on it because he cites it in his brief, and I do 
not think that he would make a contention for testimony in which he 
did not have confidence. 

Mr. Carlough. I have the same brief. I can read the next para- 
graph. This is our brief of the same thing. 

Senator Curtis. Your brief ? 

Mr. Carlough. Yes, sir. Mr. Bonadio and Carlough denied Saw- 
yer's statement. 

Senator Curtis. How long have you been an international officer of 
the union ? 

Mr. Carlough. In my capacity now, sir ? 

Senator Curtis. Any international. 

Mr. Carlough. Since 1945, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Before that you were an officer of the union in the 
New York area, were you not ? 

Mr. Carlough. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And you would have both because you were an 
officer there and you are now an international officer a good idea 
of the working conditions for sheet-metal workers and the business 
conditions generally for those in the sheet-metal industry in the New 
York area, would you not ? 

Mr. Carlough. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Now, is it not true that the Sheet Metal Workers 
local in the New York area have such a tight monopoly that it will not 
even allow products to come in from other sections of the country, 
even if they are made by the members of their own unions ? 

Mr. Carlough. To my knowledge that happened once, and we noti- 
fied the local union that they had to accept it. It was twice, and they 
did accept it. That local union has high wage rates and it is a good 
local union. 

Senator Curtis. By twice, you mean there were two complaints 
arose where something of this sort came up ? 

Mr. Carlough. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You don't know how many times it happened when 
there was no complaint? 

Mr. Carlough. We wouldn't know. 

Senator Curtis. If I were to tell you that companies from New 
England whose employees are members of your union are unable to 
sell their products in New York areas because of your New York local, 
they will not install them ; would you say this was true ? 

Mr. Carlough. That was one of the complaints, sir, I was speaking 
about, Mr. Carroll, I believe wrote me the letter from Connecticut. 
He was secretary of the association up there. 

Senator Curtis. Was he employed by the Tucker Bailey Co. in 
Connecticut ? 






IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15487 

Mr. Carlough. No, sir. He is the secretary of the association, and 
I don't know if there are a couple of Baileys in that association, and I 
wouldn't know. 

Senator Curtis. And the position taken by the local up there was 
that the Connecticut people could send in their production if they 
would send it in unassembled ; isn't that correct ? 

Mr. Carlough. I just don't remember what this case was, but I 
thought that Bailey had an agreement with us, and I think that they 
had an agreement with New York, and I am not too sure. But they 
have an agreement with the New York local, I know that. 

But they are handling Tucker Bailey's products. 

Senator Curtis. Are they coming in assembled or unassembled ? 

Mr. Carlough. I wouldn't know, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Would you say that they were not unassembled? 

Mr. Carlough. I believe at that time they were coming in partially 
assembled ; yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. They are not completely assembled ? 

Mr. Carlough. No. 

Senator Curtis. And you have had two complaints from the New 
York area about that ? 

Mr. Carlough. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Senator Erven. Going back to the question I was asking you, under 
your standard form of agreement those who employ the members of 
your locals bound themselves not to use any products of anybody or 
any company unless those products were manufactured by members of 
your union ; didn't they ? 

Mr. Carlough. They bound themselves to this extent, that when 
they would get a job their employees in their plant would do the work. 

Senator Erven. And if the man didn't have or didn't make the 
things himself he had to buy it from another person who employed 
your members of your locals to manufacture the thing or fabricate 
them? 

Mr. Carlough. That is the intent of the agreement ; yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. That is what I thought. 

Mr. Carlough. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Leaving out what was said by who about anything, 
was there anyway in the world under the program which your union 
had established, and I am not saying whether it is legal or illegal or 
wise or foolish or anything else — was there any way in the world that 
the Burt Manufacturing Co. could have obtained a cessation of these 
activities directed to prevent the use of their product except by affilia- 
ting or having their employees affiliate with your union ? 

Mr. Carlough. Certainly, sir. They applied direct. The general 
contractors send a lot of orders direct into Burt or other manufactur- 
ing places, that don't go though our sheet-metal works, and plenty 
of ventilators and other equipment don't go through our shops. 

Senator Ervin. But according to the evidence here, the members 
of your locals affiliated with your association refused to install these. 
They even refused the University of Ohio according to the evidence 
the right to select materials manufactured by Burt rather than by a 
company whose employees were affiliated with your union. 

How could they have done it ? 



15488 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Carlough. We don't tolerate that. We get a hold of anything 
like that in our general office, I am talking about, we will tell the 
people, you have to erect it, or you are in violation of law and you are 
going to get into trouble. We tell them they have to erect it. 

Senator Ervin. And yet you know that those complaints were made 
about your locals ? 

Mr. Carlough. Yes, sir, and we straightened a lot of them out. 

Senator Ervin. You don't wink to your locals when you give them 
that kind of instruction ? 

Mr. Carlough. We don't wink at our locals when we give them 
those instructions, Senator. 

Senator Ervin. Well, your locals insisted the people they dealt with 
abide by this standard form of agreement ? 

Mr. Carlough. Sir, I have already told our people to try to put 
the men back and they tell me, we signed that agreement and you 
didn't sign this agreement. This is between two people. 

Senator Ervin. But those agreements you claim were binding not- 
withstanding the fact that they were in conflict with the constitution 
oftheAFI^CIO? 

Mr. Carlough. Well, I don't 

Senator Ervin. You claim one of your locals can make a contract 
that violates the constitution of the AFL/-CIO? 

Mr. Carlough. Well, I said up to that time they didn't have that 
in there, until the 17th of February now, and they have that in there. 

Senator Ervin. Are you telling this committee that your locals did 
not refuse to install products made by Burt ? 

Mr. Carlough. I am not saying that at all, because we had to tell 
them to go in and do the jobs and it was held up for a week or two, and 
they had to refuse to install them. 

Senator Ervin. Whenever they did it, you told them to go ahead 
and let that employer violate his agreement under the standard form 
of agreement and go ahead and use these, did you ? 

Mr. Carlough. No, sir, I wouldn't. I would say to use them, and 
then prefer charges against that employer who violated his agree- 
ment, and that is what I would advise my people. 

Senator Ervin. That is what you always advised them ? 

Mr. Carlough. That is what I would advise them. 

Senator Ervin. You would advise them not to stick to their agree- 
ments ? 

Mr. Carlough. Oh, no. I said stick to their agreements. 

Senator Ervin. I have a little difficulty of understanding every- 
thing that goes on, because you tell me that the international union 
had these standard forms of agreements printed and sold them to the 
locals, and then that you told the locals not to insist on abiding by 
them, with these employees ? 

Mr. Carlough. No, sir, those agreements that people have now, you 
can look at them at different sides of the country, they take out and 
add to, and it is not a binding agreement and it is only a guide for 
the local unions to get something half in shape. 

Senator Ervin. It was a guide to get them the kind of a contract 
that standard form of agreement provides for, wasn't it ( 

Mr. Carlough. I know, but it is a negotiated agreement. 






IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15489 

Senator Erven. As a matter of fact, weren't those agreements prac- 
tically required by section 2(1) of section 2 of article 26 of your 
constitution ? 

Mr. Carlough. This was in our agreement, yes, sir, certain parts 
of it, but not the part where it says that you have to sublet the work. 
But that is now taken out of our agreements, Senator. It is out of 
our constitution. 

Senator Erven. When was it taken out ? 

Mr. Carlough. It was taken out once in 1950, one part was taken 
out, after the Taft-Hartley Act, and recently we took the whole thing 
completely out of our agreement, and we haven't got a thing about the 
standard form now in our constitution. 

Senator Ervin. Do you still sell the standard forms to your local? 

Mr. Carlough. As a guide, yes. 

Senator Erven. So striking the provision requiring them out of your 
constitution didn't seem to have affected your practice any? 

Mr. Carlough. Well, it is only taken fully out of our constitution 
September 15, sir. 

Senator Erven. That is all. 

Senator Curtis. Now, I want to ask you about some of these cases. 

Did the Sheet Metal Workers Union refuse to install $75,000 worth 
of Burt ventilators in the General Electric Co. plant at Conotton, 
Ohio. 

Mr. Carlough. Where is that ? I wouldn't know ; I wasn't in the 
general office at that particular time. I took over as general secretary- 
treasurer in 1951, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You have heard nothing about it since? 

Mr. Carlough. No. 

Senator Curtis. You never heard about that case ? 

Mr. Carlough. No. It was testified about in court, when we went 
up to the NLRB, but I wouldn't know anything about it, and I was in 
New York at that time. 

Senator Curtis. But it was testified about? 

Mr. Carlough. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You don't know when it happened? 

Mr. Carlough. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Now, did the Sheet Metal Workers Union, in con- 
nection with $35,000 worth of ventilator equipment for a new plant for 
Western Electric Co., of Omaha, in April 1957, advise concern Brown 
Co. they would not be able to erect Burt ventilators if they were 
purchased for this job? 

Mr. Carlough. That doesn't hit my mind. What is the name of 
the job? 

Senator Curtis. It was the Western Electric Co. at Omaha. 

Mr. Carlough. In 1957? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Carlough. Not that I can recall, sir. 

Senator Curtis. The Brown-Keer Co., of Chicago, 111., awarded the 
sheet metal contract, and Mr. Sawyer testified: 

But although our sales representative in Chicago was led to believe that our 
business was attractively priced we were not given the contract. Mr. Keer told 
both our sales representative in Chicago and myself that he had been advised 
by one of the officials of the Sheet Metal Union in Chicago that Brown & Keer Co. 



15490 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

would not be able to erect the Burt ventilators if they were purchased for 
this job. 

Mr. Carlough. Sir, I would have no way of knowing that. The 
only way I would know if the stuff was on the job and they wouldn't 
erect it and they would call me, but I wouldn't know if they would 
get the contract or were stopped from getting it. We wouldn't know 
about it in Washington. 

Senator Curtis. You mean to say you don't know about this con- 
troversy and these important details of it? 

Mr. Carlough. They didn't receive the job and I wouldn't know 
that at all. 

Senator Curtis. I am not talking about whether they got the job. 
I am asking you, do you contend that you could not know the impor- 
tant details about what transpired in this controversy between Sheet 
Metal and the Steel workers and Burt ? 

Mr. Carlough. At Burt, you mean ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Carlough. I thought you were talking about this job in 
Chicago. 

Senator Curtis. Yes; I am talking about every place where your 
union refused to install them. 

Mr. Carlough. I certainly did hear about them, and I was called 
up before the AFL on them, but on that particular job there, I don't 
know anything about that. 

; I know the Ford job, and the Chrysler job, I believe it was, or a 
similar job in Chicago, and I know about them, because the jobs were 
held up, but I don't know anything about this job. 

Senator Curtis. Well now, Mr. Sawyer testified that a widespread 
campaign is further exemplified by the fact that on March 26, 27, 28, 
and 29, of 1957, we were advised by our sales representatives from 
such widely scattered points as St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, 
Boston, Washington, D.C., Detroit, Parkersburg, W.Va., that con- 
tractors and other persons of the sheet-metal industry in their areas 
had advised them that they could not purchase or use any Burt 
products because the Sheet Metal Union officials had told them that 
their members would not handle Burt ventilators. 

Now, is it true that Sheet Metal officials did do those things ? 

Mr. Carlough. If you are talking about the international, or are 
you talking about me, I would say no I didn't tell them they couldn't 
handle that stuff. 

Senator Curtis. Did someone else? 

Mr. Carlough. Well, the Sheet Metal officials, there are 2 or 3 
officials in every local of the United States, 540 locals, so I wouldn't 
know what every official would tell them. 

Senator Curtis. But this same course was happening over a wide 
area, apparently over the entire country. Now, is it your position 
that you deny that it happened, or that you deny that you knew about 
it? 

Mr. Carlough. Any positions speaking for the international, and 
not the local unions which I wouldn't know, I deny that we ever told 
anybody he couldn't handle the work. 

Senator Curtis. Whoever told them ? 

Mr. Carlough. I wouldn't know whoever else told them, and not 
any general office I would say. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15491 

Senator Curtis. You deny that the international officers told them ? 
Mr. Carlough. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Do you deny that the local officials told them? 
Mr. Carlough. I wouldn't know. There must have been some- 
thing, when there was a couple of jobs held up and we had to 
straighten it out. 

Senator Curtis. Now, the international does have a publication 
that they call the "Fair List" ; haven't they ? 

Mr. Carlough. I wouldn't say it is a "Fair List," that is what Mr. 
Sawyer calls it. 

Senator Curtis. What do you call it ? 

Mr. Carlough. An information list to our contractors, and our local 
unions. 

Senator Curtis. What does it say ? 

Mr. Carlough. It just gives the names of the contractors, it is a 
book. All of the contractors that sign an agreement, with the Sheet 
Metal Workers locals, or the locals all over the country. 

Senator Curtis. What is the purpose of the list ? 

Mr. Carlough. Well, we have so many complaints and we are 
always having requests of this kind of an article or this kind of an 
item. The business agents would call us up in the local, "Where can 
you get blowpipe made," and now we have listed all of our shops that 
we have in the whole United States, imder agreement, and each con- 
tractor has a book. 

Senator Curtis. Well, now anybody whose name is in there, their 
products are acceptable ; is that right ? 

Mr. Carlough. Naturally they would be, I believe they should be. 

Senator Curtis. If their name is not in there, they wouldn't be 
accepted ; is that right ? 

Mr. Carlough. No, sir, that is not the intent of it. 

Senator Curtis. What is the intent ? 

Mr. Carlough. It is information from our local unions, to know 
who is assigned to agreements in Chicago, if they are in Wyoming 
or who is assigned to the south or west coast. There is the address 
and the name of the firm is right there, and if they need it they can 
get it right out of that book. 

Senator Curtis. Suppose their name isn't in there ? 

Mr. Carlough. Well, they won't get it then, and it wouldn't be in 
there, if the name is not in there. 

Senator Curtis. And has Burt's name been in there ? 

Mr. Carlough. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. What is that ? 

Mr. Carlough. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Now, was there a refusal to install Burt ventilators 
at the Chrysler Corp., at Twinsburg, Ohio ? 

Mr. Carlough. I believe there was, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Was there a refusal to install Burt products at 
the Municipal University at Akron ? 

Mr. Carlough. A refusal to furnish men, sir ; yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. A refusal to furnish men? 

Mr. Carlough. Yes, sir ; there was. 

I believe there were five or six items on that particular job, and 
the ventilators were one of them, and there were other items also. 

Senator Curtis. And you refused to furnish men ? 



15492 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Carlough. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Without men they can't install them, can they? 
Mr. Carlough. That is right, sir. 

Senator Curtis. But that is not a violation of law ; is it ? 
Mr. Carlough. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Because of the rulings that this action must be in 
the course of their employment, and they aren't employed until they 
get there ? 

Mr. Carlough. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Did you refuse to install Burt products at the Ford 
Motor Co. in Lima, Ohio ? 

Mr. Carlough. Yes, sir ; I straightened that job out also. 

Senator Curtis. But there was a refusal ? 

Mr. Carlough. Well, I don't believe there was a refusal, and I don't 
believe there was any men on the job, and it was a couple of years ago. 

Senator Curtis. How did you work it out if there were no men on 
the job? 

Mr. Carlough. It was a refusal to unload at a siding, and the job 
was held up quite a while, and I called up and had the job straightened 
out. _ But the job itself, sir, wasn't held up, the job was progressing, 
and it was just unloading of these ventilators, that was the question, 
but the rest of the job was going on. 

Senator Curtis. But they did hold up the unloading of the ventila- 
tors? 

Mr. Carlough. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Was that release after Secretary Mitchell inter- 
vened ? 

Mr. Carlough. He called me, sir. 

Senator Curtis. But it wasn't unloaded until the Secretary of 
Labor did contact you ? 

Mr. Carlough. No; and I had to fly up there because the men still 
refused to unload them for the business agent, and I told Secretary 
Mitchell I may have to go up myself, and fortunately I didn't have 
to go up. 

Senator Curtis. Well now, is it your contention that this refusal to 
install Burt products was entirely a program originated and carried 
out by the locals ? 

Mr. Carlough. Well certainly it is, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Well 

Mr. Carlough. I don't say it was refusal from the local unions, 
and there are plenty of times that the members themselves know what 
the agreement is and they don't want to erect them. 

Senator Curtis. And what about the refusal to install Burt ventila- 
tors at the Ohio Bell Telephone Building? 

(At this point, the witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Carlough. I don't know about that. 

Senator Curtis. It did happen ? 

Mr. Carlough. Only what was testified to, and I was just informed 
it was an individual refusal of two workers, but I didn't know about it. 

Senator Curtis. They did refuse to do it ? 

Mr. Carlough. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Now, was there a provision in the State architect's 
ruling in Ohio in reference to building at the Ohio University at 
Athens, that they were not to use Burt ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15493 

Mr. Carlough. It was in the paper and testified at the trial, sir. 
Senator Curtis. How did it happen that the State architect put it 

in there ? 

Mr Carlough. I wouldn't know that. ,_ ■ TT . 

Senator Curtis. Did anybody from the Sheet Metal Workers Union 

C °Mr Ct CARS)UGH. I wouldn't know. None from the international 

union I can assure you of that, sir, from Washington. 
Senator Curtis. You were asked clear that weren t you { 
(At this point, the witness consulted with his counsel.) 
Mr. Carlough. I don't remember that myself. I wouldn't know, 

^Senator Curtis. I won't take the committee's time to go through a 
lot of cases here but it seems strange to me about your lack ot knowl- 
edge of these things as secretary-treasurer. 

Mr. Carlough. I would know only those reported to me. I told 
you I iust got back this morning. I flew all night from 9 o clock 
until 8:15 this morning. I have been away 6 weeks I don t know 
what is in my office, my records or anything. I had to come right 

down here. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Senator Ervin. When the members of these locals refused to handle 
the Burt products they did it on the ground that the action of their 
contractor violated the standard form of agreement, didn t they \ 

Mr. Carlough. That is what they would say ; yes, sir. _ 

Senator Ervin. As a matter of fact, the national constitution, sec- 
tion 1 of article 25 provides as follows, doesn't it? 

The desirability of uniformity in local union agreements particularly with 
regard to certain basic conditions of employment being recognized, this asso- 
ciation shall prepare and furnish to each local union a uniform agreement to 
be used in all negotions with employers. 

That was a requirement of the international, wasn't it? 

Mr. Carlough. At that time, yes, sir. But they could change it. 
It all had to be changed by the Taft-Hartley law. 

Senator Ervin. They could change it, but they would use it tor 
negotiation, and they would try to get those things ? 

Mr. Carlough. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Furthermore, I will ask you if the international 
instead of making blacklists it didn't furnish to the locals white lists 
setting forth people whose products they could handle ? 

Mr. Carlough. From the international, sir? 

Senator Ervin. I will ask you if the international did not furnish 

this? . . „ . 

Mr. Carlough. No ; we got a book out giving all of our contractors. 

Senator Ervin. Yes, sir. It listed who was bound and who agreed 
to this standard form ? 

Mr. Carlough. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And you called them fair contractors ? 

Mr. Carlough. I don't believe in the book we called them fair con- 
tractors in the book we got out. 

Senator Ervin. Didn't you put out a statement ? 

Mr. Carlough. Where is that statement from ? 

Senator Ervin. Who was Carl R. Rider ? 

Mr. Carlough. He must be one of our business agents someplace. 



15494 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ervin. He says he is a business agent of Sheet Metal 
Worker Local 36. 

Mr. Carlough. That is in Cleveland, Ohio. 

Senator Ervin. He says this, March 3, 1958, sheet-metal contractors 
of local 36, gentlemen. 

Mr. Carlough. Thirty-six? 

Senator Ervin. Yes. 

Mr. Carlough. That would be St. Louis. 

Senator Ervin. [reading] : 

The enclosed list containing names of fair contractors that are fabricators of 
fans, blowers, and roof ventilators according to Sheet Metal Worker interna 
tional office, Washington, D.C. Yours truly, Carl Rider, business manager, 
Sheet Workers Local 36. 

You furnish them a book telling them who in your opinion were 
the fair contractors who had agreed to the provisions of the standard 
form of agreement ? 

Mr. Carlough. What date is that, sir ? 

Senator Ervin. This is 1958, March 3. 

Mr. Carlough. That is about the time our book went out, I believe. 
March of 1958, to all of our contractors. But we didn't say in the 
book — I will give you a copy of the book if you want it — nothing about 
the fair contractors. That is what he put in there. Our international 
didn't say that. 

Senator Ervin. What kind of contractors did it call them ? 

Mr. Carlough. Just the list of all the people that signed an agree- 
ment with our international. 

Senator Curtis. It says this : 

The enclosed list containing names of fair contractors that are fabricators of 
fans and blowers and roof ventilators according to Sheet Metal Workers inter- 
national office, Washington, D.C. 

Mr. Carlough. That is his statement, sir. We will give you the 
book. It don't say anything about fair contractors at all in the book. 

Senator Curtis. He says fair contractors according to the inter- 
national union. 

Mr. Carlough. That is the way he wants to phrase it. 

Senator Curtis. You are repudiating his statement. 

Mr. Carlough. I repudiate his statement if he says the international 
sent him a list and says it was fair contractors. We sent him a book. 
The book speaks for itself. If he wanted to add that, that is his 
business. 

Senator Ervin. According to my recollection you have made two 
statements that I have difficulty reconciling. When I first asked you 
about it in effect you told Mr. Sawyer that the local union, if his em- 
ployees voted to take the local union as bargaining agent that was the 
way things could be done. 

Mr. Carlough. I said that, sir? 

Senator Ervin. That is my recollection. 

Mr. Carlough. No, sir, I didn't say that. 

Senator Ervin. You never mentioned the local to him at all ? 

Mr. Carlough. No, sir, not a bit. 

Senator Ervin. I think you better check over your testimony be- 
cause there is a discrepancy. 

Mr. Carlough. No, that is correct. I didn't ever say to him "Sign 
up." 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15495 

Senator Ervin. According to my understanding of the English 
language I thought my recollection was quite different. Do you have 
anything else you want to say that you have not been asked about? 

Mr. Carlough. No ; I heard you asking about the wage rates. If 
it is of any interest to you. I heard you ask about New York and 
other places. I would like to say that the Fisher Co. who makes venti- 
lators in New York City, the wage rate is $3.20 an hour and 55 cents 
an hour fringe. . 

The Van Noorden Co., of Boston, Mass., a competitor of Mr. Sawyer, 
is $3.65 an hour, and 20 or 22 cents fringe. That make it $3.85 and 
New York is $3.75. In the Octagn in Chicago, 111., is $3.85 just for 
manufacturing in the shop and 30 cents fringe makes it $4.15 an 
hour. 

Senator Ervin. Anything else? 

Mr. Carlough. No, sir. 

Senator Ervin. We thank you for coming before the committee. 1 
know if you flew all night you must be sleepy by this time. 

Do you agree to come without being resubpenaed on reasonable 
notice to you or your counsel if there is further counsel ? 

Mr. Carlough. I agree. This time there was no subpena, sir. Ami 

excused ? 

Senator Ervin. We will accept the brief for consideration by the 
committee but not make it part of the record because it would be quite 
expensive to print it. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, in that connection I have referred 
to a brief or two here. May we have permission in the record to file 
as exhibits and not to be printed in any of the other material ? 

Senator Ervin. Yes. It is to be filed. 

Mr. Mulholland. I expect if the briefs are to be accepted I expect 
the international's brief ought to be accepted also. 

Senator Ervin. Yes, sir. It will be filed with the committee. It 
will not be part of the record but for the consideration of the com- 
mittee. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock Monday. 

You are excused from further attendance. 

(Whereupon, at 5: 15 p. m., Friday, November 14, 1958, with the 
following members of the committee present: Senators Ervin and 
Curtis, adjourned to reconvene at 2 p. m., Monday, November 17, 
1958.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



MONDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1958 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

in the Labor or Management Field, 

Washington, D.O. 

The select committee met at 2 :55 p.m., pursuant to Senate Resolu- 
tion 221, agreed to January 29, 1958, in the caucus room, Senate Office 
Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman) presiding. 

Present : Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas ; Senator 
Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat, North Carolina ; Senator Barry Gold- 
water, Republican, Arizona; Senator Carl T. Curtis, Republican, 
Nebraska. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Jerome Adlerman, 
chief assistant counsel; Paul Kamerick, assistant counsel; John J. 
McGovern, assistant counsel ; Ruth Y. Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

(Members of the select committee present at beginning of session : 
Senators McClellan, Ervin, Goldwater, and Curtis.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Gilbert. 

The Chairman. You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall 
give before this Senate select committee will be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Gilbert. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ROY J. GILBERT 

The Chairman. State your name and place of business, your resi- 
dence and business or occupation, please. 

Mr. Gilbert. My name is Roy J. Gilbert, and I live at San Antonio, 
Tex., and I am president and owner of Southwestern Motor Trans- 
port, Inc. 

The Chairman. Do you have counsel ? 

Mr. Gilbert. No, sir ; I don't. 

The Chairman. Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you have a prepared statement? 

Mr. Gilbert. Partly. 

The Chairman. Has your written statement been submitted to the 
committee ? 

Mr. Gilbert. It has. 

The Chairman. Have the rules been complied with ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

15497 



15498 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Do you wish to read a part of your statement ? 

Mr. Gilbert. I do, sir. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. Gilbert. Southwestern Motor Transport, Inc., is a common 
carrier freight line which operates in the southwestern part of the 
State of Texas. Our headquarters are in San Antonio. We operate 
a general commodity regular route truckline over a network of routes 
extending from San Antonio to Del Rio, from San Antonio to the 
Rio Grande Valley, and from San Antonio to Laredo and Corpus 
Christi. We have aprpoximately 170 employees and operate ter- 
minals at San Antonio, Corpus Christi, Del Rio, Laredo, and other 
principal points on our routes. 

I started in the trucking business in 1927, and operated for years 
under the name of Gilbert Truck Line. In 1949 I purchased the 
controlling interest in Southwestern Motor Transport, Inc., and 
merged it with Gilbert Truck Line and have been the president and 
operating manager of the business since that time. 

The Chairman. About how many trucks do you own and operate, 
Mr. Gilbert? 

Mr. Gilbert. About 135 pieces of equipment. 

The Chairman. 135 trucks. 

Mr. Gilbert. Well, a tractor is one unit, and trailer is another unit, 
and a bobtail is another unit. 

The Chairman. You have 135 units ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir ; that is the way we describe it, as units. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Gilbert. Our first labor trouble with any labor union was in 
the latter part of 1950, when a picket line was thrown up around our 
terminal in San Antonio for about a week. Just before the picket 
line was withdrawn, about 8 or 10 unionmen came to the dock at our 
San Antonio terminal 1 night and they attacked several on-duty 
employees, one of whom was my minor son. There was no serious 
injuries in the fracas that followed, and after this act of violence 
the union withdrew its picket line. 

The Chairman. Before they withdrew the picket line, they resorted 
to violence ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Why did they withdraw the picket line at that 
time? 

Mr. Gilbert. I think that I personally was in search for the man 
who hit my son. That was the cause of it. I went out there to find 
out who hit my son, and my son was struck in the mouth and I never 
did find out who he was. 

The Chairman. You think because you went out there in person ? 

Mr. Gilbert. I was upset about it, I feel certain, he was under age, 
he was about 16 or 17 years old, and I feel sure that is what caused it. 

The Chairman. When you went out to ascertain who had beat up 
your son and the others, the picket line dispersed ? 

Mr. Gilbert. They just didn't appear. 

The Chairman. They didn't come back ? 

Mr. Gilbert. That is right. 

Senator Goldwater. Were these pickets men of your own employ ? 

Mr. Gilbert. No, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15499 

Senator Goldwater. They were pickets from outside. 

"V/T-p (tTLiBERT Yes Sir. 

Senator Goldwater. Was there any one of them a member of your 

Mr. Gilbert. I think possibly one had been a former employee. 

Senator Goldwater. But they weren't working for you at the time? 

Mr. Gilbert. No, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Gilbert. My next union trouble started m August ot 1956. 
On August 22 I received a letter from Raymond C. Shafer, business 
manager and recording secretary of Local Union No. 657 of the Team- 
sters, which is the San Antonio local, representing that they held a 
majority of our employees as members, and asked for a contract. We 
refused the contract and secured a restraining order m the district 
court in San Antonio and when it went to trial and when Mr. Shafer 
was on the stand and made a statement that the union held a majority 
of our employees as members we asked if he would agree to a vote 
before the Labor Relations Board and be governed accordingly. 

The court recessed the trial and a vote of the members was held 
before the National Labor Relations Board on September 22, 1953, 
and the result of that vote was 4 for the union and 47 votes against. 

For about a year after that election the union left us alone. 

Our next union trouble was in September of 1954, on September 14, 
1954 when Mr. R. C. Shafer called Mr. J. C. Chandler, who at that 
time 'was our vice president and traffic manager, and made arrange- 
ments to meet him at a cafe close to our terminal in San Antonio. 
Mr Shafer asked Mr. Chandler if he would reinstate a boy by the 
name of M. F. Tijerina, an ex-convict, and stated that Tijerma , was a 
member of Teamsters Local 657. He also asked Mr. Chandler at 
that time to approach me and see if SMT would sign a contract for 
over-the-road and pickup drivers. It was about this time that we 
were extending our operations into a new territory under some cer- 
tificates that we had leased from Inland Motor Freight Lines broaden- 
ing the scope of our operations in the Corpus Christi, Alice, and Rio 
Grande Valley. Shafer represented to Chandler if I would sign a 
contract we would get a large amount of tonnage from the Union 
affiliated companies operating into San Antonio from the north. 
Shafer did not represent to Mr. Chandler in September ol 1954 that 
his union represented a majority of our employees. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt to ask something 

there 

' What do you mean by "affiliated companies"? You say Shafer 
represented to Chandler, your manager, that if he would sign a con- 
tract he would get a large amount of tonnage from union affiliated 
companies operated in San Antonio from the north. 

Do you mean other trucklines that were unionized ? 

IVTr Gilbert. Yes sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did he imply that the union could direct freight 
where it should go ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir ; he did. 

Senator Curtis. I thought the shippers were supposed to have some- 
thing to say about that. 

Mr. Gilbert. Well 

Senator Curtis. But nevertheless that took place ? 



15500 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Gilbert. That took place. 

Under their agreement with the shipper, the union and shipper, or 
the union and the operating trucklines, the shipper doesn't seem to 
have much to say about it. 

The Chairman. It was a kind of a hot cargo contract ? 
Mr. Gilbert. I believe that is what they call it. 
The Chairman. That is what it amounted to ? 
Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And if you would sign up, they could divert some 
of that business to you % 
Mr. Gilbert. That is right. 

The Chairman. Otherwise you wouldn't get any of it, that was the 
implication ? 

Mr. Gilbert. That is right. 
The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Gilbert. At about 1 p.m. on Friday, September 17, 1954, the 
union drew up a picket line around our San Antonio terminal. As 
I had been sick and in the hospital with a hemorrhaging stomach ulcer, 
I returned the next Monday, September 20. As I reached my office, 
and got out of my car, Mr. Shafer appeared, and he asked me my 
plan, that he had instructions to get a contract or else. He could make 
me or break me by forcing the large union lines to give me all of the 
freight I could handle, or cut me off entirely. He also said he would 
stop my freight at the other gateways where I would use non-Teamster 
lines to Houston and Dallas and other points. He also informed me 
that I had better not rehire any of the men that left or he would file an 
unfair labor charge. I would put back to work 10 or 12 of them had 
I not been scared of such a charge. 

I asked for an NLRB election and was advised he would not consent 
to one as he didn't have to. I knew most of the men that left at that 
time, who left on account of fear. We immediately went into the local 
district court there and got a 10-day restraining order against picket- 
ing and when the temporary restraining order expired the union threw 
up a picket line again, until a restraining order was issued in the 
district court in Dallas on or about the 25th of November 1955, which 
is a little over a year later. 

During September and October of 1954, Mr. Chandler and I had 
several meetings with Mr. Shafer and other officials of the Teamsters 
Union. They never did represent that they represent a majority of 
our emplo3'ees, but just demanded that we sign a contract. 

On another occasion, about this time Mr. Shafer told me that they, 
referring to the Teamsters' Union, could make me or break me. Mr. 
Shafer told us that the picketing was for recognition. Of course 
we understood from this that they wanted a contract signed even 
though he admitted that the union did not represent a majority of 
the employees. When the picket line was thrown up, on September 
17, 1954, 18 out of 75 of our employees walked off and went on strike. 
All 18 of the jobs were filled by permanent employees within a few 
days, and the picket line was also established at our Corpus Christi 
terminal, and it lasted only 3 or 4 days. The picket signs carried at 
the San Antonio site said "SMT employees on strike. Teamsters 
Local 657." 

Before the picket line was thrown up, in September of 1954, it was 
the custom in San Antonio for us to pick up the freight coming to. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15501 

our lines at the dock of the connecting carriers, and for the connecting 
carriers to pick up the freight going to their lines at our docks. The 
custom was eliminated in September of 1954, and as long as there was 
a picket line there employees would not cross the picket line and pick 
up the freight. 

Therefore, we delivered our freight to them, and picked up the 
freight coming to us, up until May 18, 1955. 

During October and November, or about the middle of October, 
they started ambulatory picketing, or roving pickets, I would call it. 

Mr. Chairman. That is pickets following your trucks ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Let us move along. 

Mr. Gilbert. Two or three men would follow our trucks and cars 
and each time our truck would stop at a customer's place of business 
to pick up freight, they would throw up a picket line around our 
truck or in front of the place of business of our customers. This 
resulted in delays in picking up freight, and its purpose was to dis- 
courage our customers from calling us any more to handle their ship- 
ments. 

This lasted for about 5 or 6 weeks, and was finally discontinued after 
an NLKB investigation of the complaint we had filed against the 
union for ambulatory picketing. They did not stop the picketing at 
our terminal. 

On the secondary boycott, the hot cargo, it was applied to us May 
18, 1955. Up until May 18, 1955, we interchanged freight with quite 
a number of common carrier freight lines who have Teamster con- 
tracts at San Antonio including Alamo Motor Lines, Best Motor 
Lines, Brown Express, East Texas Motor Freight Lines, Lee Way 
Motor Freight, Eoadway Express, Southeastern Plaza Express, 
Strickland Transportation, Sunset Motor Lines, and Yello Transit. 

I have a statement made up to show the business with the interlines 
there from September of 1957 to 1955, which is $20,521,305. We 
should have done over twice that amount of business in that length of 
time had it not been for the picket line. 

After May 18, 1955, we did not receive any freight from these 
carriers and they would not accept any freight from us. 

Senator Gold water. Would you allow me just a question. 

This picket line you speak of now, were these strangers in the picket 
line ? Were these pickets from your own company ? 

Mr. Gilbert. They were pickets put up there for the first little 
while, yes. Then there was an old man, I think he was a Mexican, 
from Mexico, could not even talk English. I don't think he was a 
naturalized citizen. I don't think he ever drove a truck in his life. 

He walked it after the first 5 or 6 weeks. 

Senator Goldwater. How many pickets did they have ? 

Mr. Gilbert. At first for several weeks, they had, I think, the whole 
gang. I would say 17 or 18 that walked off and 5 or 6 more. I would 
say sometimes 25 men out there ganged up. 

Senator Goldwater. What eventually happened to the seventeen- 
and-some-odd that walked off ? 

Mr. Gilbert. They were doled out and some of them got jobs with 
Teamster lines. Some of them left the country. Some of them went 
up north for jobs. 

21243— 59— pt. 41 10 



15502 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Goldwater. It wound up that the picket line was made up 
of people who had never worked for you ? 

Mr. Gilbert. That is correct. 

The Chairman. All right ; let us proceed. 

Mr. Gilbert. From September 1954 through May 18, 1955, our 
revenues from the interline of freight with these comiecting carriers 
were $193,994.75. 

On the morning of May 18, 1955, Mr. Chandler called a Mr. Jones, 
who is vice president and general manager of Alamo Motor Lines, 
about interline of some freight and was told that the union had ap- 
plied the hot-cargo clause and they would cease doing business with 
us and cease accepting our freight or giving us freight. 

Mr. Jones showed Mr. Chandler a letter that they had received from 
the union. 

The Chairman. And I will read it. 

General Drivers and Helpers Local No. 657, 

San Antonio, Tex. 

Notice From Union to Employer Under Article 9 

Gentlemen : Because of the labor dispute involving Southwestern Motor Trans- 
port, our members employed by your company have advised us that they intend 
to exercise the right given them by article 9 of the Southern Conference over- 
the-road agreement to refuse to handle unfair goods and to refuse to cross any 
picket line resulting from such labor dispute. Accordingly, we are sending you 
this notice pursuant to article 9 of the above-mentioned agreement. 
Very truly yours, 

R. C. Shafer, 
Business Manager and Recording Secretary, Local Union No. 657. 

All right, proceed. 

Mr. Gilbert. I would like to state that the Alamo Motor Line I just 
spoke of, it is information among the lines generally, was purchased 
sometime in March by the Insurance Co. of Texas. 

The Insurance Co. of Texas was reputed to be owned by a labor 
group, mostly the Teamsters Union. They purchased the Alamo 
Motor Line, put in a Mr. J. O. Tolla as their president and manager, 
and he immediately, on his arrival in San Antonio, contacted me 
continually, insisting that I give him a price on my business or give 
him a chance to make me an offer. 

I refused. 

Senator Curtis. I would like to ask this question. Now, that was 
the Texas Insurance Co. ? 

Mr. Kilbert. Insurance Co. of Texas. 

Senator Curtis. Where is its head office ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Dallas, Tex. 

The Chairman. Is that the name of it ? 

Senator Curtis. The Insurance Co. of Texas. 

The Chairman. That is the name ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. That is an insurance company owned by a union ? 

Mr. Gilbert. That is my understanding. That is generally un- 
derstood. 

Senator Curtis. Now, it was public knowledge that they purchased 
the Alamo Truck Lines. 

Mr. Gilbert. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. All right, go ahead. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15503 

Mr. Kennedy. The head of that insurance company is presently 
under indictment ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Gilbert. That is my understanding. They have been under a 
big investigation in Texas. . 

Senator Curtis. Did they purchase it for the purpose of gomg into 
competition with you? 

Mr. Gilbert. No, sir; they didn't operate over any of my system. 
They just wanted it for a feeder line. 

Senator Curtis. They did exercise the hot cargo clause and refused 
to interline freight? 

Mr. Gilbert. They did, sir. . 

I have a long list here which I won't read, more or less, I don t 
think it necessary. . '_ 

The Chairman. Let that be inserted in the record. It won t be 
necessary to read all of that. Provide it to the reporter there and he 
can insert the list. 

Mr Gilbert. Alamo Motor Lines, Best Motor Lines, Brown Ex- 
press, East Texas Motor Freight Line, Lee Way Motor Freight, Eoad- 
way Express, Southern Plaza Express, Strickland Transportation 
Co., Sunset Motor Lines, Yellow Transit Co. 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Gilbert. They all exercised hot cargo clause. 

The Chairman. They invoked it against your company? 

Mr. Gilbert. Well, yes, sir; they did. They refused to do busi- 
ness with us. . . , _. 

Starting immediately, as I said a while ago, after the picket line 
was put up in September, all along through the months of October, 
November, December, we had different types of attacks on our equip- 

Th'e Chairman. You mean vandalism, damage to your property ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You said different types. Name two or three ot 

them briefly. , _ '■' 

Mr. Gilbert. I have it further down the page here. I will say 
that the vandalism or sabotage or attacks, violence, terrorism, what- 
ever you want to call it, got worse after May 18, 1955, after the "hot- 
cargo" clause was invoked. 

I have a note here about a Mr. 

(At this point Senator Goldwater retired from the hearing room.) 

The Chairman. In your statement here you say : 

Shortly after May 18, 1955, there began a campaign of violence, sabotage, 
and terror against us and our employees and the following incidents are illustra- 
tive of this campaign. 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Then you list IT. 

Mr. Ghbert. Seventeen attacks. 

The Chairman. I will let you comment upon them if you like. 
Without reading them, the list of 17 in the prepared statement may 
be inserted in the record at this point as a part of the witness' 
testimonv. 

Now, 'if you want to comment on any of the 1 1 , you may do so. 

Mr. Gilbert. On the morning of May 18, Mr. Chandler called Mr. 
Scales, who is vice president and general manager of Brown Ex- 



15504 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

press, who told him that they had been served with a letter by the 
union that was the same as the letter Alamo Motor Lines received and 
Mr. Scales said that all interchange of freight with us would cease 
and they would not accept any freight. 

On May 18, Mr. Chandler also contacted Mr. Fulger, of East Texas 
Motor Freight; Mr. Wayne Neill, terminal manager for Lee Way 
Motor Freight ; Jack Chaney, the office manager ; and Roy McCracken, 
the dock foreman for Southern Plaze Express ; Phil Orts, the terminal 
manager for Sunset Motor Lines; Mr. Ned Secrests, the terminal 
manager for Yellow Transit, and the story with them was the same 
as with Alamo Express and Brown Express. 

We were told that they would not accept any of our freight and 
they would not exchange or interline any freight to us. 

After May 18, we tendered freight to all of these carriers from 
time to time, but this situation lasted until after November 25, 1955, 
when the district court at Dallas issued a restraining order against 
the union and the trucklines against enforcing or applying the "hot- 
cargo" clause. 

Shortly after May 18, 1955, there began a campaign of violence, 
sabotage, and terror against us and our employees, and the following 
incidents are illustrative of this campaign : 

1. On May 26, 1955, at about 2 a.m., Wood Monkhouse, one of our 
drivers, was driving a truck and trailer from Hondo, Tex., to San 
Antonio, Tex., on Highway 90. About 12 miles out of San Antonio 
a car approached Wood Monkhoi^e going in the oppon+e diroctio^. 
Some hard objected was projected or hurled from the approaching 
car which hit the left windshield of Monkhouse's truck, making a small 
hole through the glass and shattering a large area around the hole. 

2. On May 30, 1955, at approximately 10 p.m., Antonio R. Barajas, 
one of our drivers who was driving one of our trucks, was about 2 
miles south of Cotulla on Highway 81. He was approached by a car 
coming from the opposite direction at a slow rate of speed with lights 
dimmed. 

Shortly before the car passed the truck someone within the car 
threw a flaming bottle at the truck and trailer. This flaming object 
hit the mirror on the left-hand side of the cab of the truck, broke the 
mirror glass, and bounced off and hit the trailer. 

3. On or about June 1, 1955, at about 11 :30 p.m., about 6 miles south 
of George West on Highway 281, Sam Garcia, Jr., and Eddie Lee 
Balli, two of our drivers, were driving and riding, respectively, in the 
regular course of their duties. A car aproached from the opposite 
direction and a flame bomb was thrown at plaintiff's tractor. 

It missed the tractor, but hit the nose of the trailer, making a dent 
in the trailer. Where it hit, it left bits of glass and a liquid which 
smelled like diesel fuel or kerosene. 

4. On or about June 9, 1955, at about 9 :20 p.m., Antonio R. Barajas, 
one of our drivers, was driving one of the trucks across Black Creek 
Bridge, about 2 miles north of Moore, Tex., when a car approached 
from the opposite direction and cut off its lights. Immediately there- 
after a hard object thrown from the car hit the left-hand mirror of 
the cab of the truck and damaged it. 

5. On or about June 17, 1955, at approximately 9 :30 p.m., Antonio 
R. Barajas, one of our drivers, accompanied by Jesse Caballero, 
another of our line drivers, who was on a run to Laredo from San 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15505 

Antonio, was about 3 miles south of Van Ormy. A car approached 
him going in the opposite direction and just as the car passed a flam- 
ing object was thrown from the car, hitting the hood of the truck 
and bouncing back and hitting the trailer. 

6. On June 16, 1955, Eddie Lee Balli, one of our line drivers, was 
making a run from McAllen to San Antonio, and at approximately 
10 : 30 p.m., he was traveling between Whitsett and Campbelton on 
Highway 281. A car came toward him from the opposite direction 
and when it was nearly opposite him a man in the rear seat of the car 
stuck his arm out of the window and threw a hard object. 

The line driver swung his truck completely off the highway in order 
to avoid this object. The object, apparently a large rock, hit the hood 
of the tractor, the side panel of the left hand of the tractor, the left 
view mirror, and then hit the trailer. 

The object made a dent in the hood and side panel, bent the mirror 
bracket and made a dent in the stainless steel trailer about 3 inches 
deep and 7 inches across. 

7. On June 18, 1955, at about 12:30 a.m., Clarence Passon, one of 
our drivers, who are making a run from Corpus Christi to San An- 
tonio, was approximately 2 miles north of Leming, Tex. Just as he 
topped a small rise a new model green Oldsmobile approached him 
going in the opposite direction and a flaming object was thrown from 
that car at his truck. The burning object struck the front of the 
truck. 

8. On June 23, 1955, at about 9 :30 p.m., a person by the name of 
Victor Lang, a member of the Teamsters Union, was in a beer parlor 
on East Mitchell Street, San Antonio, Tex., and at about 9 :30 p.m., 
was seen there by Clarence Passon, one of our drivers. He was in the 
company of four other men who answered to the names of Brown, 
Andy, Maxie, and Jack Duncan, all of whom are believed to be mem- 
bers of the Teamsters local. Victor Lang and these men were dis- 
cussing SMT lines. Victor Lang said, "We really will have a good 
deal when Alamo Motor Lines gets SMT." 

Alamo Motor Lines at that time was owned and controlled by the 
Teamsters Union. Lang boasted that other motor freight lines not 
having contracts with the Teamsters were going to get the same treat- 
ment that SMT was getting. 

9. On June 23, 1955, at a local beer tavern in San Antonio, a Mr. 
Briones, a member of the Teamsters Union, threatened Pedro Palacies, 
one of our employees and told him, in substance, that either SMT and 
its employees would sign up with the Teamsters or we would be forced 
out of business. 

10. On the evening of June 23, 1955, Guadalupe B. Carrillo, one of 
our employees, had a violent argument with the same Briones men- 
tioned above in the San Antonio beer tavern because of Carrillo's 
refusal to join the Teamsters. 

In order to avoid trouble the employee left this tavern and went to 
another tavern where two men immediately approached him and 
demanded that he join the Teamsters. He refused and left. As 
he walked toward his car he was assaulted and severely beaten by an 
assailant he did not see clearly enough to identify. 

11. On July 7, 1955, Pancho Salas, one of our line drivers, accom- 
panied by Max Segovia, another of our line drivers, was making a run 
from Corpus Christi to San Antonio. At about 11 :30 p.m., he was 



15506 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

12 miles north of Pleasanton on Highway 281. There were no other 
cars on the highway except one car approaching from the north. 
Just as the car passed a rock approximately 6 inches across was thrown 
through the windshield of the truck. 

Pancho Salas was hit by the broken glass in his eyes and face and 
blinded temporarily. His right eye had glass imbedded in it. Max 
Segovia received a cut on his head which required that stitches be 
taken. 

12. Early in the morning of July 8, 1955, at about 3 : 30 a.m., Sam 
Garcia, Jr., one of our drivers, who was making a run from San 
Antonio to Laredo found himself about 12 miles south of San An- 
tonio on Highway 81. An individual in a car coming from the op- 
posite direction threw a large rock approximately 6 inches in diameter 
and 3 to 5 inches deep in the cab of our truck. It hit the top of the 
cab with terrific impact and noise. Had it hit the windshield it could 
have killed the driver. 

13. On July 15, 1955, John B. Morton, a dock foreman for SMT at 
San Antonio, was driving to his home after work about 9 or 10 p.m., 
and he was forced to the curb by a car with four men in it. One of 
the men was Bobby Smith, a member of the Teamsters and an em- 
ployee of Alamo Motor Lines. 

Two of the men came over to him, called him a "scab," and Bobby 
Smith told him to quit SMT or get out of town. He was told that he 
could not work in San Antonio any more and Bobby Smith said, "The 
union is going to get SMT so you better leave now or you won't have 
a chance to stay on the job." 

Bobby Smith also told John B. Morton that "they" would get him 
sooner or later. 

14. On July 16, 1955, about 5 or 6 p.m., John B. Morton, dock 
foreman for SMT at San Antonio, was in the Rosalita Cafe in San 
Antonio, located on the corner of Highland Boulevard and Roosevelt 
Street. He was approached by Bobby Smith, a member of the Team- 
sters employed by Alamo Motor Lines, and another man. Bobby 
Smith called him a "damn scab," and cursed him loudly in the pres- 
ence of other people in the cafe. Both men threatened to drag him 
outside and beat him up. They called him names which I do not 
want to quote. 

Morton called the police for protection, and when the policemen 
came to escort him outside, Bobby Smith and another man were still 
just outside the cafe. Bobby Smith cursed Morton again and told 
him in the presence of the policeman that he, Smith, would "get" 
him. 

15. On July 26, 1955, Antonio R. Barajas, one of our drivers, was 
making a run from San Antonio to Laredo. At approximately 2 : 30 
a. m., when he was halfway between Millett and Gardendale on High- 
way 81, he was shot at two times. The bullets entered his left front 
fender near the headlight, one passing out of the rear of the fender, 
and the other hitting the steering column and deflecting into the 
floorboard. The holes made by the bullets were similar in size to 
those made by a 30-30 caliber rifle shell. Had the bullets hit him he 
could have been killed. 

16. On July 27, 1955, Sam Garcia, Jr., a line driver for SMT was 
making a run from San Antonio to Harlingen, Tex. When he was 
about 4 miles south of Alice, Tex., sometime between 2 and 3 a.m., he 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 15507 

was shot at three times. One of the bullets disabled his truck so that 
he was unable to continue driving it and had a hitchhike to Alice, Tex, 

The highway patrol discovered that a bullet had gone through 
the radiator just left of the center, knocking an inch or an inch and 
one-half hole in the radiator and tearing out the timing gear case. 

It was necessary to take the tractor on to San Antonio and have it 
dismantled. A rifle bullet slug, or a part thereof, was found in the 
oil pan. 

17. On the night of Thursday, August 18, 1955, three of our delivery 
trucks at the McAllen terminal was set afire and the McAllen fire 
chief, who investigated the fire, found that either kerosene or diesel 
fuel had been poured on the ground underneath the trucks and then 
set afire. 

There have been other acts of sabotage, some of which I have not 
recorded the dates when they took place, several radio cables and wires 
were cut, as well as ignition wires on our pickup and delivery trucks, 
dirt and gravel has been found in the gas tanks and motors, several 
windshields on trucks parked on our lot at the San Antonio terminal 
have been broken. 

On 1 occasion 38 tires had holes drilled in them in 1 night. We 
found the trailer hitch disconnected and the light wires cut on one 
of our trucks. 

I have had many anonymous and disturbing telephone calls and I 
finally had to have restricted numbers in my home telephone. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could I just ask you in summary, there were arsons, 
were there not ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was dynamiting? 

Mr. Gilbert. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Attempting dynamiting? 

Mr. Gilbert. Well, I would get threats and scared to death all the 
time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever find any dynamite on any of your 
property ? 

Mr. Gilbert. No, sir ; I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were there shootings ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. At your trucks ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And there were objects thrown into your trucks 
as they drove by ; is that right ? 

Mr. Gilbert. A fast moving car, moving in the opposite direction 
from our trucks, would throw these flaming objects and rocks at our 
equipment, going in the opposite direction. 

The Chairman. You have pretty well described them as you set 
them in these 17 items, have you ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Pretty well, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Although there were no dynamitings of your place 
of business during the same period of time, some of the other truck- 
owners experienced dynamiting? 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they were adjoining, very near your property? 

Mr. Gilbert. One of them was adjoining my property. 

(Mr. Kennedy. We will be going into that later, Mr. Chairman. 



15508 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Gilbert. I have an exhibit here I would like to show for one 
thing. 

The Chairman. Is that on item 5 ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Well, item 5, I added something to this. I would 
like to read it and then I would like to tell you what I have added 
to it. 

The Chairman. All right. 

You do not need to read item 5, just add what you have written 
there. 

Mr. Gilbert. Well, the drivers — as they were all armed with rifles 
for protection — the drivers stopped the truck and trailer and fired 
three shots at this car. They seemed to attack our equipment in little 
rolling hills. 

I would like to make that statement. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Gilbert. On No. 11 I would like to make a statement on that, 
please, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, on item No. 11. 

Mr. Gilbert. Shall I read it ? 

The Chairman. You do not need to read item 11. Just add what 
you wish to it. 

Mr. Gilbert. I have an exhibit I would like to show. I brought 
it along as an afterthought here. I brought it all the way from 
Texas. 

This is a rock that was thrown in our windshield and hurt both 
of those boys. 

The Chairman. Is that with respect to item 11 ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Let the rock be made exhibit No. 15 for exhibit 
only. It can't be placed in the record. 

(Rock was made exhibit No. 15 for reference and may be found 
in the files of the select committee.) 

Proceed. 

Mr. Gilbert. I would like to say after this July 7, after the two 
boys got hurt, I was around in the hospital with them all night. The 
next morning I saw Mr. Shafer. He came up to me and said, "Good 
morning, Mr. Gilbert." 

"Good morning, don't you speak to me, Mr. Shafer." 

"What is the matter?" 

"I have two boys hurt last night and you know it. I want to tell 
you one thing, I have one son and he is driving those trucks sometimes 
at night. If that boy is maimed in any way, I am not going to ask 
nobody any questions. I am going to come down there and do some- 
thing to somebody. I am going to get somebody." 

I don't know if I am supposed to say that, but that is the statement 
I made. 

We didn't have any more rock throwing; we didn't have any more 
fire bombs. 

The Chairman. After you told him if any more of that happened 
you would get somebody, if they hurt your boy ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. This rock that is an exhibit, as your truck was 
going along this was thrown and went through the windshield ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15509 

TVTt* Ctilbert Y^gs sir. 

Senator Curtis. Who were the two employees, this Pancho Salas 
and Max Segovia ? . . 

Mr. Gilbert. Pancho Salas was a driver. Max Segovia was a driver. 
We had two drivers on the truck, trying to save our organization— keep 
them going. The rock came through the windshield, low down, and 
struck Salas beside the head, hit the back of the cab and then glanced 
off on Segovia and we had to take several stitches on the side of his 
head from this rock. 

Senator Curtis. Was this the situation when these other trucklmes 
applied the hot-cargo clause to you and boycotted you, you did not 
have enough business to keep all your workers on the job, so you would 
send two on one job? . 

Mr. Gilbert. They were old employees and I tried to keep them 
with me in the organization. 

Senator Curtis. That was the reason you were sending two of them f 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. How long were they in the hospital ? 

Mr. Gilbert. One boy was off the job for about 10 days an account 
of glass getting in his eyes. The boy that had the cut was just stitched 
up. He was out the next day at noon. 

Senator Curtis. Now, the man that you talked to after this as Shaf er 
of the Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes ; he is the boss of the Teamsters in San Antonio 

Senator Curtis. The local ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did he deny or do anything about this attack. 

Mr. Gilbert. I didn't give him a chance to deny. I told him we 
knew about it. I think he knew about it. 

Senator Curtis. Did he say anything? 

Mr. Gilbert. He said, "What is the matter, Mr. Gilbert?" I just 
told him what I wanted to and went on. 

Senator Curtis. But he didn't deny it ? 

Mr. Gilbert. No, sir ; he didn't deny it. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Gilbert. I would like to read No. 15, if you don't mind. 

The Chairman. It is in the record, but you may. 

Mr. Gilbert. I would like to add to it. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is where a man was shot at ; is that right ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And two bullets entered his left fender ? 

Mr. Gilbert. That is right. 

The Chairman. All right, you may add to it. 

Mr. Gilbert. One of the bullets hit the steering column and de- 
flected into and through the floorboard, spraying lead into his right 
arm. He had about three places where lead was sprayed into his arm. 

Senator Curtis. Were these instances reported to police officers ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir ; we appealed to everybody in the State. 

Senator Curtis. Did they conduct any investigation of these acts 
of violence? 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Was anyone ever arrested and convicted ? 



15510 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Gilbert. Several have been arrested. I understand there are 
several indictments pending or whatever you call it. 

The Chairman. Pending now ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Waiting for trial or something. 

Senator Curtis. Did you feel you had gotten adequate police 
protection ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Well, there are some of those people and it was at 
night, those attacks were at night, I would report it to the local 
officers. The citizens finally became worked up over it, fathers, sons, 
and families of my drivers appealed to me and to the Governor, the 
Attorney General of Texas, and finally the head of the department of 
public safety sent some rangers over there to investigate. 

I will say this, when the Texas Rangers started making the rounds 
over my highways and actually investigating and did pick up 2 or 3 
and questioned them, this shooting stopped. 

The Chairman. It is very easy for them to respect the Texas 
Rangers. 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir ; they do. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Gilbert. One that the Rangers checked, investigated, was No. 
17, where I had 3 trucks set afire down in McAllen, Tex. That 
seemed to have disturbed the boys and they left that lower country, 
they left the valley. 

There was a bunch of them in the valley at that time. After that 
fire was set under my trucks they got out of the valley. 

Senator Curtis. You mean these Teamsters groups ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know the names of any ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Shafer, it is my understanding that Shafer was in 
the valley. And a fellow by the name of Suttle, from east Texas or 
Louisiana, was in the valley at the time. 

The Chairman. In the valley ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir ; lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. 

The Chairman. I am trying to get my bearings ; proceed. 

Mr. Gilbert. I would like to state that there have been other acts 
of sabotage which I have not recorded as to the dates when they took 
place. Several of our radios were damaged, cables, wires, and things 
were cut as well as ignition wires on our pickup and delivery trucks. 

The dirt and gravel was found in our gas tanks and motors. 

Several windshields on trucks parked on our lot at the San An- 
tonio terminal were broken. 

As closely as I watched my personal car it got doped. On one 
occasion some marijuana cigarettes were planted on one of my em- 
ployees' cars one night, and I can't help but think they meant that 
for my son. 

One night there were 38 tires with holes drilled in them. It 
looked like they had been drilled with a half -inch drill possibly, it 
looked like a brace and bit, wood bit, they way they jerked out the 
rubber and fabric. 

One tire was found with part of a %-inch drill broken off. We 
found several trailer hitches disconnected, light wires cut in other 
trucks. 

The Chairman. You have had many anonymous disturbing tele- 
phone calls ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15511 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You finally had to restrict your home telephone 
number ? 

Mr. Gilbert. I did, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Gilbert. We have a 200- foot radio tower down there. I would 
get calls, saying "Mr. Gilbert," friendly calls, "They are going to do 
this to you, or they are going to do that to you." 

Employees, former employees' wives, would slip around and would 
call us. Their husbands would hear some things that they were going 
to do to the Gilberts, like cutting these cables, putting acid. If they 
would cut those cables and have that tower fall that could kill a lot 
of people. 

Senator Curtis. Where would they get this information? Would 
it be talked down at the union hall, or where the Teamsters men 
would congregate? 

Mr. Gilbert. That is my understanding; yes, sir. A lot of these 
calls we would get were pretty rough, threats and every other thing. 

The Chairman. I notice here you have financial loss caused by 
hot cargo listed here for different dates. Do you have those sheets? 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You show here losses. Are these on separate 
sheets, A. B, C, and D, and so forth? 

Mr. Gilbert. I didn't number them, but I have them. 

The Chairman. You have the losses? They may be inserted at 
this point as exhibit No. 16. 

(Document was marked "Exhibit No. 16" for reference and may be 
found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. About what is the aggregate of your losses ? Let 
us get it this way, first: What do you regard the aggregate of the 
damage done to your property, physical damage, damage done to your 
property, trucks, and so forth, by this vandalism? How much did 
that total ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Of course, we naturally charged it to maintenance; 
it was an enormous sum. 

Over the years we had worked up a very good rate on our insurance 
rate. I think we were operating on 56 percent under the manual. 
It takes a lifetime to get a rate like that, to build up and get a credit 
rating like that. 

Our insurance company was trying to cancel out on us. They stayed 
with us until the end of the term of that policy and did cancel out 
and then when we did buy insurance from another company it cost 
us 10 percent more. We gained back about 2 to 4 percent of it. 

The Chairman. That is not the point. What do you estimate — 
you are in a better position than anyone else, I know it cannot be 
accurate — of all this vandalism. How much did the damage come to 
in dollars and cents according to your best judgment ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Damage on freight ? 

The Chairman. No, sir ; just trucks and property first. 

Mr. Gilbert. I would say ten or fifteen thousand dollars. 

The Chairman. How much did you suffer in damage from loss of 
prospective business, your freight income, revenue, from your 
business? 



15512 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Gilbert. I would say, I can't make up these losses in 10 years 
with good luck. I would say a good million dollars these losses have 
caused me in my operation. 

The Chairman. Profits from your business ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes. 

The Chairman. In other words, if this had not occurred and your 
business had continued on the historical rate of progress you were 
making, it would have cost you at least a million dollars in profits ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Over a period of how many years ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Well, I would say, if nothing else happens, if we go 
ahead and we get an injunction in the State courts, with good luck I 
would say this thing has cost us a good million dollars. 

The Chairman. Over what period of time, from 1954 to 1958 ( 

Mr. Gilbert. You see, from 1954 — even now we are operating 

The Chairman. I understand. 

Mr. Gilbert. I feel if this had not occurred we would be doing two 
or three times more business than we are doing today. 

The Chairman. That is from 1954 up until now ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And what you anticipate it will be before you can 
recover ? 

Senator Curtis. To boil it down, the reason for all of this, in your 
opinion, is because you would not sign a contract putting your drivers 
into the Teamsters Union when they didn't want to go in; is that 
right? K 

Mr. Gilbert. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. Now, at any time in your opinion, have the Team- 
sters represented a majority of your drivers ? 

Mr. Gilbert. They have not. 

Senator Curtis. How many elections have you had ? 

Mr. Gilbert. ( )nly one. 

Senator Curtis. And at that time they only got four votes ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir ; that was in 1953. 

Senator Curtis. Have the Teamsters at any time asked for an 
election ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Not since then ; no, sir. 

Senator Curtis. They agreed to that one ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You were the first one to propose that, were you 
not? 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. They got licked and only got four votes and since 
that time they have never asked for one ? 

Mr. Gilbert. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. They have carried on this armed conflict with rocks, 
guns, gasoline, setting fires, and so on ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. How about these companies that boycotted you? 
In your opinion, were all of these unionized transportation companies 
and warehouses that refused to turn over freight to you, were they 
willing participants, do you think ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15513 

Mr. Gilbert. Well, some of them will tell you yes, but they would 
blame it on their drivers, their union contract, which had the hot- 
cargo clause. 

Senator Curtis. Were there any instances there where a shipper 
had sent some freight and had labeled it, or otherwise directed it over 
your specific routes that they would not give you ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Thousands of times. 

Senator Curtis. Still they would not give it to you? 

Mr. Gilbert. Would not give it to me. 

Senator Curtis. They went along from 1954 up to the present time? 

Mr. Gilbert. The hot cargo was applied in the middle of May and 
we got a restraining order in the State courts, in the early part of 
December. 

Senator Curtis. Of what year? 

Mr. Gilbert. 1955. 

Senator Curtis. Then has there been a boycott since 1955? 

Mr. Gilbert. Since we have had this restraining order they have 
had to accept our freight. It was served papers by the court. 

I will say this : we sure have to fight to get our freight from them 
even now. * You know, they cooperate with us 5 percent or 10 per- 
cent. The court says they are supposed to cooperate with you and 
give you freight, but you still can't make them. 

I definitely think if it had not been for all this trouble we would be 
hauling two' or three times the freight we are hauling today. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Let the last three paragraphs of his prepared 
statement on page 14, giving the earnings and losses over different 
periods of time, be inserted in the record at this point, beginning with 
•'An examination of these statements will show," and ending with 
the last line, ''hot-cargo clause against us is still in effect." 

Let that be inserted in the record at this point. 

(The portion of the prepared statement referred to is as follows:) 

An examination of these statements will show that for the first 6 months of 
1954, before the labor trouble started in September, we had a profit of $1,262, 
resulting in a loss for the year 1954 of $22,450. We just about broke even dur- 
ing the first 5 months of 1955 — we had a profit of $1,313 — before the hot-cargo 
clause was applied against us on May 18, 1955, and for the last 7 months of 
1955 we sustained an operating loss of $37,838.72, which resulted in a 12-month 
loss of $36,525.72. 

It will be noted that in the year 1956, after the temporary restraining order 
was issued by the district court in Dallas, we operated at a profit of $6,232.73, 
and in 1957 operated at a profit of $34,443.49. For the first 9 months of 1958 
we operated at a profit of $71,661. 

The temporary restraining order issued in the Dallas district court against 
the Teamsters and the trucklines with Teamsters' contracts from applying the 
hot-cargo clause against us is still in effect. 

The Chairman. Xow, Mr. Gilbert, if you wish to make any further 
comment, proceed. 

Mr. Gilbert. If something happens in the Dallas court and we don't 
get an injunction, and if all of this counterdeal is not lifted, we will 
be back where we started. I will say that somebody has to definitely 
do something about it. 

The Chairman. Did they ever represent to you that they had a 
majority of your people signed up? 

Mr. Gilbert. No, sir ; they did not. 



15514 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. This whole pressure, vandalism, violence, coercion, 
intimidation, was solely to compel you to sign a contract placing your 
employees in a union that they had not selected of their own choice ? 

Mr. Gilbert. That is right, sir. 

The Chairman. Did any committee of your employees ever come 
to you and urge you to place them in a union ? 

Mr. Gilbert. No, sir. 

The Chairman. This is all external pressure from a labor organiza- 
tion from the outside and not from your employees ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir ; that is correct. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further ? 

Senator Curtis. I have another question. 

Now, I am not confining this to any one place like McAllen, San 
Antonio, or any place else, but in the whole area in which you are 
operating, do you know the names of the Teamster leaders or repre- 
sentatives that were in there and had something to do with directing 
this attack against you ? You don't need to know exactly what their 
title was or job, but do you know some of these Teamster people who 
were doing this to you ? 

You have mentioned Mr. Shafer of the local union. Now, were 
there people in there from the outside, either officers or representatives 
or goons ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Well, there was for a time, Mr. Bob Kimbrell, in that 
country. 

Senator Curtis. Did you learn where he was from ? 

Mr. Gilbert. No, sir. He came there and stated he represented the 
international. 

Mr. Dixon came in there one time. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know his full name ? 

Mr. Gilbert. No, sir ; I don't, offhand. 

Senator Curtis. Any others ? 

Mr. Gilbert. He represented himself as being from the interna- 
tional, I believe out of Tennessee somewhere. 

Senator Curtis. Who else was in there ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Mr. Suttle. Whether he came from Louisiana or 
Beaumont, I don't know. 

Mr. Teague was in there from time to time. I have heard a lot of 
them being in there that I didn't know. 

The Chairman. How about Dusty Miller? 

Mr. Gilbert. I never did see him personally. I heard of him being 
there several times. 

Senator Curtis. Were there individuals in there from the Team- 
sters Union whose names you don't know, who are around there? 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir ; there was. 

Senator Curtis. To your knowledge, were any of your employees 
ever threatened or intimidated or talked to by these Teamster officials ? 

Mr. Gilbert. I was from time to time getting reports from my 
employees stating that the Teamster officials, Teamster members, had 
contacted them. Some in some cases threatened them; some of my 
boys got whipped. 

Senator Curtis. Where would that take place ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Maybe in some little cafe or beer joint or something 
of that sort, I guess. 

Senator Curtis. Some of your employees were assaulted ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15515 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did any of them ever complain that they were 
tormented at home, either by telephone calls or otherwise ? 

Mr. Gilbert. We have gotten several notices of that, too; yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did any of the wives or other members of the 
family of your employees make complaints as to harassment by 
organizers ? 

Mr. Gilbert. In two cases wives did ; yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Your employees remained loyal to you and wanted 
to continue to work without a union ? 

Mr. Gilbert. I never lost a road driver. 

Senator Curtis. I believe you said you have really had more men 
than needed because you wanted to hold your people and provide them 
with jobs ; is that right? 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir ; they had been with us for so many years. 

Senator Curtis. I think that is commendable. 

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

Mr. Gilbert. I would like to make a statement. I hope that if I do 
my boys dirty, I hope the good Lord strikes me down because they 
have stayed with me and I am thankful and grateful. 

The Chairman. All right, thank you very much. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gilbert's testimony bears di- 
rectly on the question of the hot cargo and the so-called boycott. He 
has also in his testimony gone into the violence that took place in con- 
nection with enforcing the boycott and the hot-cargo clause. 

We had an investigator go down into Texas, and with the coopera- 
tion, help, and assistance of the Texas Rangers, particularly Mr. Zeno 
Smith, who has been with the Texas Rangers a good number of years, 
and who had conducted an intensive investigation into the cause of 
the violence, we were able to come across some evidence indicating 
who was responsible for the violence. 

I would like to call as our first witness in connection with that, Mr. 
Buck Owens, but while we hear Mr. Owens' testimony, I would like 
you to understand that the information that we have in connection 
with this was first acquired by the Texas Rangers, and that the testi- 
mony that we will have is only because of the cooperation and help 
that Mr. Smith and the Texas Rangers have given the committee. 

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. Owens. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF BUCK OWENS 

The Chairman. Be seated. State your name, your place of resi- 
dence, and your business or occupation. 

Mr. Owens. My name is Buck Owens. I live in Odessa, Tex. 

Senator Curtis. You live where ? 

Mr. Owens. Odessa, Tex. 

I am an assistant shop foreman for United Concrete Pipe. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Owens, as I said to you in the beginning, we 
in the North will have trouble understanding you. Could you tell 
us what your job is again ? 



15516 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Owens. Assistant shop foreman for United Concrete Pipe 
Corp. in Odessa, Tex. 

The Chairman. Odessa, Tex. 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Pull that mike up a little closer to you. It will 
be helpful. 

You waive counsel, do you ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; I do. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Owens, you have lived in Texas all your life; 
is that right? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have worked around various jobs ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What particularly have you been doing over the 
period of the last 10 or 15 years ? 

Mr. Owens. The last 10 or 15 years I have worked round the union, 
for the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. What union, common laborers ? 

Mr. Owens. Common laborers, Teamsters, operating unions. 

Mr. Kennedy. During 1954, did you become associated with a man 
by the name of Bob Kimbrell ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. K-i-m-b-r-e-1-1 ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was with the Teamsters Union at that time, 
or with the Operating Engineers ? 

Mr. Owens. With the Operating Engineers. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was an organizer for them in Odessa, Tex. ? 

Mr. Owens. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, in the fall of 1954, he moved to San Antonio, 
Tex.? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He became an organizer for the Teamsters Local 
657? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. In Odessa, Tex. 

Now, did you also move to San Antonio, Tex. ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. First, you had been working for the common la- 
borers in Austin, Tex. ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir, for 3 weeks. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you went to San Antonio. At that time vou 
met Mr. Kimbrell? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Also, during this period of time, you met a man 
by the name of Springer? 

Mr. Owens. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was related to Mr. Kimbrell ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir; he was Mr. KimbrelPs nephew. 

Mr. Kennedy. His name will arrive later on during the course of 
your recitation of the facts, Mr. Owens. 

Did Mr. Kimbrell introduce you to any Teamster official? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15517 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir; to a man by the name of Kaymond C. Shafer. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was Mr. Shafer's position at that time? 

Mr. Owens. He was in charge, the business head over the Team- 
sters in San Antonio, Tex. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was the biggest Teamster official in San An- 
tonio ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Shafer have any conversations with you 
at that time about the trouble he had been having with Hoy Gilbert's 
truck company ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he say was the difficulty ? 

Mr. Owens. He just said they had a picket line on SMT Motor 
Lines and they were having difficulty trying to get Mr. Gilbert to 
sign a contract with the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he talk to you at all about what might be done 
in order to get SMT to sign a contract? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; he said the only way they could get the SMT 
to sign a contract would be to destroy the property, their trucks or 
anything that belonged to the SMT Mot or Lines. 

Mr. Kennedy. To destroy their trucks and property ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Xow that is what Shafer told you ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. That was soon after you went to work for him? 

Mr. Owens. That was actually before I went to work for him. 

Mr. Kennedy. Before, just in the course of conversation? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, in your presence did he speak to Mr. Springer, 
the nephew of Mr. Kimbrell? Did he speak to him about going 
to work, about getting a job with the SMT I 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the purpose of his getting a job there? 

Mr. Owens. We wanted Mr. Springer to go into the SMT Motor 
Lines for the purpose of finding out the layout of the building, or to 
try to find out how to destroy merchandise, freight, with acid, pouring 
acid on the freight and ruining the freight and also to find out how 
would be the best way to bomb the building, blow it up, or burn it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you hear him make these arrangements with 
Mr. Springer ? 

Mr. Owens. I did : yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Springer in fact go to work? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; he sure did. 

Mr. Kennedy. He went to work for them for a very short time? 

Mr. Owens. A very short time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he ever speak to you about you participating 
in the destruction of any of the property of the SMT? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; on several occasions. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he want you to do ? 

Mr. Owens. Well, he wanted me to wreck trucks. 

Mr. Kennedy. How were you to wreck trucks ? 

Mr. Owens. To throw bombs into the windshields of oncoming 
trucks or rocks, or anything that would go into the windshield; or 

21243— 59— lit. 41 11 



15518 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

hand grenades, magnetic hand grenades, and stick them on the side 
of the truck. 

They would be driving down the road and it would blow up and 
explode. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is a special kind of hand grenade ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he speak to you about obtaining any dynamite ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; he sure did . 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he say to you about getting the dynamite ? 

Mr. Owens. He asked me if I knew where I could get some dyna- 
mite. I told him I thought I did. He said that he wanted it to 
blow up the SMT Motor Lines. 

Mr. Kennedy. He spoke to you about wrecking the trucks, using 
the hand grenades, throwing the bottle or rocks through the truck 
windows and about getting the dynamite. Did he speak to you of 
anything about the use of acid ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he say about the acid ? 

Mr. Owens. He said he had some acid — and which he did have, 
I saw it — that he wanted used on the merchandise of the SMT Motor 
Lines. 

He also wanted to take and get one of the employees some night and 
knock him in the head and write across his forehead. 

Mr. Kennedy. Write across his forehead with the acid ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he speak to you at all about the use of the guns, 
about shooting anyone ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. He said he — he first wanted me to, he spoke 
to me and told me that the only way we were going to get a contract, 
it looked like, was shoot Roy Gilbert. 

He said "I have a rifle in Louisiana." He said it had a silencer. 
There was shrubbery and trees around Mr. Gilbert's home and a person 
could get in there and shoot him and kill him and they would never 
hear the shot. 

Senator Curtis. Who was he going to shoot ? 

Mr. Owens. Roy Gilbert, of the SMT Motor Freight Lines. 

Senator Curtis. The man who just testified ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He said he had a gun in Louisiana with a silencer 
that could be used for that purpose ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And there was shrubbery around Mr. Gilbert's home 
so you could get very close ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you say to that ? 

Mr. Owens. I told him I would not do that, that nothing was worth 
a man's life. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he want you to beat anyone up then ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir; Mr. Gilbert's son, the only son he had. He 
wanted me to beat him up. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did he say he would pay you for that ? 

Mr. Owens. Two hundred dollars plus any financial cost I might 
have. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15519 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he also talk to you about setting the Lee Way 
Freight Terminal on fire ? 
Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 
Mr. Kennedy. Why did he say he wanted to set that terminal on 

fire? 

Mr. Owens. Lee Way Motor Freight was giving freight to the 
SMT Motor Lines and he didn't like that because he had a picket line 
on the SMT, although Lee Way was still giving freight. 

Senator Curtis. Was Lee Way unionized ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; they were. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say he spoke to you about getting the dynamite. 
Did you in fact get any dynamite for him ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did you get the dynamite ? 

Mr. Owens. Outside of Odessa, Tex. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did you get the dynamite ? 

Mr. Owens. I stole the dynamite out of a magazine. 

Mr. Kennedy. From where ? 

Mr. Owens. From a powder magazine. 

Mr. Kennedy. Outside of Odessa, Tex ? 

Mr. Owens. That is right ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much dynamite did you steal ? 

Mr. Owens. Thirty-two cases. 

The Chairman. How much ? 

Mr. Owens. Thirty-two cases. 

The Chairman. That is wholesale stealing, is it not ? 

Mr. Owens. Something like that. 

Mr. Kennedy. How big is a case of dynamite ? 

Mr. Owens. Fifty pounds. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many sticks in a case ? 

Mr. Owens. Sometimes there will be maybe a hundred or less. May- 
be 10 less or 10 more. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who did you steal it with? Did you steal it by 
yourself ? 

Mr. Owens No, sir ; my father-in-law. 

Mr. Kennedy. You father-in-law helped you steal it? 

Mr. Owens. C. C. Dayson. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you do then? Was there any dynamite 
left after you stole it ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; there was approximately 60 cases left. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you do ? 

Mr. Owens. We blew it off the levee. 

Mr. Kennedy. You blew the rest of the dynamite up ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you do that ? 

Mr. Owens. To throw the authorities off of the theft, the dynamite. 

Mr. Kennedy. So they wouldn't know any was missing? 

Mr. Owens. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. After you blew it up, did you hear the explosion? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How far away were you ? 

Mr. Owens. I was approximately 8 miles. 

The Chairman. You set a long fuse to it ? 

Mr. Owens. It sure was. 



15520 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. May I ask you, on whose property or premises 
was this dynamite located ? 

Mr. Owens. Sir, the dynamite belonged to T. V. Tripp & Son. 

Senator Curtis. That is a hardware dealer? 

Mr. Owens. No, sir ; that is a pipeline company. 

Senator Curtis. A pipeline company. 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. And the property belonged to a rancher by 
the name of E. F. Caylor. 

Senator Curtis. You happened to know where it was ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Your father-in-law helped you ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. How much money did you get paid ? 

Mr. Owens. I was paid $800. 

Senator Curtis. By whom ? 

Mr. Owens. By Raymond C. Shaf er. 

Senator Curtis. Your father-in-law got money too ? 

Mr. Owens. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. He was just helping you earn the $800? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curttis. How did he give you that $800 ? Did he give you 
any check? 

Mr. Owens. No, sir; he gave me seven $100 bills and two fifties. 

Senator Curtis. Seven $100 bills ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did he say who provided the money ? 

Mr. Owens. Well, sir, I guess he did because he was the one who 
paid me for the dynamite. 

Senator Curtis. But it was your understanding it came out of his 
pocket, or did it come out of the union ? 

Mr. Owens. Well, no, evidently it must have come out of the union 
because he said he didn't have that kind of money. 

Senator Curtis. He said he didn't have that kind of money ? 

Mr. Owens. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. But he got it and gave it to you ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. I very seldom see a Teamster representative that 
doesn't have an armful of hundred-dollar bills. 

Mr. Owens. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Where do they get it ? 

Mr. Owens. Well, sir, like all other racketeering outfits, they have 
a way of getting it. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Mr. Kennedy. You took the dynamite, and you blew up the rest 
of the dynamite remaining there, and where did you take the dynamite 
then? 

Mr. Owens. I took the dynamite to a barn in the back of my moth- 
er's home. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many trips did it take ? 

Mr. Owens. Two trips. 

Mr. Kennedy. Two trips? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you left the dynamite there, did you ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15521 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you let Shaf er know that you had the dynamite ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir; I called Mr. Shafer on the morning of the 
27th of December. 

Mr. Kennedy. 1954? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had stolen this dynamite around Christmas? 

Mr. Owens. On the night of the 26th. 

Mr. Kennedy. The night after Christmas ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you called Mr. Shafer and told him that you 
had the dynamite ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did you describe the dynamite at that time? 

Mr. Owens. Well, I told Mr. Shafer that I had some rope and fuse, 
or I mean some pencils and erasers. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did rope and erases and pencils mean? 

Mr. Owens. Eope, that meant fuse, and erasers meant caps, and 
dynamite caps, and your pencils meant dynamite. 

Senator Curtis. Where did you get such language ? 

Mr. Owens. Well, sir 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that Teamster language ? 

Air. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Is that language that criminals use ? 

Mr. Owens. Well, sir, I would say both. 

Senator Curtis. That is a coincidence ? 

Air. Owens. It is the same thing. 

Air. Kennedy. Then you called him and then what did he say ? 

Air. Owens. He said that he would get someone up to Odessa, to 
take up the dynamite. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he get someone ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who came up to pick it up ? 

Mr. Owens. A boy by the name of Buddy Springer. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is that ? 

Mr. Owens. W. R. Springer. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is the man you met earlier in San Antonio? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. He brought up a truck ? 

Mr. Owens. He brought up a pickup truck. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you piled all of the dynamite in back of the 
truck? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you drove it down to San Antonio ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have anything in the back of the truck so 
nobody would know what you had ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; we had a chair and two tricycles. 

Mr. Kennedy. To make it look like you were transporting furni- 
ture ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you got outside of San Antonio, you called 
Mr. Shafer? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Shafer came out then ; is that right ? 



15522 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Owens. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. And where did you take the dynamite to ? 

Mr. Owens. I took the dynamite to my home in San Antonio. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was Mr. Shaf er pleased you had the dynamite ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; he sure was. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you brought it to your home ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you left it inside of your home, or the truck, or 
where ? 

Mr. Owens. No, sir ; I left it inside the truck, parked in my front 
yard. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did you decide to bring the dynamite? 

Mr. Owens. Well, sir, we found a place, and I say "we" meaning 
Mr. Shafer found the place on Summer Street, San Antonio. 

Mr. Kennedy. You helped him look for the place ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And whose place did you got to ? 

Mr. Owens. To a Mr. Frank Ginsberg. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you rented some storage space from him ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell him what your true name was ? 

Mr. Owens. No, sir ; we didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you tell your name was ? 

Mr. Owens. Offhand, I can't remember what I told him my name 
was. Mr. Shafer told him his name was Sharper. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you say you were doing ? 

Mr. Owens. We said we were insurance salesmen. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he become interested in buying insurance? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; he sure did. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you tell him, that you would send someone 
around ? 

Mr. Owens. We told him we were fixing to leave town, and that we 
would send another man around, and we were going to send Bob 
Kimbrey. At the time he was in the insurance business. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you bring the dynamite back there and store it? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who brought the dynamite back ? 

Mr. Owens. Raymond C. Shafer, Buddy Springer, and myself. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did you put it, in this room ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; we put it in all of the rooms ; we had a lot 
of it. We put it in the shower, and we put some on the bed, and we 
had a big cabinet and we put a lot of it in there. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have a lock on the door ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you put a special lock on it? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that was stored there at the end of 1954, and the 
first couple of days of 1955 ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive notification that some of the dyna- 
mite was to be given to someone else ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that dynamite to be sent to some Teamsters 
down in Louisiana ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15523 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Some Teamster officials iD Louisiana needed the 
dynamite? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have a meeting with them? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you arrange to get an automobile or a truck for 
them to drive down ? 

Mr. Owens. We had an automobile and trailer. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you rented the trailer? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And how much of the dynamite did they take? 

Mr. Owens. They took approximately 29 cases. 

Mr. Kennedy. They took most of the dynamite. 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you help put it in their truck ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; I helped put it in the truck. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was a U-Haul trailer. 

Mr. Owens. It was a U-Haul trailer. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who were these Teamster officials from Louisiana ? 

Mr. Owens. There was a boy by the name of R. B. Bunch and a man 
by the name of Foots Johnson. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is a nickname, "Foots," and his last name was 
Johnson ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And where did they stay when they were up there to 
pick up the dynamite ? 

Mr. Owens. They stayed at a place called the El Montan Motel. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you turned over the U-Haul truck at the El 
Montan Motel ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that the evening you were paid ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were given $800 ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Shaf er say that he was receiving any money 
for this ? 

Mr. Owens. He said that he was keeping $200. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. Now you had three boxes of dynamite, 
is that right ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there any discussions later on as to what you 
would do ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir; we decided we had better get the dynamite 
away from the apartment, and Mr. Shafer suggested that we take it 
to the mountains somewhere and get rid of it. He asked a boy named 
Eddie Hass if he knew any place we could get rid of it, and Mr. Hass 
told him we could get rid of it in Dangerfield, Tex. _ 

Mr. Kennedy. Prior to that, were you discussing putting a bomb 
in any of the terminals ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir; we were going to put a bomb in the Alamo 
terminal of Motor Freight Lines. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Owens. And also one on the SMT Motor Lines. 



15524 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you going to set a fire also ? 

Mr. Owens. We were going to set a fire on the Lee Way Terminal. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you go around and look at these places and decide 
where you would put the dynamite ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then what arrangements did you make in order 
to have an alibi ? 

Mr. Owens. Well, we were going to Austin, Tex. 

Mr. Kennedy. And do what, or you and who else were going to be 
involved in putting the dynamite in and setting the place on fire? 

Mr. Owens. Well, a boy by the name of Eddy Haas was going to be 
involved in it with me. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you arrange about your alibi? 

Mr. Owens. We were to go to Austin and buy some whisky and 
get a cash ticket for it and be seen in Austin, and then come back 
in San Antonio and burn and bomb these places, and then return to 
Austin. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had Mr. Shaf er been in on all of this ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; he was. 

Mr. Kennedy. So on the way back from Austin did you purchase a 
5-gallon can of gasoline? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir; we purchased a 5-gallon can of gasoline in 
New Bonneville, Tex. 

Mr. Kennedy. You made a bomb out of the several sticks of 
dynamite ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you tied it together with cord from the Venetian 
blind where you had the dynamite stored ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then did you go to the Lee Way Terminal ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you set it on fire ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Poured the gasoline on it ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. Mr. Haas was the one who set it on fire. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you almost get burned ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir; he did. The can got on fire as he was com- 
ing back to the car with it, the gasoline can. It still had a little bit 
of gasoline in it and it caught fire. 

Mr. Kennedy. 'What did you do with the can ? 

Mr. Owens. We drove to the San Antonio Kiver, there is a big 
large bridge there, and we threw the can over the bridge and drove 
on to Alamo Freight Lines. 

Mr. Kennedy. What about the SMT ? Did you do anything against 
SMT? ^ 

Mr. Owens. No, sir ; we were going to but there was too much light. 

Mr. Kennedy. He had lit it up by that time ? 

Mr. Owens. It was almost as bright as this room. 

Mr. Kennedy. At all times ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you couldn't get near enough to it? 

Mr. Owens. No, sir; you couldn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were going to the Alamo ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15525 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. - 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you take some of the dynamite then i 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; we had taken a bomb with 10 sticks of dyna- 
mite. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you throw it into that place « 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; we did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it did not explode ? 

Mr. Owens. No, sir ; it did not. . 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, as I understand, you say that you crimped the 
fuze, before you threw it, so it wouldn't explode. Do you want to 
explain that to the committee ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, there was, and Mr. Shafer told me there were 
three truckloads of army ammunition, shells and things like that, 
sitting on the dock, setting by the dock of the Alamo Freight Lines, 
and he wanted to throw a bomb there, so it would all blow up and 
just destroy everything. I got to thinking about it and I knew if 
that happened it would kill women and children which it would 
have done, and there was heavy traffic on the road, and so I took and 
I crimped the fuse at three different places so it would not go off. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you threw the dynamite but it didn't go off ? 

Mr. Owens. It wasn't intended to go off. 

The Chairman. You took some action in the arrangement of this 
so you might throw it and yet it wouldn't go off ? 

Mr. Owens. I made the bomb myself. 

The Chairman. You thought you had made one that wouldn't 
gooff? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; I knew it wouldn't go off. 

The Chairman. Did you ever get reprimanded for not making a 
better one? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; I did. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the reaction the next day, about the bomb 
not going off ? 

Mr. Owens. Well, Mr. Shafer said that the bomb did not go off, 
but it scared them enough that he thought he would get a contract 
out of them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, did you use the dynamite anyplace else? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; we used the dynamite in Houston, in Texas. 

Mr. Kennedy. In what terminal or what place of business was 
that? 

Mr. Owens. Sir, it wasn't a terminal, it was some kind of a mer- 
cantile building. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much dynamite did you use there ? 

Mr. Owens. It was approximately 12 sticks. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did that go off ? 

Mr. Owens. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why didn't that go off ? 

Mr. Owens. The fuse when it hit the sidewalk, the pavement, it 
broke. 

Mr. Kennedy. So that didn't go off. 

Mr. Owens. No, sir ; we didn't have but about a 3-minute fuse on 
it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you use the dynamite anyplace else ? 



15526 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Was that one intended to go off ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You didn't take the precaution to handle it so that 
it wouldn't, and it was an accident that it did not ? 

Mr. Owens. That is right. 

The Chairman. The intention was for it to blow the thing up but it 
misfired ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What about Austin, Tex ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; there was a dynamite used in Austin but not 
the same dynamite that came from Odessa. 

The Chairman. That was a different group of dynamite? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Where had you gotten that from ? 

Mr. Owens. I got that in Austin, from Bob Kimbrel and Pat Davis. 

The Chairman. Who is Pat Davis ? 

Mr. Owens. He used to be a union organizer for the Operating 
Engineers. 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened on that dynamite ? 

Mr. Owens. Sir? 

Mr. Kennedy. What happened on that ? What were you trying to 
dynamite in Austin ? 

Mr. Owens. A place called the Austin Fireproof Building. 

Mr. Kennedy. Austin Fireproof Building ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did that dynamite go off ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, it did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is that the place that a quarter of a mile from the 
department of public safety ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That went off, did it ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir; it did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did that do any damage ? 

Mr. Owens. No, sir ; it didn't do any damage to speak of. 

Mr. Kennedy. The dynamite exploded out toward the street ? 

Mr. Owens. The concussion of the dynamite went out instead of 
going in. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have testimony by Mr. Gilbert regarding the 
throwing of the rocks and the bottles into the cabs of these trucks. 
Did you participate or were you present when any of this was done ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; I was. 

Mr. Kennedy. What procedure would you follow on that ? 

Mr. Owens. We would follow the SMT trucks out of town and it 
would get maybe 15 or 20 miles out of town or sometimes farther, and 
we would pass these trucks, and we would turn around to come back 
to meet them, and when we did that was when the rocks or bottles or 
whatever we may have in our hand, rocks about like we saw a while 
ago. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you recognize that rock ? 

Mr. Owens. No, sir ; I thought I did but I wouldn't swear to it, and 
I don't know. There were several of them throwed, and we would 
throw objects into the windshields of the incoming trucks. 

Senator Curtis. Let me ask you, How many people would be in the 
car on an assignment like this? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 15527 

Mr. Owens. Sometimes, sir, there would be two or three. 

Senator Curtis. In whose car would it be ? 

Mr. Owens. It would be Raymond C. Shafer's and other times it 
would be Eddy Haas' car. 

Senator Curtis. Who were the fellows with you? 

Mr. Owens. Raymond C. Shafer on several occasions, and Bob 
Kimbrel. 

Senator Curtis. Did they ever tell you why they were doing these 
things to Mr. Gilbert and his business, the Southwest Motors? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir; they were trying to organize Mr. Gilbert. 

Senator Curtis. Trying to organize him ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; and they had a picket line on his place, and 
he would not sign a union contract. 

Senator Curtis. How much of a fire occurred at this Lee Way place 
where you set the fire ? 

Mr. Owens. What is that ? 

Senator Curtis. The Lee Way Freight fire. How much damage 
did it do? 

Mr. Owens. It didn't do very much damage, there were some boys 
who got it put out before it could do much damage. 

Senator Curtis. Where did they get these hand grenades you were 
talking about? 

Mr. Owens. Well, sir, Mr. Shafer told me he was getting them from 
Fort Sill, Okla. 

Senator Curtis. From the Army ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; from a supply sergeant. 

Senator Curtis. Well, I knew these outfits had a lot of friends in 
government, but this is a new one. Where did they keep the hand 
grenades ? 

Mr. Owens. Sir, I don't know, I never actually saw him with a 
grenade. 

Senator Curtis. "Where did they keep the acid that you are talking 
about ? 

Mr. Owens. The only time I ever saw the acid was in the back end 
of Shafer's car. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just on the hand grenade — I don't think I asked 
you — he said he could get the hand grenade for you and what did he 
want you to do with the hand grenades ? 

Mr. Owens. Well, sir, he wanted a grenade thrown into the home 
of Roy Gilbert. 

Mr. Kennedy. He wanted you to throw the hand grenade in Mr. 
Gilbert's home ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, let us go back where you threw these rocks and 
also Coca-Cola bottles into some of these passing trucks. 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. In one instance did some of these individuals with 
whom you were working describe to you the fact that this had 
happened in other States ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; they had. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they say they used these same tactics in, for 
instance, Tennessee ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; Tennessee and Louisiana. 



15528 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Did anybody tell you about what happened in 
Louisiana when they threw a coke bottle into a car ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir; they said it was a very tragic accident, and 
a man was killed in one of those, when a fire bomb or bottle was 
thrown. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can they tell you an approximate time when he was 
killed? 

Mr. Owens. No, sir ; they said it was several years ago. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they talk to you about the name of the trucking 
company ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. For whom he was working ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we made an investigation after we 
received this information down in Louisiana, and Mr. Kamerick would 
be prepared to testify as to the fact that there was a man killed and 
under the circumstances that he was found to have been killed without 
naming the name. 

(At this point Senator Goldwater entered the hearing room.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Kamerick, you have been previously sworn? 

Mr. Kamerick. Yes, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL E. KAMERICK— Resumed 

Mr. Kamerick. I inquired into this matter in Shreveport, La., and 
it developed that there was an accident on the outskirts of Shreveport 
and the date is August 28, 1953. The accident occurred about 5 :30 
in the morning. Leaving Shreveport was an oil tanker and the driver 
of that oil tanker saw another truck coming toward him and it kept 
moving across the center line and the driver of the tanker naturally 
expected that the other truck would get back on its own side of the 
road. But as they came closer together, it was apparent that the other 
truck was not going to go back, and so at the last minute the driver of 
the tanker jerked his wheel to the right and he managed to get the 
tractor part of his outfit out of the way but the other truck smashed 
head-on into the tank part of the semitrailer arrangement. 

This disengaged the tractor part from the tank part and the driver 
of the tank part managed to get his tractor stopped a short distance 
up the road. He turned around to come back and render any assist- 
ance that he could. When he got there the whole area of the collision 
was in flames. Both the truck and the tank were on fire. 

He heard a man inside of the truck screaming for help, and he tried 
to open the door but the accident had apparently sprung the door so 
he couldn't get the door open. 

It developed later that the driver of the truck, whose name was Billie 
Charles Greenwood, died in the fire. That is essentially the story. 

Mr. Kennedy. Just prior to the other truck meeting him, the truck 
swerved into his lane ; is that right ? 

Mr. Kamerick. It gradually came across the centerline. 

Mr. Kennedy. As if something had happened. This was the way 
it was described to you as this man burned to death ; was it not ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15529 

TESTIMONY OP BUCK OWENS— Resumed 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. They identified, which we will not, who was respon- 
sible for throwing the bottle into the truck to make it swerve off the 
road? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was in addition to this some shooting at several 
of the trucks ; was there not ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; there was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you participate in that yourself ? 

Mr. Owens. No, sir ; I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you knew it took place ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, do you know Mr. Dusty Miller, head of the 
Southern Conference of Teamsters ? 

Mr. Owens. I met Mr. Miller one time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he ever have any discussion with you or any of 
your groups about organizing this trucking company ? 

Mr. Owens. He had a discussion with Shaf er. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you present ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes; I was, and they were talking about the SMT 
Motor Lines, and Shafer said, "Well, I don't know how I am going to 
go about getting a contract out of them," and so Mr. Miller said, "Well, 
there is not but one way to do it, and that is to get rough with them." 

Mr. Shafer said, "How?" Miller said, "That is your job." 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to point out that Mr. Miller is also head 
of the Southeastern Conference of Teamsters which includes Tennes- 
see, and, of course, we had all of that violence in Tennessee over an 
extended period of time, in which there was some evidence as to who 
was responsible, and yet Mr. Miller, during all of that period, never 
took any steps against any of the Teamster officials in charge of Ten- 
nessee, and, in fact, still has not taken any steps against any of them. 

The Chairman. Have we had him as a witness ? 

Mr. Kennedy. No, but I expect that we will during some period of 
time. 

The Chairman. It might be well to let him come in and take the 
fifth amendment. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, you testified in the trial of Mr. Shafer ; did you 
not? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was in connection with Mr. Shafer in the posses- 
sion of some of the dynamite ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he was acquitted ; was he not ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes ; he was. 

Mr. Kennedy. During the period of time that you started cooperat- 
ing with the Texas Rangers, while you were still carrying on, or Mr. 
Shafer thought you were friendly, during that period of time were 
there arrangements made for tape recordings of your conversations 
with Mr. Shafer? 



15530 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; there was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now those tape recordings have never been used ? 

Mr. Owens. No, sir ; they have not. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we will not have time to get to them 
this afternoon, but we expect to have some of those tomorrow. 

The Chairman. Mr. Owens, you will remain under your present sub- 
pena subject to being recalled at such time as the committee may desire 
to hear further testimony from you. 

You acknowledge that recognizance ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir; it will be a pleasure to. 

The Chairman. And you will be notified and of course given rea- 
sonable time and opportunity and given the place and time that the 
committee will desire to hear you. In the meantime, you may be 
recalled in the morning. 

Mr. Owens. That is OK, sir. 

The Chairman. If we do not recall you tomorrow, this recogni- 
zance stands and you will be expected to return at such time as we 
desire you. You can keep in touch with counsel here to ascertain 
whether further testimony will be needed. 

Mr. Owens. OK, it will be a pleasure to come back. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. You may stand aside. 

We will stand in recess. 

(Whereupon, at 4 :20 the committee was recessed.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



TUESDAY, NOVEMBEE 18, 1958 

U.S. Senate, 
Select Committee on Improper Activities 

in the Labor or Management Field, 

Washington, D.G. 

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 
Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat, North Carolina ; Senator Barry Gold- 
water, Republican, Arizona; Senator Carl T. Curtis, Republican, 
Nebraska. 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Jerome Alderman, 
chief assistant counsel; Paul Kamerick, assistant counsel; John J. 
McGovern, assistant counsel ; Ruth Y. Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

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

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Raymond C. Shaf er. 

The Chairman. Mr. Shafer, will you come around, please. 

You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this 
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and noth- 
ing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Shafer. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF RAYMOND C. SHAFER, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 

WARREN WOODS 

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

Mr. Shafer. R. C. Shafer, business agent for local 657, San 
Antonio, Tex. 

The Chairman. Do you have counsel ? 

Mr. Shafer. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Identify yourself, Mr. Counsel, please. 

Mr. Woods. My name is Warren Woods. I am a member of the 
bar of the State of Texas, and of the District of Columbia. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Shafer, did you give your occupation ? 

Mr. Shafer. Yes, sir. 

15531 



15532 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. What was that? 

Mr. Shafer. Business agent for local 657. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been business agent ? 

Mr. Shafer. I would like to talk with my counsel, please. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Before you became a business agent for the Team- 
sters Union, would you tell the committee what you did ? 

Mr. Shafer. Before I became business agent for the Teamsters 
Union I was a truckdriver. 

Mr. Kennedy. Whereabouts. 

Mr. Shafer. In Dallas, Tex. 

The Chairman. Ask the other question, Mr. Counsel, the one you 
asked before. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you become a business agent of the 
Teamsters ? 

Mr. Shafer. I would like to consult with my counsel. 

The Chairman. All right. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Shafer. I decline to answer on the ground my answer may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You have admitted that you are a business agent 
of the local and you have stated your occupation prior to the time 
you became business agent for the local, and you now are asked the 
question, when did you become a business agent for the local. 

Mr. Shafer. I would like to consult with my counsel, please. 

The Chairman. You may consult with counsel. 

(Witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Shafer. I decline to answer on the ground my answer may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. When did you become a business agent tor local 

657? 
With the approval of the committee, the Chair orders and directs 

vou to answer that question. 

Mr. Shafer. I would like to consult with my counsel. 

(Witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Shafer. I decline to answer on the ground my answer may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. This order with the approval of the committee 
will stand throughout your interrogation, and during the time that 
you are a witness and will continue until you give the answer. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. , 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you appointed a business agent of the 
Teamsters Union? Can you answer that? 

Mr. Shafer. I refuse to answer on the ground my answer may 
tend to incriminate me. . , „ . 

The Chairman. With the approval of the committee the Chair 
orders and directs the witness to answer the question. 

Mr. Shafer. I would like to consult my counsel, please. 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Shafer. I decline to answer on the ground that my answer may 
tend to incriminate me. . . 

The Chairman. The orders for you to answer remain in force. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15535 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. . ,' fl ' ,, 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. Dusty Miller, head of the South- 
ern Conference of Teamsters ? 

Mr. Shafer. I decline to answer on the ground my answer may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The Chair, with the approval of the committee, 
orders and directs the witness to answer the question. 

Mr. Shafer. I refuse to answer on the ground my answer may tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The order will continue as all orders given to you 
by the Chair are orders and directions to answer questions, and they 
will continue throughout your presence here as a witness. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have had reports and testimony regarding the 
violence that took place in the State of Texas during the year 1954 
and 1955 when an attempt was being made to organize some trucking 
companies and to enforce a so-called "hot cargo" clause. Did you 
have conversations with Mr. Dusty Miller about this situation? 

Mr. Shafer. I would like to consult with counsel, please. 

(Witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Shafer. I decline to answer on the basis my answer may tend 
to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have had testimony before the committee that 
Mr. Dusty Miller is the one who gave orders and instructions that 
you were to get roudi with these trucking companies; is that correct? 

Mr. Shafer. I refuse to answer on the ground it may tend to in- 
criminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have had testimony before the committee re- 
garding the violence that took place in Texas, and we have also had 
extended hearings on the violence that took place in Tennessee, which 
is also under the jurisdiction of Mr. Miller. Then we have had the 
testimony before the committee regarding certain individuals who 
got in difficulties in the Eastern and Central Conferences of Teamsters 
going down and receiving jobs in Miami, Fla. Do you know if this is 
all on the instructions and orders of Mr. Miller ? 

Mr. Shafer. I don't understand your question. 

Mr. Kennedy. What I am asking you is whether the violence that 
has taken place in Texas and in Tennessee, and the fact that individuals 
who have gotten into difficulty in the Eastern Conference of Teamsters 
and in the Central Conference of Teamsters, who got into difficulty 
in their own locals, have ultimately ended up in the Teamasters 
positions of authority in Teamster locals in Miami, Fla. I am asking 
you if you know whether Mr. Miller is responsible for that. 

Mr. Shafer. I refuse to answer on the ground that the answer may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Would you be just a little bit more respectful, and 
say you "decline"' to answer. Would you say "respectfully decline" 
instead of "refuse" ? 

Mr. Shafer. I am sorry, I don't understand your questions. 
The Chairman. I will state it again. I asked you, can you be a 
little more respectful of your Government and of this committee by 
saying "I respectfully decline to answer" rather than "I refuse to 
answer." 

21243 — 59 — pt. 41 12 



15534 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Thank you, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. According to the testimony we had yesterday, one 
of the suggestions that you made to Mr. Owens, according to Mr. 
Owens' testimony, was that he take one of the employees of the truck- 
ing company and knock him unconscious, then take some acid and 
write the word "rat" across his forehead with the acid. 

Did you make that suggestion ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Don't you agree with me that anyone who would 
give such orders as that is a "rat" himself ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you have any opinion as to what character of 
man that would be that would give such an order ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I think the word "rat" would be complimentary, 
don't you ? ., - 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ervin. It would be insulting to the rat, Mr. Chairman 

Mr. Kennedy. We also had the testimony that on several occasions 
you instructed and ordered Mr. Owens to obtain some dynamite. Is 
that right? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground mv 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And when he did obtain the dynamite, you made 
arrangements to sell the dynamite, at least part of it, to some Teamster 
officials down m Louisiana ; is that right ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer that question on the 
ground my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy And you paid him for doing this some $800 « 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. J 

Mr. Kennedy. Involved in this also was a Mr. Springer, and he also 
was paid some money for obtaining and shipping the dynamite. 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground mv 
answer may tend to incriminate me. y 

Senator Curtis. May I inquire right there? When Mr Owens was 

2-SS TK^ St r d ' I 1 ?* Bd Mm " How much monerdid you ge 
paid?" This was for stealing the dynamite. y ^ 



Mr. Owens. I was paid 

Question. By whom? 

Answer. By Raymond C. Shafer. 



Now that is your name, Raymond C. Shafer? 

Mr Shafer. I would like to consult with my counsel, please. 

( 1 he witness consulted with his counsel. ) 

tl,J"P^ AI Ti 4N --J 0U Sai ^o yo " r name was R - C. Shafer, and does 
Mr S w ™ M ^ mon V Tha t » w hat the question amount, to 
Mr. Shafer. My name is Raymond C. Shafer. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15535 

Senator Curtis. Do you wish to deny this statement made by Air. 

Owens? . ,, -, 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. . . . , 

The Chairman. Do you feel that to answer that question it might 
incriminate you ? 

Senator Curtis. Do you wish to deny it ? 

Mr. Shafer. I would like to hear your question again, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you wish to deny this statement that Mr. Owens 
received $800 from you for getting this dynamite ? 

Mr. Shafer. I would like to consult with my counsel. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. _ 

Senator Curtis. Then I asked him, "How did he give you that $800 ( 

Did he give you any check ?" *«.««,.,! i *. 

Mr. Owens replied, "No, sir; he gave me seven $100 bills and two 

fifties." ^ , .,, 

Mr. Shafer, do you wish to deny that you gave him seven $100 bills 

and two fifties ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. What was the idea of you folks, that you could 
take this Government over by force ? Is that why you resort to these 

\v\ f*f IPS J 

Mr. Shafer. I would like to consult with my counsel. 

The Chairman. Ask him what he thinks of it. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
my answer mav tend to incriminate me. . 

Senator Curtis. Are you still employed by the Teamsters Union \ 

Mr. Shafer. I would like to consult with my counsel, please, sir. 

The Chairman. Consult. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Shafer. I am now the business manager of local 657. 

Senator Curtis. Who appoints you as such % 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Shafer. I decline to answer— respectfully decline to answer on 
the ground that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The Chair, with the approval of the committee, 
orders and directs you to answer the question : Who appoints you as 
such ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. That order stands throughout these proceedings. 

Senator Curtis. Are you in any part employed by, or do you in any 
extent represent, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the 
international office % 

Mr. Shafer. I would like to consult with my counsel, please. 

The Chairman. Consult. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 



15536 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Well, now, Mr. Shafer, I think it would be very- 
helpful to this committee 

The Chairman. What was the last question, Senator? Please 
read the last question. 

Senator Curtis. I can state it in substance. I asked him if he was 
employed in part or to any extent representing the International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters, referring to the international office. 

The Chairman. What is your answer ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. With the approval of the committee, the Chair 
orders and directs the witness to answer the question. 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the basis 

The Chairman. That order prevails throughout these hearings. 
Proceed. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Shafer, the purpose of this inquiry is to gather 
legislative information, and when allegations are made about you or 
anybody else, it is important that the committee know whether or not 
your employer is a local union, or whether or not you are paid and 
represent the international union. That question does not go to your 
guilt or innocence concerning any offense. Wouldn't you tell the 
committee who you work for ? 

Mr. Shafer. I would like to consult with my counsel, please. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The Chair asks you this question : Do you honestly 
believe that if you gave a truthful answer to that question that a truth- 
ful answer might tend to incriminate you ? 

Mr. Shafer. I would like to consult with my counsel please. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Shafer. Yes. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Shafer, we have also had the testimony from 
Mr. Owens yesterday that you spoke to him and told him that you 
could get a rifle in Louisiana, a rifle that had a silencer on it, and that 
he could go to the home of Mr. Roy Gilbert, who owned the trucking 
company, and be able to shoot him. Did you suggest that to Mr. 
Owens ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you suggest to Mr. Owens that he kill Mr. Gil- 
bert? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did you offer to pay him for that job ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Also, you said that you could arrange to get hand 
grenades, evidently getting the hand grenades from Fort Sill, Okla., 
and that you wanted him to put some of the hand grenades in various 
trucks. Is that correct? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15537 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Also, it was discussed about beating up Mr. Roy 
Gilbert's son, and he was to receive $200 for that. 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Also, that you hired a Mr. Springer to get a job with 
the SMT Trucking Co., so that he could case the place and find out 
where dynamite could be placed and where acid could be thrown. 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us at all whether you also gave in- 
structions to throw coke bottles through windows of moving trucks, 
and rocks, and to order the shooting on trucks by various numbers of 
your people ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you couldn't tell us anything about using the acid 
to disfigure a person, ordering someone to kill a man or beat up his 
son, using the dynamite, committing arson, throwing rocks at moving 
automobiles, or shooting upon truckdrivers ? Could you tell us any- 
thing about any of those matters ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have some recordings here that 
were obtained through the Texas Rangers that might be able to re- 
fresh Mr. Shafer's recollection. 

The Chairman. All the Chair would inquire about is whether the 
recordings were legally obtained under the laws of the State of Texas. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were. They are recordings within a room. 
They are not recordings on the telephone. We have Mr. Smith here 
to introduce the recordings. 

The Chairman. Mr. Smith, come forward, please. 

Senator Curtis. May I ask one question firsts I don't know; it 
might be in the record. 

The Chairman. Yes ; proceed. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Shafer, do you know a supply sergeant in the 
Army who has at any time been located at Fort Sill, Okla. ? 

Mr. Shafer. I would like to consult with counsel, please. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Yesterday I asked Mr. Owens : 

Where did they get these hand grenades you were talking about? 
Mr. Owens. Well, sir, Mr. Shafer told me he was getting them from Fort Sill, 
Okla. 

Senator Curtis. From the Army? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir, from a supply sergeant. 

Do you wish to deny that ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Smith, could you come forward, and then Mr. 
Kamerick, also. 



15538 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Mr. Smith, would you be sworn, please ? 

You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give before this Sen- 
ate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF ZENO SMITH 

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

Mr. Smith. My name is Zeno Smith. I live in the city of San 
Antonio, Tex., and I am a Texas Ranger. 

The Chairman. How long have you occupied such a position, Mr. 
Smith? 

Mr. Smith. 23 years 8 or 9 months. 

The Chairman. State some of your official duties as a Texas 
Ranger, just briefly for the record. 

Mr. Smith. Well, we enforce and assist in the enforcement of the 
criminal law violations that we can possibly do so which take place in 
the State of Texas. 

The Chairman. Generally, you are a law-enforcement agency. 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you have authority to make arrests? 

Mr. Smith. Anywhere in the State of Texas. 

The Chairman. Anywhere in the State of Texas for any violation 
of the State law ? 

Mr. Smith. Criminal laws ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Criminal laws. 

All right, Mr. Kennedy, proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. In 1955, Mr. Smith, did you have some conversa- 
tions with Mr. Buck Owens in connection with certain matters deal- 
ing with violence, dynamitings, arsons, and shootings, involving cer- 
tain trucking companies in Texas. 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And following those conversations, did Mr. Owens 
show you certain locations that these various acts of violence had 
taken place at ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir ; he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you then arrange for him to cooperate with you 
and to assist you in trying to break up this terrorism that was go- 
ing on? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he agree to carry on conversations and have 
those conversations recorded, conversations that he would carry on 
with Mr. Shaf er and others of the Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir ; he did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did someone under your direction and control ar- 
range to place a recording machine in the room where these con- 
versations took place ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And those conversations took place about what 
period of time ? 

Mr. Smith. The first recording that was made was made on the 
day of September 15, 1955, in the city of San Antonio, Tex. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15539 

Mr. Kennedy. Were there a number of recordings that followed 
that? 
Mr. Smith. There was another recording made on September 30, 

1955. 

The Chairman. September 30 ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. The other recording was with a Mr. Hass ; is that 
right? 

Mr. Smith. Eddie Hass ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. We had some testimony about Mr. Hass yesterday 
regarding his participation in some of this violence. 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have made those recordings available to the 
committee ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Smith. I assisted ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Somebody under your control made them available? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kamerick has those recordings, Mr. Chair- 
man. They are rather lengthy recordings. We have the whole re- 
cording available, but we took various excerpts from the recordings 
that would bear on the testimony of this witness. Mr. Kamerick 
is prepared to testify as to the validity of the recordings. 

The Chairman. Are we prepared to play one of the recordings ? 

Mr. Kamerick. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I think we should play at least one of them so 
that we can get a general impression of their tone and so forth. 

Mr. Kennedy. The transcription of the whole recording, Mr. 
Chairman, is 4 hours. 

The Chairman. Four hours? The Chair withdraws his sug- 
gestion. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have certain parts here. 

The Chairman. You can play the parts ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes ; taken from the original. 

The Chairman. I misunderstood. 

Mr. Kamerick, you have been previously sworn. 

Mr. Kamerick. Yes, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL E. KAMERICK— Resumed 

The Chairman. Have you played these recordings ? 

Mr. Kamerick. Yes, sir ; I have. 

The Chairman. Have you taken from the recordings certain 
excerpts ? 

Mr. Kamerick. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Chairman. I believe the first recording is about 4 hours long; 
is that correct ? 

Mr. Kamerick. It is of substantial length, Senator. It is approxi- 
mately that. 

The Chairman. You have taken from it and — what do you do, 
rerecord it ? 

Mr. Kamerick. Record it on another machine; play it and simul- 
taneously record it on another machine. 

The Chairman. So the recording you now propose to introduce 
is a recording from the original recording ? 



15540 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kamerick. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you can state that it is true, correct, and ac- 
curate, what we shall hear on this recording ? 

Mr. Kamerick. Yes, sir. I have an affidavit here from the man, 
the technician from the Texas Department of Public Safety to that 
effect. 

The Chairman. He helped make the rerecording ? 

Mr. Kamerick. He was the technician who made the original. 

The Chairman. Without objection, the Chair will insert this 
affidavit in the record at this point. It is not necessary to read it at 
this point, but it will be inserted as part of the record at this 
point. 

(The affidavit referred to follows :) 

I, William S. Duncan, make the following statement to Paul E. Kamerick, 
who has identified himself to me as assistant counsel of the U.S. Senate Select 
•Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field. This 
statement is voluntary. 

I am employed by the State of Texas Department of Public Safety. In 
connection with my official duties there, I now have and have had for some 
time control of certain technical equipment. Among the items of technical 
equipment within my competence to operate are tape-recording devices. 

On September 15, 1955, in accordance with previous arrangements, I was 
in a room at the San Jose Motel in San Antonio, Tex. The room immediately 
adjacent to mine was occupied by one Buck Owens, who is well known to me by 
sight. Raymond C. Shafer is also kell known to me by sight. 

About 5 o'clock p.m., on September 15, 1955, as I was watching from a window 
in my quarters, I saw Raymond C. Shafer leave his automobile and approach the 
door to the room occupied by Owens. As he reached Owens' door, he passed out 
of my vision. I heard the door open and close and immediately heard voices. 
These voices were transmitted to a tape-recording device in my room from a wire- 
less microphone which was installed in Owens' room. I heard Owens call Shafer 
by his name, and I heard Shafer call himself by his last name. 

I recorded the conversation between these two men, and this tape recording 
has been in my possession since that time. 

On March 10, 1958, I brought this original tape to the Capitol Building in 
"Washington, D.C., where excerpts were taken from it. I also made a complete 
copy of the transcript of the original tape and have made it available to the U.S. 
Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management 
Field. 

(Signed) William S. Duncan. 

Sworn to before me this 11th day of March 1958. 

( Signed ) Wm. R. Lewis, Notary Public. 

Mr. Kennedy. There have not been any alterations or changes made 
in the excerpts, except to take excerpts out of the full recording; is 
that right? 

Mr. Kamerick. There are some places where the language would 
not be suitable for public playing, and in those cases the precise words 
were deleted. Other than that, the recording is as it was originally. 

Mr. Kennedy. And there is a sound where the word was deleted ? 

Mr. Kamerick. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. But otherwise, the recording is exact ? 

Mr. Kamerick. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, only the obscene language or ex- 
tremely profane language has been deleted ? 

Mr. Kamerick. That is right ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And we have taken the excerpts that bear on the 
testimony before the committee ? 

Mr. Kamerick. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15541 

The Chairman. Have you transcribed excerpts from that record- 
ing? 

Mr. Kamerick. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you have those transcriptions ? 

Mr. Kamerick. Yes, sir ; we have. 

The Chairman. May the committee be supplied with copies of the 
transcriptions, please? . . . 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I might also say that m this affidavit 
the participant in the conversation is identified as Mr. Shafer. In 
addition, during the course of the transcription, Mr. Shafer identifies 
himself as being Shafer. He refers to himself as Shafer. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. So there is no question about the identity of the 
voices. 

The Chairman. If you have the recording ready, we will proceed 

with it. 

Mr. Smith, as it is being played, as the recording is being played, 
will you give very close attention to it, and if there are any discrepan- 
cies, any inaccuracies, or any improvisions on the original in any way, 
will you so state. You will be asked that at the conclusion of the 
hearing of the record. 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Will you observe closely while this procedure is in 
process? All right. 

(At this point a recording was played.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Smith, you have heard that recording. Do you 
find any inaccuracies in there ? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir. The only thing I found inaccurate in there 
would be the language, in the way of violent language. 

The Chairman. In other words, where the language has been 
deleted. 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That part which is audible and decent is correctly 
recorded 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And has been correctly transcribed according to 
this sheet, this transcript of it that you have a copy of before you ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Let the copy before the witness be filed and placed 
in the record at this point. 

(The transcript is as follows :) 

Owens. You and Hass brought the dynamite down there — — 

Shafer. Hass, and we talked to Pat and Bob Owens, Pat Davis, out there, we 
went out in the country and put it in the behind of Pat's car and then we went 
by the trailer courts where you and old Bob, wasn't it trailer courts? 

Owens. Uh-huh. 

Shafer. I wasn't sure, no, it was trailer court. 

Owens. Yeah, it was trailer courts, yeah, that's right. 

Shafer. Well, we didn't pull in, we pulled out on the road and Pat went 

and got Bob, then we went down and parked right in front of that d golf 

range there, you know, where the golf practice range is there. 

Owens. Yeah. 

Shafer. We parked there and talked and they asked me if I had the money 

and I said, "No, I don't have it, it's too G d a quick notice." They said, 

"Well, we've got a couple of boys in here to do it and we'll go on and pay them 
and you can give the money back to us." I said, "Well, O.K., maybe a couple 



15542 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Owens. Well who in the h tinaudible] would go for that' 

bHAFER. Huh? 

Owens. Who wanted it blowed up to start with' 

Shafer. I did. 

Owens. And you give Pat $200? 

Shafeb. I sure did. 

Owens. Well, he give me $50 and give Buddy Springer $50 

Shafer. I'll take a paralized oath on that, that's what we give the son of 

b- and I'll face him in it and Eddie Hass will do the same thing. 

Owens Oh ah that dynamite I got for you in Odessa, you ain't never told 
nobody else about that, I mean nobody knows. 
Shafer. Nobody but Johnson and Foots. 

tttStZJtMtt&StiSr" "* F °° tS ' ThCy ' re "» M " that Come «* 

Shafer. Well, Suttle was there, because he made the arrangements on it. 

Owens. Suttle knows about it too. 

Shafer. Yes, cause, see, I had to call Suttle and tell him because Suttle made 

the arrangements on the sale of the d thing. Other than those three 

there ain t nobody else knows about it. 

Owens. You don't think that, ah, Stiles knows anything about it? Nobody 
else ; well, do you think Eddie knows anything about it? 

Shafer. Well, I imagine he does, h , he helped transport it up yonder. 

Owens. Oh, yeah, well, where was that, Daingerfield? 

Shafer. Yeah, I'm sure he knows something about it. In fact, I don't remem- 
ber whether Bob and I discussed it with him or not, and I don't know whether 
Bob did, and I don't remember whether I did or not for sure, but you and 
Eddie went out there and picked some up one night, didn't you? 

Owens. Yeah, we picked it up, you know you wanted us to take it to, ah 

Shafer. Now, I mean the 10 sticks on Alamo. Didn't you and him go out 
there on that? 

Owens. Yeah, uh-huh. 

Shafer. And all of it was still there ; naw, it wasn't. 

Owens. Naw, it was gone by then. 

Shafer. What in the h did we do with that G d stuff in the 

meantime? We didn't leave five sticks, I mean, five cases of that out there did 
we? 

Owens. Yeah, we did ; you see, you rented that house for a month. 

Shafer. Uh-hm. 

Owens. How much did the old people charge you for that? 

Shafer. $40. 

Owens. $40. I thought it was $37 [inaudible]. 

Shafer. $40. 

Owens. Yeah, I don't think you and me would pass off very good as insur- 
ance salesmen, not when it comes right down to brass tacks. I would have hated 

like h to try to sell that old man some insurance. Might have had to, you 

know it? 

Shafer. Yeah, after we got that d dynamite in there, we would have had 

to then. 

Owens. Oh yeah, I would have really been down on the insurance salesman. 

Let's see, ah. G d , you know I made pretty good money while I was 

up here. 

Shafer. You didn't do bad. 

Owens. Let's see, I made, ah. 

Shafer. In all? 

Owens. Yeah, let's see, how 

Shafer. You made 1,400. 

Owens. Let's see, how, how much you give me for the dynamite? 

Shafer. You got eight out of it. 

Owens. $800 out of the dynamite. 

Shafer. And six for over yonder. 

Owens. Let's see, six for the Houston job. 

Shafer. That's 1,400. 

Owens. And, ah, let's see that was $50 for the Austin job, Austin Fireproof. 

Shafer. 1,450. 

Owens. $1,450. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15543 

Shafeb. Well, you made that 1,400 in about 3 months, didn't you? 
Owens. Yeah. 

Shafeb. Besides what work you done on the side for me, for Strickland over 
yonder before you cut loose. 
The Chairman. Mr. Owens, will you come forward, please? 
Mr. Owens, you were a witness before the committee yesterday. 

TESTIMONY OF BUCK OWENS— Resumed 

Mr. Owens. Yes. 

The Chairman. Mr. Owens, you will remain under the same oath. 
You were present and heard the playing of this recording just now? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Whose voices in that recording did you recognize? 

Mr. Owens. Raymond C. Shafer and myself, Buck Owens. 

The Chairman. You were the two who were having the 
conversation ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; we was. 

The Chairman. You identify your own voice ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And that of Mr. Shafer? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you also personally recall at this moment the 
incident, the time and place where this recording was made? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; I do. 

The Chairman. And you know that this conversation did take 
place between you and the witness Raymond C. Shafer ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And this recording is true, correct, and accurate, 
except insofar as obscene language or extreme profane language has 
been deleted from it ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; it is. 

The Chairman. So this plus whatever obscene language and pro- 
fanity that was used at the time is a correct, true, accurate, and com- 
plete statement of the conversation between you ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. Are there any other questions ? 

I will correct one thing. I said complete. There were other con- 
versations at the time that were not on this excerpt ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. There is still some more on the tape that 
was not played this morning. 

The Chairman. On the original tape ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. But this that was played this morning is accurate, 
true, and correct from the original tape? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; it is. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you identify your voice, Mr. Shafer? 

Mr. Shafer. Could I consult counsel ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that you ? 

Mr. Shafer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was you ? 
(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Shafer. I am sorry. I didn't hear the question, sir. 



15544 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. I asked if that was your voice on the tape. 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are you ashamed of your voice ? 

Mr. Shafer. I would like to consult counsel. 

The Chairman. Yes. Ask him if you are. 
(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was this the correct amount of money that you paid 
him for the various jobs Mr. Owens was involved in, the Houston job, 
$800 for the dynamite, $600 for the Houston job, $50 for the Austin 
Fireproof job, a total of $1,450 ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. What is the source of that money? Is it union 
dues money ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Or did it come out of the pension and welfare 
fund? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. It was not your own money, was it? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. This excerpt seems to strongly support Mr. Owens' 
testimony of yesterday that he stole this dynamite and delivered it to 
you at your instructions, that a portion of it was turned over to two 
Teamster officials from Louisiana by the name of Johnson and Foots, 
that ultimately the dynamite that was left after it was used on these 
various jobs was buried at Daingerfield, and that you had full knowl- 
edge about the various acts of terrorism that took place in Texas dur- 
ing this period of time. 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have a number of others of these 
excerpts that go to support other facets of Mr. Owens' testimony. I 
think it might be well to play them. 

The Chairman. At this time, where is the original tape? 

Mr. Kamerick. The original is still in the files of the department 
of public safety in Texas. 

The Chairman. Let this tape, this excerpt, which has just been 
played, be made exhibit 17 for reference. 

(The recording referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 17" for ref- 
erence and may be found in the files of the select committee. ) 

The transcription of it, as the Chair has already ordered, will be 
printed in the record. 

Mr. Kennedy. Shall we play the others ? 

The Chairman. Are they short ? 

Mr. Kennedy. They are short ones. We have six or seven short 
ones. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15545 

Mr. Smith, as these recordings are made, there are some five or six 
others, I understand, to be presented to the committee, and as they are 
played, you are requested to give your undivided attention to them 
so that you may point out if there is any error, any inaccuracy, or 
any improvisions on the originals. You heard the originals played, 
I am sure. 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Have you heard these excerpts played before « 

Mr. Smith. No, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. Pay very strict attention. Of course, 
these can always be checked with the originals. 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed with the next recording. 

( At this point a recording was played. ) 

The Chairman. Mr. Smith, do you recognize this recording? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you have heard it played. Is it true, cor- 
rect, and accurate except as to the deletion of the profanity and the 
obscene language ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. This transcript of the recording may be inserted 
in the record at this point, and the recording itself will be made 
exhibit No. 18 for reference. 

(The recording was marked "Exhibit 18" for reference and may 
be found in the files of the select committee.) 

(The transcript is as follows :) 

Owens. You know when you sent him to Odessa? 

Shafeb. Uh-uh. 

Owens. To get that dynamite, he was scared to death, I'm telling you that 
little fella, he was just in the shakes and we was loading it in that pickup. 

Shafeb. Uh-uh. 

Owens. And he said that G d Shafer, he said, I wish to h — — 

I had him down here with me to help load this, all about his lips you know 
they're just as white as if he was drawing gasoline out of a 

Shafeb. You tell that little son-of-a-b that Shafer was by G d 

scared on that next deal over that house, I don't know whether that deal was 

any worse than this deal or not, but by G , I didn't feel any too good on that 

deal. 

Owens. What one? 

Shafeb. When we moved in from that house over there to that trailer court. 

Owens. Oh, man, yeah. 

Shafeb. That was a risky son-of-a-b , I thought about that a lot of times, 

haven't you? That was pretty G d risky, that night, we flat-a 

loaded that son-of-a-b in a hurry, didn't we? 

Owens. D • right, it paid to load it in a hurry. 

Shafeb. Huh. 

Owens. It paid to load it in a hurry. 

Shafeb. Old Foots is over that local down there in Shreveport now. 

Owens. He is? That's good. What is his real name besides 

Shafeb. Johnson, I don't know what his — E. F., I believe. 

Owens. E. F. 

Shafeb. I don't know what it stands for. 

Owens. I've often wondered, I've thought of that and I wondered how in the 
h he got his name "Foots." 

Shafeb. He won the election over there last Sunday. 

Owens. What happened to Bunch? 

Shafeb. He was over there, Foots won the election over him. [Inaudible.] 

Owens. Well, ah, how much on that dynamite that I got out at Odessa for 
you — how much did you give me for that? 



15546 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Shafeb. I believe it was $1,200, wasn't it? 

Owens. Yeah, but then you got some of it. 

Shafeb. Yeah. 

Owens. And Bob got some of it, how much did I wind up with in all? 

Shafeb. You gave me $200, 1 believe, and gave Bob $200. 

Owens. That left me ah 

Shafeb. $800. Ain't that right? I believe that's right now, ah may be 
wrong on it, Buck. 

Mr. Kennedy. This, again, supports the testimony that after the 
dynamite was taken from Odessa, and brought to San Antonio, that 
it was left outside the house of Mr. Owens, and then you, Mr. Shafer, 
came and helped transport it into this trailer camp, or this place that 
they had rented. This recording would seem to support that. 

Do you have anything to say about that ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you talked about how nervous you were at 
transferring the dynamite ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I didn't think you folks ever got nervous. I 
thought you were brave people to go out and beat up folks, and shoot 
at them, and dynamite them. I thought that took a lot of bravery 
to do things like that. People like that wouldn't get nervous. Were 
you nervous ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

May I ask, did you recognize your voice in this last recording? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir, I did. 

The Chairman. Whose other voice did you recognize ? 

Mr. Owens. Raymond C. Shafer. 

The Chairman. Do you recall personally that conversation? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; I do. 

The Chairman. Is this recording true and accurate except as to the 
obscene or profane language that may have been deleted from it? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Play the third recording. 

(A recording was played at this point.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Smith, you have heard the playing of this 
recording. Is it true and accurate, except as to profane and obscene 
language that may have been deleted ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir ; it is. 

The Chairman. Mr. Owens, do you recognize your voice in that 
recording? 

Mr. Owens. I do. 

The Chairman. Whose other voice do you recognize ? 

Mr. Owens. Raymond C. Shafer. 

The Chairman. Were these recordings made or these conversations 
had some time after September 15, 1955 ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I understood in the beginning, Mr. Smith, the first 
recording was on September 15, 1955. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15547 

Mr. Smith. Senator, the whole recording was made on the same 
date, September 15, 1955. 

The Chairman. I understand now. These recordings that we are 
now playing were a part of the 3- or 4-hour conversation and these 
were excerpts from one meeting and one continuous conversation be- 
tween these two men? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much. This transcript 
of this recording may be printed in the record at this point, and the 
record may be made exhibit No. 19. 

(The record referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 19" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

(The recording follows:) 

Owens. Uh-huh. On that dynamite, you know, as, we hauled over to that house, 
you know, ah, when I first brought it in from Odessa and you met me out there 
on the highway, well don't you know, you met me on the highway, we took it on 
out to my house ; didn't we? 

Shafer. Yeah, uh-huh. 

Owens. And then we, ah 

Shafer. Put it in the garage apartment. 

Owens. What, what, what did you tell them old people we was? 

Shafer. Insurance salesmen. 

Owens. Oh, yeah, insurance salesmen. 

Shafer. That son of a b started wanting to buy insurance. Well, I said. 

"That's out of our department. We sell stock in insurance companies." 
[Laughter.] 

Owens. It would have been h if he'd been a millionaire and wanted it. 

Shafer. I would have had to get somebody else to a sold that son of a b 

some stock. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Shafer, this recording would support Mr. 
Owens' own testimony that the dynamite was taken and stored in a 
garage apartment, and when you rented the garage apartment that 
you described yourself as an insurance salesman. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it would also indicate that you received back 
some $200 yourself. 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Have any of your superiors in the Teamsters Union 
or any of its governing agencies undertaken to discipline you in any 
way for your connection with this violence and terrorism that was 
imposed down there ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Have you received the slightest reprimand from 
any of your superiors ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. For any of these acts ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Have they criticized you in any wav for inefficiency 
or lack of good judgment or any other failure to carry out this pro- 
gram of sabotage and intimidation and violence ? 



15548 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you think that a union official occupying the 
position you do should engage in such tactics ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are we to assume from that that you do believe 
it is proper to engage in violence to achieve your ends as a labor leader 
or representative ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Could we assume that a man who is not involved 
in these things would have any fear or hesitancy in stating the truth 
and denying it if it were true ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You are unwilling then, I take it, to cooperate with 
your Government in trying to give information that you may have 
that would enable the Congress to get the facts upon which to legislate 
to eradicate these evils that persist in some areas ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. By refusing to answer, you fail to cooperate. Do 
you want to leave the record that way, that you are unwilling to 
cooperate with your Government to the end that these evils might 
be corrected ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Well, that does answer it. You refuse to cooperate. 
In other words, are we to assume then that you condone these crimes 
and this violence ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. We will play another recording. This is S-2, that 
is the next one. 

(A recording was played.) 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Smith, have you heard this record- 
ing? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is it correct, true, and accurate, except as to the 
deletions that the Chair has previously referred to ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Owens, do you recognize your voice in this 
recording? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; I do. 

The Chairman. As referred to Mr. Shafer over here according to 
the transcript I have, on page 2, there is this part of the conversation : 

Owens. Well, who brought the dynamite down that night, you and 

Shafer. Me and Eddie. 

Do you know who Eddie is ? 

Mr. Owens. That is Eddie Hass, H-a-s-s, I know him. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15549 

The Chairman. I see you make reference to it again, that is, Eddie 
Hass. "Eddie" all of the way through here is Eddie Hass ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is there anything inaccurate about this recording? 

Mr. Owens. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You state under oath that it is correct, true, and 
accurate, except as to the deletions for obscene language or profane 
language ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir, I do. 

The Chairman. You recall that is a part of the same continuing 
conversation ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir, it is. 

The Chairman. The transcript of this recording may be printed in 
the record at this point. 

(The recording follows :) 

Owens. He gave me a rough deal on that Austin, you know that Austin Fire- 
proof Building we blowed up? 

Shafer. Unh, yeah. 

Owens. You know, that Austin Fireproof Building we blowed up in Austin? 

That son of a b , he gimme $50 and he give Buddy Springer $50. How much 

did you pay him? 

Shafer. $200. 

Owens. You paid him $200? 

Shafer. Sure did. Eddie gave it to Bob or Pat one, I don't know which one 
he give it to. but that's what I gave — $200. 

Owens. Well, did you give it to him the night you brought the dynamite 

Shafer. Naw, I sure didn't. 

Owens. To Austin ? You didn't give it to him then ? 

Shafer. No, it was about 3 or 4 nights later. 

Owens. Well, he paid me that night. 

Shafer. He did? Well, I sure didn't give it to him. 

Owens. He give me $50 and give Buddy $50. 

Shafer. I give it to him about three or four nights later. See, they called me 
on Sunday evening 

Owens. Uhh. 

Shafer. Spur the G d moment, I mean I knew that they was trying 

to make plans for it, f , there wasn't a G d thing open. I couldn't 

get no G d money or a d thing. 

Owens. Where did you get the dynamite? 

Shafer. I think it came out of Tennessee. 

Owens. Tennessee? 

Shafer. I think so ; I believe that's where it come from. 

Owens. Did Johnson bring it down to you? 

Shafer. No; one of the boys over at Tennessee brought it to me on that 
particular deal. 

Owens. Naw, he gave me $50 and he gave Buddy $50 and told me that you 
just gave him $150 to blow the d place up. 

Shafer. $150, no, that's d sure wrong. Me and Bob and Pat and I'll face 

Pat any G d time. 

Owens. That makes me so mad, I just 

Shafer. I'll face the son of a b and I've got proof as to how much it was 

because Eddie, I gave the money to Eddie and Eddie brought it down. I don't 
know whether he gave it to Bob or gave it to Pat, they gave it to one or the 
other. I don't know which one he gave it to. 

Owens. Well, who brought the dynamite down that night, you and 

Shafer. Me and Eddie. 

Owens. You and Eddie Hass? 

Shafer. But that is the honest to God truth on it, on the amount, and I'll 
face old Pat in it and we'll bring Eddie in, because Eddie knows the amount 
that was given on it. 

Owens. Did he give the money to Eddie Hass or did you give it to Pat Davis? 

21243— 59— pt. 41 13 



15550 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Shafer. Either to Pat or Bob, I don't know which one he gave it to, anyway 
he was coming back through Austin and he dropped it off there in Austin. 

Owens. Uhh. 

Shafer. Ah, it was three or four nights later, I don't know, two or three 
nights, I don't know, but anyway, it wasn't that particular night because it was 
about 6 o'clock when Pat called me, and I'll swear the devil he did it. 

Owens. But what made me mad was, I wouldn't have minded it so bad, 
h— , I would have gone up there and set the dynamite under the building my- 
self (inaudible). 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Shafer, do you want to comment 
on it? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. By that I assume you wouldn't care to comment 
on it ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I am giving you a chance, and you can say "Yes" 
or "No" to that without incriminating yourself. Whether you want 
to comment or not, you can say no, you don't. You are given the 
chance, you admit that, don't you ? 

Mr. Shafer. I might consult with my counsel. 

The Chairman. Let the record show that he is being given the 
chance to comment on it, and we will remain silent for a moment or 
two to see if you wish to speak. 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Silence is up. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy, and there 
was no indication from the witness that he cared to comment. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is the transcript of the conversation where 
there is the admission about the $200. Do you have any comment 
on that, the $200 that was paid in order to blow the Austin Fireproof 
Building up? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then there is rather an interesting comment here by 
you that the dynamite used in another deal came from Tennessee, from 
the boys over at Tennessee. 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us who it was in Tennessee that 
brought it over ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that "Hard-of-Hearing Smitty" or Glenn 
Smith, or who would it have been ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. When we had the Smiths up here before the com- 
mittee, we heard testimony about them going into North Carolina 
and into Kentucky, as well as Louisiana when they were involved in 
violence and dynamitings. Now, we find that they also went into 
Texas, and that you sent some of your dynamite down into Louisiana 
as well. This was sort of an operation that covered the whole of the 
South ; is that right ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15551 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You just move dynamite around from one place to 
another, and blew anybody up that stood in your way; is that right? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is known as "organizing the unorganized" by 
Mr. Hoff a ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you find that is more effective than just ask 
somebody if they want to join a union ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my 
answer my tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you explain why the other method has been 
used very effectively throughout the United States, just asking people 
if they want to join a union and they do join the union? ' Do you 
find that your way, the Teamster way, is more effective, just blow 
them up if they won't ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have another one. 

The Chairman. Let this last recording just played be made exhibit 
No. 20 for reference. 

(The record referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 20" for refer- 
ence, and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. I have already ordered the transcript of that re- 
cording printed in the record. 

Senator Erven. Mr. Shafer, you have been asked whether or not 
you knew several persons in the Teamsters, and in every case you have 
replied that if you admitted your acquaintance with them that your 
answer or admission would tend to incriminate you. Do you know 
Jimmy Hoffa ? 

Mr. Shafer. May I consult with counsel ? 

(Witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer. 

Senator Erven. Do you know a single International officer of the 
Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Shafer. May I consult with counsel ? 

Senator Ervin. You may consult with him. 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ervin. Who was your immediate superior? And I don't 
mean his name, but what office in the Teamsters was your immediate 
superior ? 

Mr. Shafer. I would like to consult with counsel. 

Senator Erven. You may consult with him. 

(Witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ervin. Could you tell me the name of a single Teamsters 
Conference officer in the jurisdiction in Texas and where you operate 



15552 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

as business manager of this local, whose identification you can dis- 
close to this committee without incriminating yourself? 

Mr. Shafer. I would like to consult with counsel. 

Senator Ervin. You may consult with him. 

(Witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ervin. Are you a native of Texas by birth? 

Mr. Shafer. May I consult with counsel ? 

(Witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Shafer. Yes. 

Senator Ervin. Where were you born in Texas? 

Mr. Shafer. May I consult with counsel ? 

Senator Ervin. You may do so. 

(Witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Shafer. Denton County, Tex. 

Senator Ervin. I want to put one final question to you. It may 
be somewhat long, and so I will ask you to pay close attention to it. 

Don't you think that things have come to a pretty sorry pass in this 
land of the free and home of the brave, when a native born Texan who 
happens to have served as a business manager of a local union of the 
Teamsters takes the witness stand and declares upon his oath that he 
cannot admit an acquaintance with any international officer or any 
conference officer of the Teamsters Union without incriminating him- 
self in the possible commission of some criminal offense ? 

Mr. Shaeer. I am sorry ; I don't follow your question. 

Senator Ervin. I will put it to you again. Just as one American 
citizen to another, don't you think that things have come to a pretty 
sorry pass in this land of the free and this home of the brave, when a 
native born Texan who happens to be the business manager of a local 
union of the Teamsters, the biggest union in the United States, takes 
the witness stand and declares upon his oath that he cannot admit 
that he knows a single international officer of the Teamsters or a single 
conference officer of the Teamsters without tending to incriminate 
himself in the commission of some criminal offense? 

Mr. Shafer. I would like to consult with counsel. 

Senator Ervin. You may consult with him. 

(Witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ervin. That is all. 

Senator Curtis. Where were you living, Mr. Shafer, in 1950? 

Mr. Shafer. I would like to consult with counsel, please. 

(Witness consulted with counsel.) 

Mr. Shafer. I was living in Dallas, Tex. 

Senator Curtis. And when did you move from Dallas, Tex. ? 

Mr. Shafer. Could I consult with counsel. 

(Witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. By whom were you employed in Dallas ? 

Mr. Shafer. Could I consult with counsel ? 

(Witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Shafer. Was that in 1950, sir ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15553 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

Mr. Shafer. For Brown Express. 

Senator Curtis. For Brown Express ? 

Mr. Shafer. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. That is a trucking company ? 

Mr. Shafer. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. How long did you work for them \ 

Mr. Shafer. May I consult with counsel ? 

(Witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Shafer. From July, I believe, 1948. 

Senator Curtis. Until when? 

Mr. Shafer. Until 1951 or 1952, one or the other, and I dont 
remember. 

Senator Curtis. For whom did you go to work then { 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Who have you worked for since you quit working 
for Brown Express? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Have you worked for more than one employer since 
you left Brown Express ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Are you now employed by the Teamsters? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline — may I consult with counsel, 

sir? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

(Witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Shafer. I am now the business manager for local 657. 

Senator Curtis. How long have you been employed by the Team- 
sters Union in some capacity or other ? 

Mr. Shafer. Could I consult with counsel ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

(Witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The Chair, with the approval of the committee, 
orders and directs the witness to answer that question. 

Mr. Shafer. May I consult with counsel ? 

The Chairman. You may. 

(Witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. That order and direction will continue throughout 
your appearance here, as a witness. 

Senator Curtis. Is there any indictment or other charge of any 
kind pending against you now ? 

Mr. Shafer. May I consult with counsel ? 

( The witness consulted with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Woods. Mr. Chairman, may I comment on that, sir? 

The Chairman. I beg your pardon ? 

Mr. Woods. May I comment on the Senator's question ? 



15554 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. You may ask the Chair for any information you 
desire. 

Mr. Woods. I would like to have permission, sir, to comment on 
the pending indictments. 

The Chairman. You may advise your client, of course, and now if 
you wish to take up something with the committee, you address your 
request to the Chair. What you are saying is you want to comment 
on Senator Curtis' question. 

Senator Curtis. He said he wanted to comment on the indictments. 
I asked if there was any other indictment or other charge pending 
against the witness. 

The Chairman. The witness may answer, and then the Chair will 
permit the counsel to make some comment. If it is the purpose of 
counsel to simply inform the committee of the status of any proceed- 
ings against his client, I think it would be proper to permit counsel to 
do that, if that is the purpose of it. 

Mr. Woods. That is the purpose of it. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. Woods. There are pending against the witness two criminal 
indictments, one in Bexar County, in which San Antonio is located, 
and the other at Austin, Tex. 

The Chairman. What are the indictments for, Mr. Counsel ? 

Mr. Woods. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that one in- 
dictment is for conspiracy to commit arson, and I am not certain of 
the exact charge in the other indictment. 

The Chairman. You do not represent him in those? 

Mr. Woods. I do not. 

The Chairman. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. I understand that the second indictment is for the 
possession of a bomb. 

Mr. Woods. It may be, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you give the dates of the indictments? 

Mr. Woods. I have them in my briefcase in the hearing room, and 
I understood from previous conversations with Mr. Kamerick that he 
also has copies of those indictments. 

The Chairman. Do we have copies of them ? 

Mr. Kamerick. This is a copy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Should we read them in? One is to have in his 
possession and control a bomb. The other is to set fire to burn the 
house of Wayne Neal, which I understand is also the Leeway terminal. 
And the indictments came down, or are dated November of 1955. 

The Chairman. Now, Mr. Witness, do you wish to comment upon 
the fact, or make a statement that you are under indictment or do 
you decline? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Your attorney has already incriminated you. He 
said that you are indicted, and do you want to refute that? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Now, you see, Mr. Counsel, that is what we get into 
here. I want to be most courteous to counsel, and I certainly do not 
criticize you in any way for trying to get these facts before the com- 
mittee. It is probably more helpful to the client than he realizes, but 



IMPROPER ACTWITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15555 

we get no cooperation out of him whatsoever. I would like to extend 
every courtesy and be as accommodating as cooperation or lack of coop- 
eration permits in trying to get the facts on the record. That is why 
we have to use some care in trying to keep these hearings in their 
proper perspective. 

All right, Mr. Counsel, proceed. 

(Members of the select committee present at this point in the pro- 
ceedings were Senators McClellan, Ervin, and Curtis.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, could we go through a few more of 
these? 

The Chairman. All right. 

(A recording was played.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Smith, do you recognize this as a true excerpt 
of the original recording ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Subject to such deletions as may have been made 
for reasons stated ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Owens, do you recognize your voice ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir; I do. 

The Chairman. Do you also recognize the other voice? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; I do. It is Raymond C. Shaf er. 

The Chairman. Is that the same Raymond C. Shafer who is now 
present on the witness stand ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, it is. 

The Chairman. And all of these recordings, when you refer to 
Raymond C. Shafer's voice, in these recordings you identify that 
voice as the voice of this Raymond C. Shafer who is now present and 
testifying before the committee ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. This recording may be printed in the record at 
this point. The recording itself may be made exhibit No. 21. 

(The recording referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 21" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

(The recording follows:) 

Owens. You know, ah, the night I blowed up that Fireproof for you. 

Shafeb. Uh, huh. 

Owens. Why, ah, you know later on you told me that there was a d 

night watchman over there. How'd you find that out? 

Shafer. Through an old boy that worked up there at a service station that 
we knew, that we had been trading with, lived down the street there. 

Owens. You know, it's a d wonder that I didn't get my fool head shot off 

there. 

Shafer. Sure, that son of a b was sitting on the front porch. 

Owens. You know, I've thought about that and just reached up here and 
felt to see if my old boney head was still there, boy. Have the Rangers been 
giving you any more trouble? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, this evidently refers to the matter 
that the witness is under indictment for, for the arson of Austin Fire- 
proof. I will ask no questions about it. 

The Chairman. Ask him no questions about it. 

Proceed. 

(A recording was played.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Smith, do you recognize that as a true and 
correct excerpt from the original recording ? 



15556 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. It is the same as the original, except for such dele- 
tions for obscenity or profanity ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Owens, do you recognize the voices in this 
recording ? 

Mr. Owens. I do ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Whose voices are they ? 

Mr. Owens. Raymond C. Shafer and myself, Buck Owens. 

The Chairman. That is the witness that is on the stand ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; it is. 

The Chairman. This recording may be inserted in the record at 
this point, the transcript of it, and the recording will be made exhibit 
No. 22. 

(Recording referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 22" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

(The recording follows:) 

Owens. I was just wondering. Well, didn't ole, didn't Claude help you on 
some of these deals? 

Shafer. Sure didn't. He went with Vic Lang once or twice on some work, 
but he d — sure never went with me on anything. 

Owens. What did old Vic Lang do? 

Shafer. Not much of anything, throwing brickbats through the windshields 
and things like that. 

Owens. Through SMT. 

Shafer. (inaudible). No; Alamo Express, but that's all either one of 'em 
ever done, but Claude never did go with me, period. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. I have a question about the excerpt that says "What 
did old Vic Lang do?" and your answer was "Not much of anything, 
throwing brickbats through the windshields and things like that." 

In your estimation, that is not much of anything ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. I wonder if that would make you nervous, to be 
driving a truck along at night and have someone throw a brickbat 
through your windshield. 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. In your early testimony, you said you were nervous 
about the shipment of dynamite. How do you think a driver would 
feel with someone throwing brickbats through his windshield? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The purpose of doing those things is to intimidate 
and instill fear into him, and do injury or even kill him, if necessary, 
to have your way. Is that not correct ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that it 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

(A recording was played.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Smith, do you recognize this as a recording 
from the original, an excerpt from the original recording ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15557 

The Chairman. Is it true and accurate, except as to the deletions 
we have previously referred to ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Owens, do you recognize the voices ( 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir, I do. . 

The Chairman. They are yours and Mr. Shafer's, the witness now 
on the witness stand ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; that is right. 

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

The Chairman. Mr. Owens, I ask you now : Did you acually have 
these conversations with the witness, Kaymond C. Shafer, who is now 
present and testifying? Did you personally actually have these con- 
versations with him that are reflected here by these recordings or 
excerpts from the original recordings to which you have testified ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; I sure did. 

The Chairman. The transcript of this recording will be inserted 
in the record at this point and the recording will be made exhibit 

No. 23. 

(Recording referred to marked "Exhibit No. 23" for reference, and 
may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

(The recording follows :) 

Owens. You haven't got no more of that dynamite here ; have you ? 

Shafer. No ; I never did move it from up yonder where you and Eddie took it. 

Owens Did you pay old Eddie's gas bill and everything on that? 

Shafer. He had a courtesy card. I guess he— I imagine he used his courtesy 
card. I never did check to see. 

Owens. Well, the night that we burned up Lee Way and tried to bomb Alamo 
Motor Lines, was there ever any money passed on that, anyway? 

Shafer. No ; sure wasn't ; not a bit ; not a thing. 

Owens. I was wondering. Eddie said something about that you said you was 
gonna give us $100 — $50 apiece. 

Shafer. I never mentioned it to Eddie and Eddie never mentioned it to me. 

Owens. It doesn't make any difference, you know how it is. [Indistin- 
guishable.] 

The Chairman. Play recording S-9, please. 

(A recording was played.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Smith, do you recognize this excerpt as true and 
correct from the original recording ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Subject to the deletions that may have been made 
for obscene language and profanity ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chaibman. Mr. Owens, do you recognize the voices in this 
recording ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Whose voices are they ? 

Mr. Owens. Kaymond C. Shafer and myself. 

The Chairman. That is the witness on the stand, Mr. Shafer ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; it is. 

The Chairman. Did you actually have this conversation with Mr. 
Shafer? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; I did. 

The Chairman. Were the subject matters you were discussing real ? 
I mean, had these activities actually taken place or were they in 
process of taking place? 



15558 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Owens. They had taken place. 

The Chairman. Who were the Mexicans you referred to ? 

Mr. Owens. Those are Mexican people in old Mexico. 

The Chairman. Who made the arrangements with this Mexican to 
do this job ? 

Mr. Owens. Mr. Shafer said that he was the one who made the 
arrangements. 

The Chairman. You don't know who the man was, but Mr. Shafer 
made the arrangements ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; that is what Mr. Shafer told me. 

The Chairman. This is when he told you ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. This is the language he used in telling you ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir; except for those words. 

The Chairman. Well, except for the words that have been deleted. 
But this is true and accurate so far as it goes without the emphasis 
by obscene and profane language ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; it is. 

The Chairman. This transcript may be printed in the record at 
this point, and the recording may be made exhibit No. 24. 

(Recording referred to marked "Exhibit No. 24" for reference and 
may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

(The recording follows :) 

Owens. Oh, yeah, something else, Shafer. Doggone, you owe this to me. 

Shafer. What's that? 

Owens. When you all went to the valley and set them d trucks afire. 

You oughta told me, just called me and told me to get an alibi cause, man, I 
didn't have no alibi or nothing. 

Shafee. Well, the night that we done it, that was the time you were running 
for Alamo Motor Lines, the time it was done. 

Owens. I was? 

Shafer. Sure was. 

Owens. Well, that's good. 

Shafer. You and Beakley, and, ah, was running it, and so was Sawyer and 
ah, and ah, Stokes, that was the week, you know, when we had that splurge. 

Owens. Yeah. Aw, h , did you set it afire or Suttle? 

Shafer. It wasn't either one of us, h , no, we were too hot, we were hot on 

that son of a b . 

Owens. Is something (inaudible) who done it, h , you know I ain't going 

say nothing about it. 

Shafer. Across the river. 

Owens. Some Mexican across the river set if afire? How much did it cost you ? 

Shafer. Huh? 

Owens. How much did it cost you? 

Shafer. $25. Them sons a b will kill you for $50 down there. 

Owens. You mean you give a Mexican $25, and he went over and burned SMT 
trucks, nokiddin? 

Shafer. They got a deal over there boy. Those union men can go over there 

and get any G d thing done you want done. They are strong than rat 

s over there. 

Owens. It cost you $25. 

Shafer. Twenty-five bucks. You know how much that is? Over there, 
though, that's 

Owens. Awe, that's at 12 to 1 isn't it? 

Shafer. 12.60 to 1. 

Owens. 12.60 to 1. 

Shafer. That son of a b he gave him about $500. 

Owens. Yeah, and it cost you 25. How many done it. 

Shafer. I don't know. 

Owens. Don't have any idea? 

Shafer. Don't even know who it was. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 15559 

Owens. So it just cost you $25 to get that job done. 

Shafer. That's right. 25 bucks. 

Owens. Well, G d , there ain't nothing wrong with that. 

Shafer. I wouldn't go down there for that. 

Owens. G d you ought to have give them $25 to blow up that Austin 

Fireproof instead of giving old Pat 200. 

Shafer. Well, see, we didn't have any connection down there then, we just 
worked out an agreement with them people and we just got pretty close to them 
here lately. 

Owens Well, can't you bring them Mexicans up here in this country? 

Shafer. Pretty risky, on account of they're wetbacks, they can't come beyond 
that point where they check them, immigration see, they can come up a little way 

alongs that river you know, but they can't cross that G d checking point 

because they'll nab their a and take them back. 

Owens. Well, next time something like that breaks here I wish you would 
call me if I'm not working. 

Shafer. I sure will. 

Owens. If I'm working it won't make no difference, if I'm not working, n -, 

I want to get an alibi. 

Shafer. Sure will. If we got anything else to do, h I'll be happy to pay 

you to do it. 

Owens. Because you know, I mean, it's a chance that they may 

Shafer. That's right. 

Owens. They may be wise to me and they would pick me up. 

Shafer. Uh-huh. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Shafer, did you hire some Mexican for $25 to 
set some of the trucks of SMT on fire? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Had there been arrangements that you could get 
some Mexicans to come across the border and perform these acts of 
violence for very little money ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of course, you always used union funds for this 
purpose, did you not? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Shafer, this transcript of this recording records 
you as having said to Mr. Owens that you could hire a Mexican for 
$50 to kill a person. How did you find that out? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are you willing to pay $50 of your own money or 
of the union's money to have someone killed that may be in the way 
of the progress of the union's objectives? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You know, I kind of believe you would. I think 
you are giving that impression here today to everybody who is hear- 
ing you, or everyone who may read this record. Are you so callous 
to human life that you are unwiling to deny that you would do such 
a thing? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
it may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chah*man. I rather think your answer would. 

Senator Ervins Was the objective of this violence to procure mem- 
bers for the Teamsters whom you would, if obtained, would call 
brothers ? 



15560 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that 
my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Here is the last one, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Proceed with the next one. 

(A recording was played.) 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Smith, do you identify and recog- 
nize this as a true excerpt from the original recording ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Owens, are those the voices, again, of you and 
Mr. Shafer, the witness on the stand ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; it is. 

The Chairman. This transcript of this recording — I may ask you 
two witnesses, Mr. Smith and Mr. Owens, you have each followed the 
transcripts of these recordings, excerpts from the original recordings, 
you have each followed them as they have been played ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. These transcripts of them are true and correct, are 
they? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; they are correct. 

The Chairman. Including those who have already heard and this 
one just made? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. This transcript may be placed in the record at this 
point. The recording may be made exhibit No. 25. 

(Recording referred to marked "Exhibit No. 25" for reference and 
may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

(The recording follows :) 

Shafer. Say, did you know that that stuff blowed up? 

Owens. Huh? 

Shafer. That stuff blowed up. 

Owens. Blowed up? 

Shafer. Uh-huh, that we sold. 

Owens. It blowed up. 

Shafer. Uh-huh, about .$5,000 worth of stuff. 

Owens. Whereabouts did that all happen at? 

Shafer. I don't know [inaudible]. 

Owens. You mean that, that Bunch and them took out of here — — 

Shafer. Yeah, and a lot more. 

Owens. And it all blowed up, did it kill anybody? 

Shafer. I think it was in storage. 

Owens. God Almighty. 

Shafer. I think it was nitro that caused it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Shafer, this refers to the dynamite that was 
sold to these two union officials in Louisiana, Johnson and Bunch. 
This dynamite exploded ; did it ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. But you did sell it to them for use in Louisiana, for 
the Teamster Union's use in Louisiana ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. How much did you get for it ? I just want to know 
what it is worth. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15561 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You don't say you are disqualified and don't know, 
or you are not qualified and wouldn't know the value of it, do you ? 

Mr. Shafer. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have Mr. Johnson and Mr. Bunch 
here. I thought maybe it would be well to have them come around 
and we could ask them if they did receive the dynamite and as to 
what happened to it. 

The Chairman. Are we through now with the recordings ? 

Mr. Kennedy. We have some recordings for another witness. 

The Chairman. I mean this series of recordings. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

The Chairman. Are we through, for the present, with witnesses 
Smith and Owens ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, we are. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, would you please stand aside. 

Call the other two witnesses. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Bunch and Mr. Johnson. 

The Chairman. Be sworn, please, gentlemen. 

You and each of 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. Johnson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Bunch. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF E. F. JOHNSON AND K. B. BUNCH, ACCOMPANIED 
BY COUNSEL, WARKEN WOODS 

The Chairman. Mr. Bunch, will you state your name, your place 
of residence, and your business or occupation. 

Mr. Bunch. My name is R. B. Bunch. I live at 3926 Rawlings 
Street, Dallas, Tex. I am an organizer for the Southern Conference 
of Teamsters. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. E. F. "Foots" Johnson, will you state your name, your place 
of residence, and your business or occupation. 

Mr. Johnson. E. F. Johnson, Shreveport, La., 2727 Anhert, busi- 
ness agent for local 568. 

The Chairman. Thank you. Gentlemen, do you have counsel ? 

Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Counsel— Mr. Woods, is it, who is also repre- 
senting Mr. Shafer? _ 

Mr. Woods. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Woods, you may act as their counsel. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Johnson, are you also business manager of 
local 568 ? 

Mr. Johnson. I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may in- 
criminate me. Respectfully. 

The Chairman. "Respectfully decline." It sounds a little more re- 
spectful, I believe. 



15562 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chair, with the approval of the committee, orders and directs 
you to answer the question. 

Mr. Johnson. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds of possible self-incrimination. 

The Chairman. That order will stand throughout these proceedings. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. According to our information, you are also business 
manager of local 568, which, of course, would be the most important 
position in that local. I am trying to get the record clarified, Mr. 
Johnson. You said you were business agent. At least you can tell 
us whether it is business manager also. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Johnson. I am a business manager. 

The Chairman. That complies with the orders of the Chair. 

Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been business manager? 

Mr. Johnson. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground of 
possible self-incrimination. 

The Chairman. The Chair, with the approval of the committee, 
orders and directs you to answer the question. 

Mr. Johnson. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground of 
possible self-incrimination. 

The Chairman. That order stands throughout the proceeding. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Bunch, you work for the Southern Conference 
of Teamsters ? I believe you stated that. You are an organizer for 
the Southern Conference of Teamsters ? 

Mr. Bunch. May I consult counsel ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

(Witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Bunch. I am now an organizer for the Southern Conference 
of Teamsters. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you work for Mr. Dusty Miller; do you not? 

Mr. Bunch. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds of pos- 
sible self-incrimination. 

The Chairman. The Chair, with the approval of the committee, 
orders and directs the witness to answer the question. 

Mr. Bunch. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground of 
possible self-incrimination. 

The Chairman. That order stands throughout these proceedings. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, this is a photostatic copy of a regis- 
tration card of the El Montan Motor Court. I would like to have the 
witnesses identify that. 

The Chairman. The Chair presents to each of you witnesses a 
photostatic copy of what appears to be a registration at the El Montan 
Motor Court, with the pen writing on it "checked 5-26-56," by Zeno 
Smith, Texas Rangers. It appears to have the registration of E. F. 
Johnson and R. B. Bunch, of 222y 2 , apparently, Milan Street, Shreve- 
port, La. 

It shows that the elate of the registration was January 4, 1955. 

Will you examine that, Mr. Bunch, and state if you recognize it as 
the registration you made at that motor court? 

(A document was handed to Witness Bunch.) 

Mr. Bunch. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground of pos- 
sible self-incrimination. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15563 

The Chairman. Is that your handwriting, the registration E. F. 
Johnson and R. B. Bunch ? 

Mr. Bunch. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground of pos- 
sible self-incrimination. 

The Chairman. Do you think that anywhere you might register at 
a hotel, a motel, for accommodations might incriminate you ? 

Mr. Bunch. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds of pos- 
sible self-incrimination. 

The Chairman. Mr. "Foots" Johnson, will you examine that regis- 
tration card, please, and state if you identify it ? 

(A document was handed to Witness Johnson.) 

Mr. Johnson. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground of 
possible self-incrimination. 

The Chairman. You say you were not there on that date? 

Mr. Johnson. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground of 
possible self-incrimination. 

The Chairman. What do you say, Mr. Bunch? Were you there 
on that date? 

Mr. Bunch. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds of pos- 
sible self-incrimination. 

The Chairman. Mr. "Foots" Johnson, is that your handwriting 
there, the registration of E. F. Johnson and R. B. Bunch? 

Mr. Johnson. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground of 
possible self-incrimination. 

The Chairman. Do you gentlemen feel that you might incriminate 
yourselves if you gave an honest and truthful answer, do you ? 

Mr. Bunch. May we consult? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

(The witnesses conferred with counsel.) 

Mr. Johnson. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we also had the testimony that the 
dynamite was transported from Texas to Louisiana in a U-Haul-It 
car in Texas to bring the dynamite down to Louisiana. We have there 
a rental slip for a U-Haul-It truck during the period of time these 
gentlemen were staying at the motel. 

The Chairman. All right. This registration card will be made 
exhibit No. 26. 

(Card referred to marked "Exhibit No. 26" for reference and will 
be found in the appendix on p. 15753.) 

The Chairman. Mr. E. F. "Foots" Johnson, I hand you a photo- 
static copy of a one-way trailer lease contract between U-Haul Co., 
lessor, and Elbert Forest Johnson, of 2724 Anhert Street, Shreveport, 
La. It is dated January 4, 1955, the same date as the motel regis- 
tration which you have just examined and testified about. 

I ask you, Mr. Johnson, to examine this photostatic copy of that 
lease contract and see if you recognize it. 
(Document handed to witness Johnson.) 

Air. Johnson. May I consult with my counsel ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

(Witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Johnson. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds of 
possible self-incrimination. 

The Chaerman. Mr. Johnson, is this your signature on the bottom 
of that card where it says "Lessee's signature" ? 



15564 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Johnson. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds of 
possible self-incrimination. 

The Chairman. Let this be made exhibit 27. 

(Document referred to marked "Exhibit No. 27" for reference 
will be found in the appendix on p. 1/5754. ) 

The Chairman. I ask you now to examine the E. F. Johnson on this 
lease contract for the truck, and the E. F. Johnson signature on the 
registration card, and state if you don't find them to be in the same 
handwriting. 

(Documents handed to Witness Johnson.) 

Mr. Johnson. May I consult my counsel ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

(Witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Johnson. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds of 
possible self-incrimination. 

The Chairman. Is that your signature ? 

Mr. Johnson. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
grounds of possible self-incrimination. 

The Chairman. Would you be so kind as to write your name, E. F. 
Johnson, on this pad that I hand to you ? 

Mr. Johnson. May I consult my attorney ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Johnson. I respectfully decline to write my name on the pad 
on the ground of possible self-incrimination. 

The Chairman. You are afraid to even compare your signature 
with those of the past, your signature of today with those of the past ? 

Mr. Johnson. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground of 
possible self-incrimination. 

The Chairman. Do you know any other conclusion that could be 
reached except that if you gave a truthful answer, you might incrimi- 
nate yourself ? 

Mr. Johnson. May I consult my counsel ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Johnson. I decline to answer on the grounds of possible self- 
incrimination. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Another matter which is of some interest, Mr. Chair- 
man, is the fact that the address given to the El Montan Motor Court, 
2221^ Milan Street, Shreveport, La., is the headquarters of the Team- 
sters Union ; is it not, in Shreveport ? 

The Chairman. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Johnson. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds of 
possible self-incrimination. 

The Chairman. Is that correct, Mr. Bunch? 

Mr. Bunch. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds of pos- 
sible self-incrimination. 

The Chairman. Don't you see how silly it is? Anybody can walk 
down there and find out if that is the headquarters or not. How 
would it incriminate you if the thing is there? It is a fact. It is 
real. Anyone can see it. Anyone can find it. Do you think you ur^ 
concealing anything by your answer? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15565 

Mr. Bunch. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds of pos- 
sible self-incrimination. 

The Chairman. Proceed. . , *■ i 1 

Mr Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kamerick who has been sworn, 
can testify as to whether this is the location of the Teamsters head- 

^TheTe^is another matter about the tracing of the U-Haul-It truck 
down to Shreveport, La., by Mr. Kamerick, which you might want 

to have in the record. , . , 

The Chairman. Mr. Kamerick, you have been previously sworn. 

You may proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL E. KAMERICK— Resumed 
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kamerick, is that the headquarters of the Team- 
St Mr.^MERicK. Yes, sir; I was there, and I talked to Mr. Johnson 

th The Chairman. Mr. Johnson? Which Mr. Johnson? 
Mr Kamerick. Mr. E. F. Johnson, the witness. 
The Chairman. Eight in the headquarters? 
Mr. Kamerick. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Johnson, do you deny that ? 
Mr. Johnson. May I consult my counsel? 
The Chairman. Yes. 
(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 
Mr Johnson. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground ot pos- 

^oSSS^.K.*i^ about what date was it that you 
interviewed or saw or talked to Mr. Johnson at that Teamster address ? 

Mr. Kamerick. I would have to consult my records to say exactly, 
Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. About when was it i 

Mr. Kamerick. Approximately in January ot this year. 

The Chairman. All right. . . , , 

You don't mean that you have forgotten about the incident, do you. 

Mr. Johnson? 

(Witness conferred with counsel.) 

Mr. Johnson. May I consult my legal 

The Chairman. Yes. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Johnson. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground ot 
possible self-incrimination. _ • fl , 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Kamerick, did you also attempt to find out 
whether a trailer, in fact, came from San Antonio, Tex., down to 

^Mir^MERi'cK. Yes, I did. I have a letter Mr. Counsel^ from 
Arcoa, Inc., Portland, Oreg., which is a clearinghouse for U-Haul-lt 
trailer rental equipment. What this letter says m substance is that 
trailer No. 121 UV 1189, was rented in San Antonio early m Jan- 
uary; that this number coincides with the number of this U-Haul 
application; and that the next rental of this trailer was from Shreve- 
port, La., a few days later. 

21243 — 59 — pt. 41 14 



15566 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. That letter may be made exhibit No. 28. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 28" for reference, 
and will be found in the appendix on p. 15755.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Under the terms of the lease, the individuals when 
they rented it in San Antonio were to take it to Shreveport and turn 
it into the dealer there ? 

Mr. Kamerick. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were able to find out that the trailer was turned 
in, and rented out of Shreveport, La., several days afterward? 

Mr. Kamerick. That is correct. 

Mr. Kenedy. We also had the testimony, Mr. Johnson and Mr. 
Bunch, that the dynamite, when it was brought down there, and we 
have the tape recordings that after it was stored there, it exploded. 
Could you tell us about that ? 

Go ahead, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. Johnson. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds of 
possible self-incrimination. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us about it at all, Mr. Bunch? 

Mr Bunch. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds of 
possible self-incrimination. 

The Chairman. Mr. Johnson, which one of you were in charge of 
the other on this mission ? 

Mr. Johnson. May I consult ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

(Witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr Johnson. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds of 
possible self-incrimination. 

The Chairman. How about you, Mr. Bunch? Woudn't you like 
ht ?? ° was s on this mission > you or Mr. Johnson 3 

m\ Bt ™F?- l . respectfully decline to answer on the ground of 
possible self-mcnmmation. 

The Chairman. How would it incriminate you to say that you 
were the boss? J 

(Witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr Bunch. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground of 
possible self-incrimination. s 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

cl -f M or I ^ E ^ EDY - M J- Kamerick, did you make an examination of the 
situation, the records, m Louisiana, to determine whether there had 

fen dS&^elo^ Peri ° d ° f time after thiS d ^ amlte M 
Mr. Kamerick. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tell the committee what you found out 
Mr. Kamerick. In the search of the records of the sheriff's office in 

S&^xn? e n Trr\ me ? there > in both p laces thS^tS 

Februarv 195? P TW I t<K V la ? e at 2:50 P- m -> on the 3d of 

*e&ruary 1955. That, as you will note, is approximately 1 month 
after the dynamite was transported to Louisiana. This explosioTwas 
heard 'oti P a fn al ^V^uml The newspaper item saysto it wa 
heard 30 miles away. The explosion blew limbs off trees and tore 
down barbed wire fences, breaking off concrete posfs even with the 

The sheriff's office examined and found a hole in the ground. This 
incidentally, was located, according to the sheriff's report, near Sum 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15567 

mer Grove, about 100 yards south of Dead Man's Curve on old High- 
way U.S. 171. 

The Chairman. Was this report furnished you by the sheriff? 

Mr. Kamerick. Yes, sir ; it was. 

The Chairman. That report, as furnished by the sheriff, may be 
made exhibit No. 29. 

(The report referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 29" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they make an examination or investigation to 
find out what had caused the explosion ? 

Mr. Kamerick. Yes, but they were unable to determine what the 
cause was. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was a gigantic, mysterious explosion ? 

Mr. Kamerick. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was that your dynamite going off, Mr. Johnson, a 
month after you got down there? 

Mr. Johnson. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground of possible self-incrimination. 

Mr. Kennedy. Can you tell us about it, Mr. Bunch ? Can you tell 
us about the dynamite? 

Mr. Bunch. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground of self-incrimination. 

The Chairman. That dynamite is pretty tricky. You boys were 
fortunate, weren't you, that it didn't go off until after you got it 
delivered ? 

Mr. Johnson. I respectfully decline to answer on the grounds of 
possible self-incrimination. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have the testimony of Mr. Owens also, and it is 
backed up by excerpts from the tape recordings which were not played 
today but which deal with the throwing of coca-cola bottles or other 
instruments through the window of a cab. In the tape recording there 
was a discussion between Mr. Hass and Mr. Owens that one of these 
coke bottles had been thrown through a window in Louisiana, and it 
had evidently knocked the driver out, and that the car or truck turned 
over and the driver burned to death. He went into quite considerable 
detail as to who was responsible for throwing the coke bottle. We 
are not going to go into it here at this time because of the fact that it 
is not firsthand, certainly, and he was just relating what had been 
told to him. 

But I was wondering if you people can tell us who was responsible 
for the throwing of this coke bottle which brought about the death 
of Mr. Billy Charles Greenwood, age 26, of Wichita Falls, Tex. 

Can you tell us who was responsible for that ? 

Mr. Johnson. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground of 
possible self-incrimination. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he was working at that time for the Red Ball 
Freight Lines, was he not, Mr. Johnson? 

Mr. Johnson. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us if the Teamsters Union was having 
a dispute with Red Ball Truck Lines at that time ? 

Mr. Johnson. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground of 
possible self-incrimination. 



15568 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Erven. Mr. Johnson, have you ever been tried and convicted 
for any criminal offense ? 
Mr. Johnson. Could I consult my counsel ? 
(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Johnson. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground of 
possible self-incrimination. 

Senator Ervin. That could not incriminate you because a man can't 
be punished twice for the same offense. I am asking you about an 
offense on which you have been tried and convicted. 

Mr. Johnson. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground of 
possible self-incrimination. 

Senator Erven. I respectfully suggest, Mr. Chairman, that under 
the constitutional guarantees against double jeopardy, that no man 
can twice be put in jeopardy for the same offense, that being so, where 
a man has been tried and convicted, he can't possibly incriminate him- 
self. Therefore, I suggest that the chairman order this man to 
answer this question. 

The Chairman. The Chair, with the approval of the committee, 
orders and directs the witness to answer the question. 
Mr. Johnson. May I consult my attorney first ? 
Senator Ervin. Yes. 
(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 
Mr. Johnson. Would you repeat the question again ? 
Senator Ervin. I asked you if you had ever been tried and convicted 
of any criminal offense. 

Mr. Johnson. I have not been. 

Senator Ervin. Why did you say a while ago, if you knew you had 
not been convicted of any criminal offense, why did you plead the 
fifth amendment and say it would tend to incriminate you? 
Mr. Johnson. May I consult counsel ? 

Senator Ervin. You are making a travesty of the committee and 
a travesty of the fifth amendment, aren't you ? 
Mr. Johnson. May I consult my attorney ? 

The Chairman. With respect to the last answer, the Chair will 
state that that complied with the orders of the Chair. The question 
now, the way you have been using the fifth amendment, you have 
been making a complete travesty of it. 

Mr. Johnson. When that question was first asked, I did not under- 
stand it, sir. 

Senator Ervin. You are swearing on your oath now that you do not 
understand a simple question like have you ever been tried and con- 
victed of a criminal offense? Are you swearing that on your oath, 
that that question is so complex you can't understand it? 
Mr. Johnson. Can I consult my counsel ? 
(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 
Mr. Johnson. I did not understand you at first, sir. 
Senator Ervin. Mr. Bunch, have you ever been tried and convicted 
of any criminal offense ? 
Mr. Bunch. No ; I haven't. 

Senator Ervin. Over what States does the Southern Conference of 
Teamsters have jurisdiction? 

Mr. Bunch. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground of 
possible self-incrimination. 

Senator Ervin. Does it have jurisdiction over North Carolina? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15569 

Mr. Bunch. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground of 
possible self-incrimination. 

Senator Erven. Have you ever been in North Carolina i 

Mr. Bunch. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground of 
possible self-incrimination. . . . ' 

Senator Erven. As a North Carolinian I deny that being in North 
Carolina would tend to incriminate anybody. It would reflect ex- 
ceedingly good judgment. Can you tell me how you claim it would 
incriminate you to admit testifying you had ever been to North 
Carolina? ,- , 

Mr. Bunch. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground ot 
possible self-incrimination. 

Senator Ervin. Are you willing or can you tell us of anything that 
you have ever done for the Teamsters in your position as an organizer 
under the Southern Conference of Teamsters that would not tend to 
incriminate you in the perpetration of some criminal offense? 

Mr. Bunch. May I consult with my counsel ? 

Senator Ervin. Yes. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Bunch. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground of 
possible self-incrimination. 

Senator Ervin. So you can't tell us, or you are swearing upon your 
oath that you can't tell a single thing to this committee that you have 
ever done as an organizer for the Teamsters that would not tend to 
incriminate you in the commission of some criminal offense ? Is that 
what you are swearing ? 

Mr. Bunch. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground of 
possible self-incrimination. 

Senator Ervin. Do you know any of your superiors in the 
Teamsters ? 

Mr. Bunch. I respectfully refuse to answer on the ground of 
possible self-incrimination. 

Senator Ervin. It is a good thing, Mr. Chairman, that the fifth 
amendment has a lot of vitality ; otherwise it would have been worn 
plumb out in this hearing. That is all. 

The Chairman. What was the intent or the purpose of transport- 
ing this dynamite to Louisiana ? What was it to be used for ? 

Mr. Bunch. Is the question directed to me, sir ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Bunch. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground of 
possible self-incrimination. 

The Chairman. I direct the same question to you, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. Johnson. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground of 
possible self-incrimination. 

The Chairman. Then you want the record to stand that it possibly 
was not to be used for legitimate purposes ? 

Mr. Johnson. Is that to me? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Johnson. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground of 
possible self-incrimination. 

The Chairman. Now, Mr. Bunch, do you want the record to stand 
that it was not to be used for legitimate purposes ? 

Mr. Bunch. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground of 
possible self-incrimination. 



15570 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Are you two pretty proud of yourselves to engage 
in such criminal activities as this ? Are you really proud of it ? 

Mr. Bunch. I respecfully decline to answer on the ground of pos- 
sible self-incrimination. 

The Chairman. How do you feel about it ? 

Mr. Johnson. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground of 
possible self-incrimination. 

The Chairman. You feel no shame at all ? 

Mr. Johnson. Is that to me? I respectfully decline to answer on 
the ground of possible self-incrimination. 

The Chairman. How about you ? 

Mr. Bunch. I respectfully decline to answer. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to ask Mr. Johnson : Would you be willing 
to cooperate with the authorities down in Louisiana to try to solve 
the killing of Mr. Greenwood when he burned to death in his car and 
tried to get out ? 

Mr. Johnson. Could I consult my attorney, please ? 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Johnson. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground of 
possible self-incrimination. 

Mr. Kennedy. Evidently he got trapped in there, and the flames 
came up and he was not able to get out of there, outside the cab. 
Would you be willing to give any information you have on that? 

Mr. Johnson. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground of 
possible self-incrimination. 

Senator Ervin. Don't you wish you could answer that question 
"No"? 

Mr. Johnson. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground of 
possible self-incrimination. 

The Chairman. The committee is going to recess. The three wit- 
nesses presently on the witness stand will return at the reconvening of 
the committee, which will be at 2 o'clock this afternoon. 

( Thereupon, at 12 : 30 p.m., a recess was taken until 2 p.m., the 
same day. ) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

(The select committee reconvened at 2 o'clock p.m., with the fol- 
lowing members present: Senators McClellan and Curtis.) 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Springer. 

The Chairman. Come forward, Mr. Springer, please. 

Stand and be sworn, please. You do solemnly swear the evidence 
you shall give before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM K. SPRINGER 

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

Mr. Springer. I am William Robert Springer. I am a body and 
fender man. I work in a garage and fiberglass products in San 
Antonio. Do you want my home address ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 15571 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Springer. 803 Sunglow Street, San Antonio, Tex. 

The Chairman. Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy. Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Springer, what kind of work do you do now? 

Mr. Springer. Body and fender work and fiberglass production. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where is that ? 

Mr. Springer. At 3237 North McCullough, San Antonio. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know Mr. Buck Owens ? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you known him ? 

Mr. Springer. Since May of 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. He testified that he, with the help and assistance of 
his father-in-law, stole some dynamite in Odessa, Tex., and that fol- 
lowing the theft of the dynamite he transported it back to San Antonio, 
Tex. He stated that he called Mr. Shafer, head of the Teamsters' 
Union in San Antonio, prior to bringing it to that city, and that 
Mr. Shafer then sent you out to help Mr. Buck Owens carry the dyna- 
mite back into San Antonio. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you in fact help transport the stolen dynamite 
back into San Antonio, Tex. ? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How did you come to do that ? 

Mr. Springer. Well, I was working on the afternoon of the 27th 
of December in 1954 when my uncle, Bob Kimbrell, called me on the 
phone and said that Buck had some stuff which was dynamite in 
Odessa for Shafer. Shafer came on the phone and told me to go get 
this stuff. I told him I could not get off, that I was working. He 
says, "Well, go ahead, and I will take care of the people there." He 
said, "Just take on off and go get it." He asked me if I had a "dog- 
house" for my pickup truck. 

The Chairman. A what ? 

Mr. Springer. A "doghouse." It is just three sheets of plywood 
built over the back end of a pickup truck, with the rear end of it open. 
It is just an enclosure. 

I left San Antonio that night and went to Hearn, my daddy's, to 
pick up the "doghouse," and I left Hearn, and the next morning I went 
to Odessa, to Buck's mother's house. I got in there — it was the after- 
noon of the 28th — and we loaded the dynamite and came back to San 
Antonio and got back in on the morning of the 29th. The reason I can 
remember those dates is the 29th is my birthday. I got back there into 
San Antonio on my birthday. 

Mr. Kennedy. With the dynamite that had been stolen in Odessa. 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What year and month was that ? 

Mr. Springer. 1954, December. 

The Chairman. And vour birthday is the 19th of December? 

Mr. Springer. The 29th. 

The Chairman. So you have got back on your birthday ? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did you do with the dynamite then ? 



15572 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Springer. Shafer came over and met us out on Frederiekburg 
Road. Buck asked him if he had a place to store it, and lie said he 
didn't, that he would have to carry it over to Buck's house. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did Mr. Shafer say about the dynamite ? Did 
he make any statement ? 

Mr. Springer. He said, "We can give SMT hell now." Pardon 
that. 

The Chairman. He said what ? 

Mr. Springer. "We can give SMT hell now." 

The Chairman. Is that the company he was trying to organize? 

Mr. Springer. Yes. 

The Chairman. And the purpose of the dynamite was to aid in the 
organization of the employees? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you regard that as quite persuasive ? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir ; it is pretty persuasive. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive any money for transporting the 
dynamite ? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. Approximately 2 weeks later, I think, 
Shafer gave me $50 for it. It was 2 twenties and a ten. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever hear Mr. Shafer make any suggestions 
to Mr. Owens as to how the SMT or others of these trucklines could be 
organized ? Did you hear him say anything about hand grenades ? 

(Senator Ervin entered the room.) 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. He said — he asked Buck if Buck was going 
to get him some dynamite, and Buck told him that he would ; he was 
going to try ; he would do his best to get some. Shafer said, "Well, I 
have some hand grenades coming in that I think we can get from Fort 
Sill, Okla." 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was he getting them from in Fort Sill, do you 
know ? 

Mr. Springer. It was a sergeant, a supply sergeant or something up 
there that he knew of. That is the best I could get out of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. Shafer asked him to get some dynamite, but he said 
in the meantime he could get some of these hand grenades from a 
supply sergeant at Fort Sill, Okla., is that right? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did he want you to do with the hand grenades ? 

Mr. Springer. He wanted to use them on Roy's trucks, his equip- 
ment, and he wanted Buck to take one and throw it into Roy's 
home. 

Mr. Kennedy. Roy being who ? 

Mr. Springer. Roy Gilbert. 

Mr. Kennedy. Roy Gilbert, the owner of the truck company ? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. To put either the hand grenades into the trucks or 
to throw them into Roy Gilbert's home ? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Who said that ? 

Mr. Springer. Shafer. 

Senator Curtis. The Teamster official, Shafer? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. You were present when he said it? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir ; I was there. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15573 

Senator Curtis. Where did that take place ? 

Mr. Springer. 502 South Laredo Street, San Antonio. 

Senator Curtis. What is that, somebody's residence ? 

Mr. Springer. It is the Teamsters' hall. That is what they were 
using at that time for the hall. 

Senator Curtis. Who else was there that heard that ? 

Mr. Springer. There was myself, Buck, Eddie Hass. 

Senator Curtis. Buck ; that is Buck Owens ? 

Mr. Springer. Buck Owens, Eddie Hass, Shafer, and Bob Kimbrell. 

Senator Curtis. Bob Kimbrell is your uncle ? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtts. He worked for the Teamsters, too? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. About when was that ? 

Mr. Springer. That was in the month of December, about mid- 
December, I would say. 

Senator Curtis. And you heard him say that he got the hand 
grenades through a supply sergeant at Fort Sill ? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you see any of the hand grenades? 

Mr. Springer. No, sir ; I never saw them. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to ask you whether there was any discussion 
about killing Mr. Gilbert, and whether Mr. Shafer ever told Mr. Buck 
Owens that he could obtain a rifle in Lousiana with a silencer on it in 
order to kill Mr. Gilbert? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. We were having one of the little get-to- 
gethers there, as we called them. I had went after coffee or cigarettes, 
something. But anyhow, I came back in on the tail end of the con- 
versation and I heard Shafer talking to Buck, and he said, "Buck," 
he said, "I can get a rifle, I have a rifle in Louisiana that I can get 
here in a matter of a few hours. There is lots of shrubbery around 
Roy Gilbert's home and a man could get in there and shoot Roy 
Gilbert without anybody knowing about it and have it done and be 
gone before anybody would know it." 

Buck told him, "None of this is worth taking a man's life." 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he say there was a silencer on the rifle ? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did he also speak to you or Buck Owens about set- 
ting some of these places on fire ? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. Buck and I and Hass were supposed to 
blow up, bomb, and set fire to Lee Way, Alamo, and SMT. 

Mr. Kennedy. These are three different trucking companies in 
Texas? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you participate in any of the dynamiting, your- 
self? 

Mr. Springer. Do you mean in this occasion here where they were 
going to blow the building places up, destroy the places ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

Mr. Springer. The only part I took in it was I helped them case the 
places, and we went around them, checked them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Shafer ever suggest to you that you get a 
job with SMT in order to case that place ? 



15574 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. I went over and worked for Roy Gilbert 
on his dock for about 3 hours, I think, 2 or 3 hours, something like 
that, for that purpose. 

Mr. Kennedy. Who suggested that you get that job? 

Mr. Springer. R. C. Shafer. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what reason ? 

Mr. Springer. I was to check the trucks, when they were coming 
and going out of San Antonio, and swap freight around, send it out 
on different trucks, the wrong trucks, and to find out 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you mean freight that was due for Louisiana you 
would send to New York ? 

Mr. Springer. Just swap it around where it would be going in the 
wrong direction from where it should be going, or anything that was 
destructive of the business. He wanted me to check it to see which 
would be the best — Mr. Roy has a concrete dock there, and he wants 
to find out which would be best, to blow it up or set it afire, or just 
how we could destroy the place. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was there also some talk about placing acid ? 

Mr. Springer. Well, he talked about it. I can't place the conver- 
sation. I do remember us talking about using acid on some of the 
freight and stuff. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you drive any of the automobiles that were 
used when the dynamite was actually set? Did you drive any of 
the automobiles or did you set any of the dynamite yourself ? 

Mr. Springer. On one occasion. 

Mr. Kennedy. What did that deal with ? 

Mr. Springer. In Austin. 

Mr. Kennedy. In Austin ? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You drove an automobile ? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. On one of these events, as I understand it, you re- 
fused to place the dynamite because of the intervention of your wife ? 
She heard about it, is that right ? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. I let them think that. My wife did not 
know anything about any of it. I did not want her brought into 
any of it. But that was just an excuse to get out of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. What dynamite job was that ? 

Mr. Springer. On the Lee Way, and them, for one. I used that 
excuse several different times to try to get away from what I could 
of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. You told them that your wife would not allow you 
to get mixed up in it ? 

Mr. Springer. I told them I was afraid she might talk to someone 
or someone might get it out of her. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you did not actually participate in setting the 
dynamite or putting any of those places on fire? 

Mr. Springer. No, sir; I did not. 

Senator Ervin. If I may be pardoned for an observation at this 
time, it is quite refreshing to hear a man blaming his wife for some 
good, or rather, for abstaining from evil, because ever since Adam 
was here trying to explain his conduct, most of the men have been 
using exactly the opposite for an excuse, blaming their wives for the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15575 

misdeeds they do rather than blaming them for evil they have ab- 
stained from. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know anything about this plan to throw 
the dynamite on or near the trucks that were carrying the ammu- 
nition ? 

Mr. Springer. The trucks 

Senator Curtis. Weren't there some trucks loaded with some Army 
ammunition ? 

Mr. Springer. That was at the Alamo Freight Lines, where we 
planned — it was one of the plans we planned to destroy. Buck and 
I cased the joint, went around over it, before Buck and them put in 
the dynamite. 

Senator Curtis. Who brought in the information that there was 
ammunition loaded on those trucks ? 

Mr. Springer. I don't know where that came from, really. I read 
about it in the paper after that. But Buck and them were talking 
about it before. 

Senator Curtis. They were talking about it before? 

Mr. Springer. Buck and Shaf er and Hass. 

Senator Curtis. How many truckloads of ammunition were there 
supposed to be, do you know ? 

Mr. Springer. I don't rightly remember. There were several of 
them around there. 

Senator Curtis. The idea was to ignite the ammunition ? 

Mr. Springer. To ignite the ammunition would have blown up 
half of the country around there. 

Mr. Kennedy. You say you worked for that company for 2 or 3 
hours. Why did you leave their employment ? 

Mr. Springer. Well, there was a fellow by the name of Charlie 
Trevino, who pulled me off as I left the dock with a load of freight 
headed for another place, another truckline, and he pulled me over 
and told me to stop, and he cussed me, used some pretty foul language. 

Mr. Kennedy. He was one of the strikers ? 

Mr. Springer. He was one of the Teamster members. 

Mr. Kennedy. And evidently did not know that you were planted 
there, is that right ? 

Mr. Springer. Shafer was supposed to have told all of them, but 
he did not. I don't think he told any of them. I think he just put 
me over there on my own and let me swing. But this man told me 
to carry the truck back and leave it at the dock and quit. Well, that 
just suited me, because Shafer had not taken care of his end of the 
deal, and I did not know what he might leave me hanging, so I went 
back to the dock and told Mr. Gilbert I would like to have my time, 
and I just quit. They had the police there and had him up there 
for me to identify him, and I did not identify him at that time. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you participate in the throwing of these things 
through the windshields of the automobiles ? 

Mr. Springer. No, sir; I did not. 

Mr. Kennedy. You did not? 

Mr. Springer. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know it was being done? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You heard discussions about it? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. 



15576 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you know Mr. Hass, Mr. Eddie Hass? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was he involved in these matters ? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir; him and Buck. I saw their car once that 
they brought back from the valley down there with the front wind- 
shield out. They had put a rear windshield in, where the bottle 
they had thrown against the truck had bounced back against the 
car and went through the car. 

Mr. Kennedy. They threw a bottle to the truck and it bounced 
back to their own car ? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they almost got hit by it ? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. I think they got splattered with some 
glass. They had glass all over the car when they come back. It 
was somewhere down in the valley. I don't remember where it was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Hass actually get cut himself? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. On his hand ? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir ; he got his hand cut. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that he was involved somewhat 
in this dynamiting also ? In the arsons ? 

Mr. Springer. Him and Buck and myself were supposed to set 
fire to Lee Way and Alamo and SMT, but I backed out a night 
or two before that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand that he accompanied Buck? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Do you know anything about "Foots" Johnson? 

Mr. Springer. No, sir; I don't. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't know about the transportation of the 
dynamite down to Louisiana? 

Mr. Springer. No, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you know about any dynamite coming in from 
Texas being used? 

Mr. Springer. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Over how long a period of time did you know 
Shafer? 

Mr. Springer. I met Shafer in September of 1954. I worked out 
of the hall there for — well, I worked through the first part of the 
year for SP, Southern Pacific Transport. I drove a truck. After 
the first of the year I went to work for MKT, and I drove a truck 
there for MKT for quite a while, for a year. 

Senator Curtis. All during that time you knew Shafer? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. I was in and out and around him at the 
hall. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever hear him say in what States or cities 
he had worked at various times for the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Springer. No, sir ; I don't believe I have. 

Senator Curtis. He had been around Louisiana, had he not? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir ; he had been in and out. I heard him talk- 
ing about going into Louisiana. 

Senator Curtis. Any other place that you recall ? 

Mr. Springer. There was Tennessee that was mentioned several 
times in conversation. I don't remember what it was about. But 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15577 

during the course of the conversation which we had, I have heard 
Tennessee mentioned. It was some of the dynamite, or something. 
I don't remember enough about it to go into it. 

Senator Curtis. Did you hear him mention any other place? 

Mr. Springer. No, sir ; I did not. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

How did you happen to get involved in this racket ? 

Mr. Springer. Well, it started with my uncle. 

The Chairman. How? 

Mr. Springer. My uncle. He got me into the first union in a local 
there in Houston, my Uncle Bob Kimbrell. 

The Chairman. He got you in a local at Houston ? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir; I worked for a pipeline, local 37, a labor 
local. 

The Chairman. What kind of work did you do for them ? 

Mr. Springer. I was just a laborer and a steward on some of the 
jobs for the union. 

The Chairman. How did you come to get mixed up with this fellow 
Shaf er and undertake to do his dirty work ? 

Mr. Springer. Well, it is kind of— I think the biggest thing is I 
didn't have guts enough to go against it and bear up to it, that is the 
real reason. 

The Chairman. Were you ordered to do these things ? 

Mr. Springer. In a roundabout way; it was either do the things, 
or I was out of a job, or I could have possibly been hurt, and there 
were some people that have been molested and some of their family 
have been hurt over those things. I was scared, to be honest with you. 

The Chairman. When they ask you to do these things, they make a 
pretty strong suggestion, if you show any reluctance ? 

Mr. Springer. They leave an impression that it is not easy to 
miss. 

The Chairman. You don't misunderstand them ? 

Mr. Springer. No, sir. 

The Chairman. So you got in by reason of that and got out of it 
as quickly as you could ; is that what you are trying to say ? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir; I did. 

The Chairman. Do you want to have anv part in bombing business 
places and trucks and burning them or killing anybody or hurting 
anybody ? Did you want to have any part in that ? 

Mr. Springer. No, sir; I didn't, I couldn't see it from the start, 
but I just got told to do it or pulled into it, you might say, in one 
way or another, and another thing, I blame myself for not standing 
up then and telling them what I thought about it, 

The Chairman. You don't look like one of these muscle thugs that 
they send around to do these things. You don't look like that kind 
of a character. You know plenty of them, I guess, do you? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir; I know them, and I have seen a few of 
them around. 

The Chairman. You have seen them, a few of them around here 
since you have been in this witness room ? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir; that is right. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Thank you very much. 



15578 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Eddie Hass. 

The Chairman. Will you 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. Hass. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF EDWARD HASS, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 
WARREN WOODS 

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

Mr. Hass. My name is Edward Hass, I live in 3019 Larry Drive, in 
Dallas, Tex., and I am a truck driver for the Strickland Transporta- 
tion Co. 

The Chairman. Do you have counsel ? 

Mr. Hass. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Identify yourself, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Wood. Warren Woods, Washington, D.C. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hass, how long have you been in your present 
employment ? 

Mr. Hass. Mr. Chairman, may I consult my counsel ? 

The Chairman. All right. He couldn't know except what you tell 
him. 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hass. About 12 years. 

The Chairman. That is your present job ? 

Mr. Hass. As a truck driver. 

The Chairman. Are you a member of any labor organization ? 

Mr. Hass. Mr. Chairman, may I consult my attorney ? 

The Chairman. He wouldn't know, though, except what you tell 
him. 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hass. Yes, sir ; I am a rank and file member of the Teamsters. 

The Chairman. Do you hold any official position with any Team- 
ster local or other part of the international organiaztion ? 

Mr. Hass. Mr. Chairman, may I consult my attorney ? 

The Chairman. Is this to be a routine ? 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hass. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Have you ever held such a position ? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my ans- 
wer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you think the fact that you may have held some 
official or representative position with the Teamsters Union or some 
local or other unit thereof, that such a fact might tend to incriminate 
you if you disclosed it under oath ? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I am going to put it to you, do you honestly be- 
lieve if you gave a truthful answer to that question that the truth 
might tend to incriminate you ? 

Mr. Hass. Yes, sir. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 1557& 

The Chairman. All right ; proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hass, you have received some money from the 
Teamsters Union, have you not ? 

(Witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hass. I decline to answer on the ground that my answer may 
tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are you one of those they hired to do this dirty 
work ? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully refuse to answer on the ground my answer 
may tend to incrimiate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hass, it is correct, is it not, that you did extra 
work? You worked for the trucking company, but you did extra 
work on the side, the dynamitings and the arsons and the throwing 
of the objects through windshields of these trucks in order to make 
some extra money ? 

Mr. Hass. May I consult my attorney ? 
(Witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are you proud of that sort of conduct? As an 
American citizen are you proud of the course of action that you are 
taking now, and the conduct that you have committed in the past 
about which you are being interrogated ? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we have some tapes here that might 
refresh Mr. Hass' recollection. 

The Chairman. Do you think if we played some tape recordings 
of your conversation, it might help you to cooperate with the com- 
mittee ? 

Mr. Hass. May I consult my attorney ? 
The Chairman. Yes, you may ask him. 
(Witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. All right, bring on the tape recordings and get 
them properly identified, and let us hear them. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you want to call Mr. Owens and Mr. Smith, Mr. 
Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Mr. Owens and Mr. Smith, come back and take 
your places at the microphone over here, please. 
You gentlemen have been previously sworn. 
Mr. Hass, do you have a family ? 
Mr. Hass. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. A wife and children ? 
Mr. Hass. Yes. 

The Chairman. Do you think anything of their safety and secu- 
rity and freedom from harm and violence ? Do vou « 
Mr. Hass. Yes. 

The Chairman. Do you think the same thing of other families 
and other people's children, and their husbands, and their fathers & 
Do you ? 

( The witness consulted with his counsel. ) 
Mr. Hass. Yes. 



15580 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Do you protect them and save them from harm, 
as you would your own family % 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. • . . 

The Chairman. Don't you see how ridiculous you look in the eyes 
of decent people ? 

Proceed. Mr. Kennedy, proceed to identify these recordings. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Smith, these recordings are a conversation be- 
tween Mr. Owens and Mr. Hass. These recordings were taken under 
your direction and control ; is that right ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. On your instructions ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And these were made from a recording machine 
placed in a room where Mr. Haas and Mr. Owens carried on this 
conversation ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, what was the date of these recordings ? 

Mr. Smith. September 30, 1955. ~ , - , , 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we also have here an affidavit by the 
technician who made these recordings. 

The Chairman. That affidavit may be inserted in the record at 

this point. • ■ 

Mr. Kennedy. It is attesting to the truthfulness of the recordings 

and the accuracy of them. 
(The affidavit is as follows:) 

Affidavit 

I William S. Duncan, make the following statement to Paul E. Kamerick, who 
has identified himself to me as assistant counsel of the U.S. Senate Select Com- 
mittee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field. This statement 

is voluntary. »,,.,. o. * *. T 

I am employed by the State of Texas Department of Public Safety. In con- 
nection with my official duties there, I now have and have had for some time 
control of certain technical equipment. Among the items of technical equipment 
within mv competence to operate are tape-recording devices. 

On September 30, 1955, in accordance with previous arrangements, I was in a 
room at the Eastern Hills Motel in Dallas, Tex. I had in that room a tape- 
recording device to which was tuned a wireless microphone which I had previ- 
ously installed in the room immediately adjacent, which was occupied by 
Buck Owens. ., ," 

At 3:37 p.m., on September 30, 1955, I saw one Eddie Hass, who is known 
to me by sight, in company with Buck Owens, who is also known to me by sight, 
enter the room where I had previously installed the microphone. I immediately 
heard their voices on the recording device, and I made a record of their entire 
conversation. Since having made the record, I have retained the tape in my 
possession continuously. As I heard the conversation end, I saw Buck Owens 
and Eddie Hass leave their room. 

On March 10, 1958, I brought this tape recording to the Capitol Building in 
Washington, D.C., so that excerpts could be taken from it. I also made a copy 
of the complete transcript available to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on 
Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field. 

/s/ William S. Duncan. 

Sworn to before me this 11th day of March 1958. 

[ SEAL ] /s/ Wm. R. Lewis, Notary Public. 

My commission expires December 14, 1958. 

The Chairman. Mr. Smith, this recording from which these ex- 
cerpts were taken, was it one continuous conversation or conversations 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15581 

on the same date, or were these conversations from which this excerpt 
was taken ? Were there different conversations on different dates and 
different times and places? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir, the conversation was a continuous conversation 
on the same date. 

The Chairman. These are excerpts from one conversation ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That these men had together on a given date ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And the date of it was when? 

Mr. Smith. September 30, 1955. 

The Chairman. September 30, 1955 ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

The Chairman. Where did the conversation take place ? 

Mr. Smith. At Dallas, Tex. 

The Chairman. In what place ? 

Mr. Smith. As well as I can remember the motel where it was 
taken, it was the Eastern Hills Motel. 

The Chairman. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir, it is. 

The Chairman. And the date is correct ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. Once again, Mr. Kamerick is the one who has taken 
the excerpts, and do you want him to attest to the fact that these 
are excerpts ? Have you taken excerpts from the whole conversation ; 
is that correct? 

Mr. Kamerick. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. The excerpts that you have taken, other than the 
''beep'- that has been put in to replace any foul or obscene words, 
except for those changes, the beep being placed in the recording, 
have any other changes been made? 

Mr. Kamerick. They are taken directly from the original. 

Mr. Kennedy. They are all accurate, then ? 

Mr. Kamerick. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The only deletions in the excerpt recording are 
obscene language or profane language, and something on that order. 

Mr. Kamerick. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right, Proceed. 

Air. Kennedy. We will play the first one, please. 

The Chairman. This is labeled "H-l." May I ask in the mean- 
time, Mr. Kamerick, have you made transcriptions of these records 
we are now playing ? 

Mr. Kamerick. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You have copies of them ? 

Mr. Kamerick. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hass, you have a copy of these transcriptions 
before you, have you ? 

Mr. Hass. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. We will then proceed, and Mr. Smith, 
as we proceed, and Mr. Owens, you follow closely so that if there 
are any errors and discrepancies you may point them out to us when 
we conclude playing the record. 

21243— 59— pt. 41 15 



15582 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

All right, let us go. 

(The recording, H-l, was then played.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Smith, is that transcription of this recording 
that you have before you true and correct ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You followed it as you heard the record played ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. This transcription of the recording may be placed 
in the record at this point, and the recording itself may be made 
exhibit No. 30. 

(Kecording referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 30" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

(The recording is as follows:) 

Owens. You know, we seen him in ah, ah San Antonio, we seen Shafer in San 
Antone, and then me and you went to Austin, and you know we brought that 
stuff with us, and I got [inaudible] picket for an alibi and ah Shafer said h— 
no, he's gonna stay home with his wife and baby, you know where he had him 
an alibi. 

Hass. He didn't want to get out of bed. . . . You know it was four boys 
asleep in that room .... 

Owens. Where ah? 

Hass. Lee Way. 

Hass. Uh-huh [yes]. 

Owens. No kidding — well, G d , son of a b well, that thing never 

did get afire right, did it? 

Hass. Hu-uh [no] s . 

Owens. G d ■ youse a running back there and that can was on fire and 

that fire was just a following you. I said well G d here we go again. . . . 

Hass. I thought for a minute we'd had it. 

Owens. I did, too. Boy, I thought both of us would catch fire. . . . D 

that was stupid, you know it. 

Hass. You tell 'em it was — you ain't s nine either ... I never thought 

about them boys being there laying over. 

Owens. I never thought about it ... . 

The Chairman. Now, Mr. Owens, did you recognize the voices in 
that recording that was just played ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; I did. 

The Chairman. Whose voices were they ? 

Mr. Owens. Eddie Hass and myself. 

The Chairman. Is Eddie Hass the witness that is now on the stand, 
and is that the person that you had that conversation with ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; it is. 

The Chairman. And you state under oath that you did have such a 
conversation with him at that time ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And this is a true recording of it so far as you can 
determine ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; it is. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. I have just one question on this matter. We had 
the testimony by Mr. Owens that as you were pouring out the gasoline 
that it caught on fire. That is what he testified to before the commit- 
tee, and that the fire ran right up into the can and you had to run 
back into the car. This would seem to be supported by the excerpt 
from this conversation in the room. 

I wonder if you could tell us anything about that, whether that in 
fact happened at the time that you were setting the Lee Way Terminal 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15583 

on fire. That is whether the fire ran back into the can, and whether 
you almost caught on fire as well as the terminal. 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is your voice, is it not, Mr. Hass ? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question ? 

Mr. Hass, there is a statement here ascribed to you which is as fol- 
lows: "I thought for a minute we'd had it." Did you make that 
statement ? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Shall we go ahead with the next one ? 

The Chairman. I want to ask this witness, and I want to give him 
a chance. Do you want to deny the truthfulness of these excerpts 
from your conversation with Mr. Owens? Do you want to deny it? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. It wouldn't incriminate you if you could deny it. 

Proceed with the next recording. 

Mr. Kennedy. The next one is H-3, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Play the recording H-3. Mr. Smith and Mr. 
Owens will follow the instructions of the Chair. 

(The recording, H-3, was thereupon played.) 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Smith, you have heard this record- 
ing. Have you followed it on the transcript of it as presented to you ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is the transcript correct ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Owens, you have heard the recording played. 
Can you tell us whose voices were in that recording ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. It was Eddie Hass and myself. 

The Chairman. Is the transcript of it that you have before you 
correct ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; it is. 

The Chairman. The transcript may be printed in the record at 
this point, and the recording may be made exhibit No. 31. 

(Recording referred to marked "Exhibit No. 31" for reference, and 
may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

(The recording, H-3, follows:) 

Hass. And he also told me that they'd been out there fooling around his car, 
because he heard them out there; said they would have put him in jail if his 
motor had been hot, but his motor had already cooled off. 

Owens. Hmmm. 

Hass. You know we brought it up there just getting good and dark and that 
was in the wintertime ; naw ; that was in the summertime. 

Owens. Sumertime. That was in August, wasn't it? 

Hass. Yeah, and it gets dark about, it starts getting dark early, I mean late. 
Well, we probably got back to San Antone around 9:30, 10 o'clock, and that 
ranger was out at his house about 12. [Inaudible.] 

Owens. Don't you know he was scared. Yeah, I know one thing, like I told 
him before, I don't want no more of his business. He ever says anything to you 
about that dynamite that I stole for him in Odessa? Never did say nothing, 
never did tell you how much he paid me for it? 

Hass. Aw, yeah. 



15584 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Owens. What'd he tell you that he paid me for that? 

Hass. A thousand dollars. Well, I was in the office when you called in that 
day. 

Owens. You was? 

Hass. Uh-hinmmm [yes]. ,,.,„,_. T ». * „. 

Owens. Youse in the office when I called from Odessa and told him I had the 
dynamite? 

Hass. Yes, uh-mm, Bob told you he was gonna send Buddy after it, in a 

pickup. , .. , . . .. . 

Owens. Did you all hear that over television and radio up here, about that 

explosion? 

Hass. Seen it in the paper. 

Owens. Shafer made some smart remark about that, when I first came in, 
you know, he met us out on the highway, met me and Buddy, and, ah, he said he 
heard it on the radio. He said I done knew that I got me some dynamite, just 
like it was really a big deal. I thought h . 

Hass. He didn't think nothing about it until Bob told him. When we read the 
paper, old Bob started laughin. 

Owens. Un-hmm. 

Hass. He said that dirty son-of-a-b . 

Owens. Did he ever tell you the reason why he wanted that dynamite? 

Hass. I thought he wanted it just for general use, what'd he tell you? 

Owens. He told me he wanted it to blow up SMT. He ever say anything to 
you about it? 

Hass. Yeah. 

Owens. What'd he say about that? 

Hass. He said that's what we'd use to organize them with. 

Owens. Organize SMT with? 

Hass. Uh-hmm [yes]. 

Owens. As far as I know he never did use any on SMT. 

Hass. Hu-huh (no). 

Owens. I believe he's afraid of ole, ah old. 

Hass. Goy Gilbert. 

Owens. Roy Gilbert. I believe he's afraid of that old man. 

Hass. Well, that old jack might be it, I'm not afraid of him son-of-a-b 

is crazy as h . 

Owens. You mean Roy. 

Hass. Uh hmm (yes). Sure he is. 

Owens. I never seen him, too. I never have seen him, you remember the 
time me and you took those books on 

Hass. Contract. 

Owens. Over to his office, that's the first time I ever seen him. I never did 
know to d much about him. 

Hass. Shafer had done what he ought to, he'd kept Charlie Trevino. away 

from out there. We'd, ah, had them by the n , old Buddy working out 

there. 

Owens. Well, ah did, ah, Shafer sent Buddy up there to get the job, didn t 

he? 

Hass. Uh hmm (yes). 

Owens. What was the men to do for him. Well what was the deal on that, 
I never did get that all straight. 

Hass. Well, Charlie Trevino got drunk out there and stopped Buddy in the 
truck, and got smart with him, about the only reason Buddy didn't cut his 
f — — head off was because of me and Bob. 

Owens. Uh hmmm. Well, Shafer did send Buddy in there. 

Hass. Yeah, him and Bob both. 

Owens. And then Charlie Trevino came along and messed up the plot. 

Hass. Sure ash did. 

The Chairman-. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hass, from this recording evidently you had 
full information about the fact that this dynamite was stolen up in 
Odessa and transported back to San Antonio; is that correct? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 



IMPROPER ACTWITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15585 

Mr. Kennedy. You were in Shafer's office at the time Owens tele- 
phoned and Shafer told Owens at that time that he would send up 
Buddy Springer to help him bring the dynamite back; is that right? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. This testimony that Owens gave is supported by Mr. 
Springer and then supported by this transcript of this recording of 
the conversation. Do you have anything to say about that ? Do you 
have anything to add to it ? 

Mr. Hass. May I consult my attorney ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. We also have the testimony that Mr. Buddy 
Springer was told to get a job with Mr. Gilbert of the SMT Truck- 
ing Co. in order to find out where the various truck shipments were 
made in order to sabotage the operation of the trucking company. 
Evidently you also had full knowledge about that, in addition; is 
that correct ? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then it talks here in page 3 about the fact that this 
plot was destroyed by Mr. Charlie Trevino coming in and stopping 
Buddy Springer at the time he was leaving the truck depot, Will 
you tell us about that ? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. We have had some testimony here about the purpose 
of getting all this dynamite. It would appear that you answered it 
on page 2, when Owens says to you, "What'd he say about that?" 
about the dynamite, and your answer was, "That's what we'd use to 
organize them with." 

That is what you used the dynamite for, was it, Mr. Hass ? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. If employees do not want to join the Teamsters 
Union, you throw dynamite in, put dynamite into the depot and then 
the trucks ; is that the kind of operation you use ? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground that my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you find it an effective method of organization 
to use dynamite ? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. How much did you get paid for your participation 
in this deal ? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you feel like it was filthy money ? Didn't you ? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 



15586 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you find that dynamite is more effectual in or- 
ganization work, than going up and just asking somebody to join your 
Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Were you ever on the premises of the Southwest 
Motor Transport ? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Do you know where it is ? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Were you ever on the premises of Lee Way ? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Did you ever engage in a boycott? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. From what sources did you derive your income in 
1954 and 1955 ? 

Mr. Hass. May I consult my attorney ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes, you may. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Did you disclose all of your income in your income 
tax return ? 

Mr Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Did you disclose the sources from which you got 
your income, that which you did report? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervin. Would you wish for your children to live in a world 
in which dynamiting and other violence is used to persuade men to 
join unions? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Erven. How could that tend to incriminate you? I am 
not asking you about anything you ever did. I am asking you simply 
if you would like to see your children have to live in a world where 
violence of the character which has been mentioned in this room in the 
past 2 days is used to coerce and intimidate Americans into joining a 
labor union. 

Mr. Hass. May I consult my counsel ? 

Senator Ervin. Yes. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hass. No. 

Senator Curtis. Then I will ask you a question. Do you approve, 
and would you like to have your children in a society, where, if an 
employer did not put his employees in the Teamsters Union, that he 
would be boycotted, and probably run run out of business? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 15587 

Mr. Hass. May I consult my counsel ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

(Witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Would it incriminate the union? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? 

Mr. Kennedy. We have three more, Mr. Chairman. 

Play the next one. 

( Recording H-4 was thereupon played.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Smith, you have listened to this recording; 
have you ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Have you followed it with the transcript of the 
recording you have before you ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is the transcript of it correct? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Owens, you heard the voices in this recording. 
Whose voices are they ? 

Mr. Owens. Eddie Hass and myself. Buck Owens. 

The Chairman. Did that conversation actually take place as re- 
corded and as transcribed ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; it did. 

The Chairman. This transcript of it may be printed in the record 
at this point and the recording may be made exhibit No. 32. 

(Recording referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 32" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

(The recording is as follows : ) 

Owens. Old Shafer, he was in a rush to get back to San Antone that night 
you all brought the dynamite back to Austin. 

Hass. Uh-hum (yes). 

Owens. He told me, I drove that thing as fast it would go . . . 

Hass. You know he's a pretty smart boy in a way, and in a way he's stupid 
as h . 

Owens. Rat. 

Hass. That's what I told Marie, that he was just a G d scab 

Owens. You couldn't even call that a good hand, you know it . . . 

Hass. Uh-huh (no). 

Owens. Well, ah Eddie,, how many sticks of dynamite did you all bring down 
to Austin that night? 

Hass. Aw h , there must have been ahhh 25. 

Owens. Twenty-five? 

Hass. Uh-humm, 25 or 30 . . . you see that box we brought up there . . . 

Owens. Yeah, but I never paid no mind. 

Hass. It was nearly full, I think it was about 30. 

Owens. Did Foots Johnson get that for him . . . 

[Inaudible.] 

Hass. Yeah, believe he did . . . I'd like to have that lamp. 

The Chairman. Mr. Kennedy, you may proceed. 

Senator Curtis. May I ask something about H-4 ? 

Mr. Hass, you heard the record played ; didn't you ? 

Mr. Hass. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Did you read the transcript marked "H-4" ? 



15588 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Hass. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Do you have any corrections in it ? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground it may 
tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Don't you realize that all this evidence makes you 
look like a criminal ? Do you realize that ? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You don't want to dispel any impression that you 
are a dynamite peddler, an arsonist, blowing up things, throwing 
things at cars, possibly shooting people ? Don't you want to clear it 
up? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. All right. Play the next one. PlayH-5. 

(A recording was then played. ) 

The Chairman. Mr. Smith, you have heard the playing of the 
excerpt from this recording ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

The Chairman. Have you followed it with the transpscript before 
you? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is it correct ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Owens, you heard it. Whose voices are they? 

Mr. Owens. Eddie Hass and myself. 

The Chairman. Did you have such a conversation with Mr. Hass ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; I did. 

The Chairman. That is the man who is on the witness stand here ? 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir ; that is right. 

The Chairman. The transcript of it will be printed in the record 
at this point and the recording will be made exhibit No. 33. 

(Recording referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 33" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

(The transcript of the recording follows :) 

Owens. Me and Pat Davis went right on down there and blowed it out. 
Hass. You never did get nothing ; yeah you got something out of that. 
Owens. $600. 
[Inaudible.] 
Owens. Yes, I got $600. 
Hass. How much did you give Pat? 

Owens. Hundred — I thought I'd do him like he done me [laughter] — I was 
thinking about that. 

Hass. Why in the h didn't Shaf ter let me make that money. 

Owens. I don't know. 

Hass. That burned my d [inaudible]. 

Owens. I don't know, I rather had you than Pat Davis 

Hass. It sure made me mad. 

Owens. Sure ash had of 

Hass. I need the f money too. 

Owens. Trying to run you off — well, you know, in a quiet way. 
Hass. He wanted to make me quit. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hass, you got a little offended because they 
didn't let you do that job ; is that right ? You wanted the money and 
needed the money ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15589 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground the answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Would you be willing to do a job like that for 
$600? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You want to leave the impression that you would 
be willing to do it ? . 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer the question on the 
ground my answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You know if you said "No," it couldn't possibly 

incriminate you, don't you, that you wouldn't be willing to? That is 

what an honest man would say, unless he meant that he might do it. 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the groimd my answer 

may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Are there any questions before we proceed with the next one ? 
Senator Curtis. Mr. Hass, what Teamster officials or representa- 
tives, if any, have you talked to since you were subpenaed by this 
committee ? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Have you talked to any of them ? 
Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the groimd my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervin. Do you mean to tell me that it would incriminate 
a man just to talk to a Teamster official ? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. I would say if that is true, this committee is cer- 
tainly contaminated, because we have had a number of them up here 
talking to us. . . 

Are you proud of it ? I see you smiling, as if you think it is smart. 
Are you proud of it ? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my answer 
may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Proceed with the next recording, H-6. 
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, this recording will show the courage 
that is needed in some of these operations, or exhibited by some of the 
participants. 

(A recording, H-6, was thereupon played. ) 

The Chairman. Mr. Smith, you have heard the playing of this 
recording, and you have had a transcript of it before you. Is the 
transcript correct according to the recording ? 
"vf"-.. ^"VTTin Y"es sir. 

The Chairman. 'Mr. Owens, you heard the recording, and followed 
it with the transcript before you. Is it correct ? 
Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you have such a conversation with the witness 
Hass who is now on the stand ? 
Mr. Owens. Yes, sir, I did. 



15590 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. This transcript of the recording will be printed in 
the record at this point, and the recording will be made exhibit No. 
34. 

( Recording referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 34" for reference, 
and may be found in the files of the select committee. ) 

(The transcript of the recording follows:) 

Owens. But I didn't think Vic Lang would do it, cause I don't think Vic 
Lang got the guts. 

Hass. He ain't got much guts. 

Owens. I never heard of him doing anything. 

Hass. He'll got out like Shafer and throw a few bottles at them trucks, that's 
all, but I just don't believe he'd go too far; he shot at one one night, one of 
my buddies told me. And he's pretty rough, and he said that old boy shut her 
down and started shooting at em and he said Vic Lang liked to have s . 

Owens. Aw, h . 

Hass. He jumped over the front seat and crawled on the floorboard and you 
know where the handle is on a Ford, they was in a Ford just like yours, only 
it was black, and that handle jabbed him in the back. They said that son of 

a b like to have died, he thought somebody had a gun in his back, see, my 

buddy set it down and was gonna tear that m f up, he was gonna kill 

him, because it made him mad when that guy started shooting at um, he shut 
her down and old Vic raised up and that handle caught him in the back and 
he thought that guy had the gun on him. 

Owens. [Inaudible.] 

Hass. My buddy said he was crying, he said let's get the f out of here. 

Owens. I never did, ah, Shafer wanted me to go out with him. I said, look, 

boy, I'll pick by own G d crowd I run with, cause that's the first time 

I ever seen Bob. You've seen people you just didn't want any dealings with. 
Well, that was you and Shaffer that brought the dynamite to Austin. 

Hass. Uh hmnini (yes). 

Owens. I thought that was Holt. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hass, do you want to make any explanation of 
.that? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Some of you thugs really don't have too much 
courage, do you, except when you have the advantage. Isn't that 
what you find among those whom you associate with ? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. It is the advantage that gives you the courage? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. As I understand, this last recording, Mr. Hass, you 
are reciting what happened to Vic Lang, who was one of the partici- 
pants in this violence. He went out with another man and started 
shooting at one of the trucks ; is that right ? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground that my 
answer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the truckdriver started shooting back, so Mr. 
Vic Lang hid in the bottom of the car ? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my an- ; 
swer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then when he was hiding in the botton of the 
car, he felt the handle of the door in his back, and he thought that 
somebody climbed in the car and stuck a gun in his back; is that 
right? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 15591 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my an- 
swer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. He thought that this man had a gun on him and he 
started crying in the bottom of the car; is that right? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my an- 
swer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you and your friend found it very easy when you 
were just shooting at other people or throwing things at them when 
they couldn't see you, but once they started shooting back, you and 
your friends just collapsed completely, did you not? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my an- 
swer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. What it amounts to is you simply turned yellow; 
is that not the truth ? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my an- 
swer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. You find it much easier when you can throw dyna- 
mite, throw rocks through cars, as long as they don't do anything 
back at you ? Do you think that is a little easier than when they start 
fighting back? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my an- 
swer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Do you think you are a credit to a labor 
organization ? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my an- 
swer may tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say in the al- 
most 2 years we have been in existence, and the violence we have 
gone into in the Teamsters Union, we never find any of them that 
do it by themselves, or who don't beat up an unarmed man or have 
three or four people join with them, in beating them with guns or 
beating them with hammers. Nobody ever goes out and just has a 
fight by himself in the Teamsters Union. 

Mr. Hass, could you explain to me why that is ? 

Mr. Hass. I respectfully decline to answer on the ground my an- 
swer may tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. I want to ask Mr. Smith about something. 

The Chahiman. Mr. Hass, you may stand aside for the present. 
You are not excused. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Smith, you have some pictures of some of the 
dynamite that was uncovered. Mr. Owens told you where some of 
the dynamite was buried ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you take some pictures of the dynamite? 

The Chairman. Were you able to find it where he told you it was 
buried? 

f * t-Mr. Smith. We found it in the vicinity where he said it was buried, 
Senator. 
' The Chairman. It was stashed away ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 



15592 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. You did find it in the area or vicinity where he 
told you it was ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did he accompany you out there? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And he was able to point out to you where it was? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are those two pictures of the dynamite? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Those pictures may be made exhibit 35A and B. 

(Photographs referred to were marked, "Exhibits 35 A and B" for 
reference. And may be found in files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Smith, did he also take you to the place where 
the dynamite was stored, Mr. Gensberg's place of business; is that 
right ? Or his home ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you identify this picture for us? 

( Photograph handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. What is that a picture of, Mr. Smith? 

Mr. Smith. This is a picture of Mr. Frank Gensberg's residence 
in the city of San Antonio, at 1743 Summit Street, and in the rear 
of this building is a garage apartment where Mr. Gensberg stated 
he visited Mr. Shafer and also Mr. Owens, and that is where Mr. 
Owens showed me where they stored the dynamite. 

The Chairman. Did Mr. Gensberg know that they were renting 
it for the purpose of storing dynamite? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir, they told him they was insurance men. 

The Chairman. Is that correct, what Mr. Smith just testified to, 
Mr. Owens i 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir, it is. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we also have an affidavit from Mr. 
Gensberg, secured by Mr. Kamerick. 

The Chairman. This affidavit will be printed in the record at this 
point. 

(The affidavit of Mr. Gensberg is as follows :) 

Room 564, Post Office Building, 
San Antonio, Tex., November 21, 1957. 

I, Frank Gensberg, 730 MeNeel Road, San Antonio, Tex., make the following 
statement to Paul E. Kamerick, who has identified himself to me as assistant 
counsel of the United States Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities 
in the Labor or Management Field. I have been advised by him that I do not have 
to make this statement. 

During the year 1954, I lived at 1743 West Summit in San Antonio, Tex. At 
the rear of the yard at that address was a structure which was 1 formerly a 
garage but which had been made into an apartment. This apartment was rented 
intermittently. In the late part of 1954 the apartment was vacant and so I 
placed an advertisement in the paper seeking a tenant for it. 

About the time of the Christmas-New Year holiday season a man came to 
my home in response to the advertisement. I have since had this man identified 
as Raymond C. Shafer. At that time he said his name was something other than 
Shafer but the exact name escapes my memory at this time. He said that he was 
an insurance stock salesman and that he had frequent occasion to come to San 
Antonio and wished to rent the apartment as a headquarters to be used when he 
was in this area. I agreed to rent the apartment at $37.50 per month and he 
gave me part of the first month's rent at the first meeting. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15593 

Within the next day or two this man came back with a second man whom he 
identified as his partner. I have since identified this partner as Buck Owens but 
a different name was given for him at that time. Shafer said that either or 
both of them might have use of the apartment from time to time. This was 
agreeable to me. I believe that on this occasion Shafer paid me the rest of the 
first month's rent. 

A few nights later as I came home from work at about 9 or 10 p.m. I noticed a 
green U-Haul It trailer parked near the apartment and I assumed the men 
were moving in. 

I saw no more of the men near the apartment and I saw no further activity 
around the apartment. About the middle of January I went back to the apart- 
ment to check and noticed that the door was not locked. I entered and found 
that the men had apparently vacated. 

Among the things that I noticed in the apartment was the fact that a green 
checked blanket was missing. This was an unusual blanket in that it was 
double length. I later identified the blanket which was recovered by Texas- 
Ranger Zeno Smith as the same as the one which was missing from my apartment- 

I also noticed that the cord which raised and lowered one of the Venetian 
blinds was missing. 

I have read the foregoing statement consisting of this page and one other page 
and it is all true and correct. 

/S/ Frank Gensberg. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this, the 21st day of November 1957. 
[seae] /S/ Beverly Highsmith, 

Notary Public in and for Bexar County, Tex. 
My commission expires June 1. 1958. 

The Chairman. The last paragraph handed to the witness may be 
made exhibit 35C. 

(Photograph referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 35C" for refer- 
ence and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would like just to repeat what I 
said yesterday, that if it weren't for the help and assistance of Mr. 
Smith, we would not have received this information. Almost all of 
the work that was done in this case was done originally by the Texas 
Rangers and particularly by Mr. Smith. And, of course, with the 
help and assistance of Mr. Buck Owens, we are now able to have this 
testimony. 

We are also very appreciative of the help of Mr. Garrison, head of 
the Bureau of Public Safety in Texas, who has also been of great 
assistance to this committee. 

The Chairman. To Mr. Smith and the Rangers, and to Mr. Garri- 
son and others who have cooperated with the committee, we express 
our sincere appreciation. I am sure, gentlemen, including Mr. Owens, 
who has cooperated, and the other witness, Mr. Springer, who has 
cooperated with the committee, I am sure the American people, the 
decent American citizens throughout this country, feel grateful to 
you for the cooperation you have given, for your willingness to help 
this committee perform the proper functions of Government to the 
end that just and effective laws may be enacted to preserve law and 
order and decent society in this country. Thank you. 

Senator Ervln. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to add a few 
observations. 

Mr. Smith has lived up to the finest traditions of the Texas Rangers. 
The Texas Rangers have been engaged in law enforcement under 
most adverse circumstances about as long as there has been a State or 
Republic of Texas. I would venture this assertion, that there never 
has been a man who served with the Texas Rangers who ever invoked 



15594 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

the fifth amendment when he was asked whether he was a Texas 
Ranger. 

The Chairman. Mr. Smith and Mr. Owens, you gentlemen will re- 
main under your present subpena. In the event the committee should 
need to recall you, reasonable notice of the time and place will be 
given you. Do you acknowledge that recognizance % 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Owens. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Springer, that will apply to you also. 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Yv r e may need further testimony from you and, if 
so, you will just be notified, and given reasonable time and opportunity 
to appear before the committee. Do you accept that recognizance? 

Mr. Springer. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Gilbert, the same applies to you. This is just 
to avoid having to resubpena you. Do you agree to appear if the 
committee requests you ? 

Mr. Gilbert. Yes, sir ; I do. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Hass, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Bunch, and Mr. Johnson. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hass, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Bunch, and Mr. John- 
son, come forward, please. 

The committee places you under recognizance to reappear and fur- 
ther testify before this committee upon reasonable notice of the time 
and place, at such time as the committee may desire further testimony 
from you. 

Do each of you acknowledge that recognizance and do you agree 
so to appear without being further subpenaed ? 

Mr. Johnson. I do. 

Mr. Hass. I do. 

Mr. Shafer. I do. 

Mr. Bunch. I do. 

The Chairman. Let the record show that each one answered aud- 
ibly "I do." 

The Chair wishes to make a further announcement. 

Witnesses come here and testify against these mobs and crooks and 
thugs and gangsters and racketeers under some strain, because they 
know the character of these people, just as we have been talking here, 
that they are the sneaky sort, the kind that wouldn't fight fair, that 
have to resort to violence, corruption, take all advantages before they 
will act. 

Under such circumstances, this committee feels that everyone 
should be warned that no retaliation, threats, or violence will be 
tolerated, and if such thing occurs the one who commits such act, in 
the judgment of this committee, is guilty of contempt of the United 
States Senate. We will undertake to deal with them accordingly. 

Witnesses who have testified here, if they are threatened, or in any 
way interfered with, or any violence committed against them by rea- 
son of the testimony they have given here, are instructed to report 
such threats, violence, or intimidation promptly to the committee. 

Is there anything further ? 

All right, Mr. Smith and Mr. Owens, you may be excused. 

You other gentlemen will remain here for the rest of the afternoon 
until such time as we determine whether further testimony will be 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15595 

needed from you, or further derogatory testimony received against 
you that you are entitled to hear. 

Be seated. 

Mr. Smith? 

Mr. Smith. I would like to say a word or two, Senator, that if 
there is any cooperation we may give you and other Senators on this 
committee, we certainly will be glad to do so. You have a very, very 
good job and a hard job. 

The Chairman. Thank you. We need the cooperation of all decent 
elements in this country. 

I understand we are not prepared to proceed further this afternoon. 

The committee will stand in recess until 10:30 in the morning. 

( Whereupon, at 3 :35 p.m., the select committee recessed, to recon- 
vene at 10 :30 a.m., Wednesday, November 19, 1958.) 

(Members of the select committee present at the taking of the 
recess were : Senators McClellan and Ervin.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1958 

U.S. 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 
Sam J Ervin, Jr., Democrat, North Carolina ; Senator Barry Gold- 
water, ' Republican, Arizona; Senator Carl T. Curtis, Republican, 

"NTpbl*£LSxC£l 

Also present : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Jerome Adlerman, 
chief assistant counsel; Paul Kamerick, assistant counsel; John J. 
McGovern, assistant counsel ; Ruth Y. Watt, chief clerk. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

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

The Chairman. Call the next witness. . 

Mr. Kennedy. We are going into a different matter this morning, 
Mr. Chairman. 

The first witness is Mr. Desmond Barry. 

The Chairman. Mr. Barry, come forward, please. 

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. Barry. I do, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF DESMOND A. BARKY 

The Chairman. Mr. Barry, state your name, your place of resi- 
dence, and your business or occupation. m 

Mr. Barry. Desmond A. Barry, Houston, Tex. President of the 
Galveston Truck Lines. 

The Chairman. Thank you, sir. 

Do you waive counsel ? 

Mr. Barry. I do waive counsel, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Kennedy. . 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Barry, how long have you been in the trucking 

business ? 

15597 



21243—59 — pt. 41 16 



15598 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Barry. I started in the trucking business in 1926, but I was 
away from it for a number of years between the start of World War II 
and the fall of 1954. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long has your family been in the trucking 
business ? 

Mr. Barry. My father was in transportation in the railroads for 
30 years. He started in the truck business in 1929. I returned at that 
time to Texas and went into the Galveston Truck Lines. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did you come from originally ? 

Mr. Barry. I was born in California, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You went to school there ? 

Mr. Barry. I went to school primarily in Texas. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Barry, how long have you had this trucking 
company of your own, or on your own ? 

Mr. Barry. The Galveston Truck Lines is a corporation. It was in- 
corporated by Galveston individuals in 1929. My father took it over 
in approximately 1931 or 1932. 

Mr. Kennedy. And when did you take it over? 

Mr. Barry. I took it over in the fall of 1954, after my father's death. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Barry, you have had some difficulties and prob- 
lems with the Teamsters Union ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Barry. Yes, sir. We are in our fourth year. 

Mr. Kennedy. And this involves the so-called hot cargo clause, 
hot cargo — the refusal to handle your goods; is that right? 

Mr. Barry. Correct, sir ; it does. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Berry felt it was better in order 
to present his situation to talk from notes and give us a background 
on what has been his relationship with the Teamsters Union and what 
his problems and difficulties have been. I thought that that would be 
satisfactory to the chairman of the committee. 

The Chairman. You have no prepared statement, but just notes 
from which you wish to testify ? 

Mr. Barry. Just notes, sir. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. We will try not to interrupt 
you any more than we feel to be necessary for clarification while you 
proceed to make your statement. 

Mr. Barry. Thank you, sir. 

I think it might save time to do it in this fashion because I have, 
during this entire Zy 2 - or 4-year period kept a series of notes in 
chronological order. I think we could probably go through this more 
rapidly in that fashion. 

The Chairman. That will be very good. 

Mr. Barry. All right, sir. 

As I say, I returned to the Galveston Truck Lines after my father's 
death in 1954. I was living in Fort Worth at the time and commuted 
back and forth. 

(At this point Senator Ervin entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. Barry. My father had been ill for a number of years. He had 
a general manager operating the line. 

Upon my return to the truckline, and naturally having been gone 
a number of years, I was endeavoring to learn again the truck business. 
I instructed my employees to continue with the routine operations, 
but to call my attention any indications of trouble or similar situations 
in our company. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15599 

I believe it was in February of 1955 that my office came to me and 
laid down a check and said, "The dues that we have been paying to 
local 968 in Houston have been returned as they are improper. 

The Chairman. Who did that? 

Mr. Barry. My general manager. 

I said, "Why are we paying dues? You told me we had no union 
contract'covering our employees here or our over-the-road drivers. 

He said, "This is correct, but you had told me to leave the routine 

alone. 

I said, "Yes, but this is more than routine." . 

But, nevertheless, the record then, as I got into it, indicated that 
we had been paying dues to the local. We had no contract. Our 
employees were not charged for those dues. It was the most surpris- 
ing situation to me. _ . 

The Chairman. Were they issued membership cards* 

Mr. Barry. I believe they were. At least some of them were. I 
don't know the full story on that. 

But, nevertheless, I said, "We will do no more ox that. 

Then it was a month or two after that that we were approached tor 

L I would like to back up a moment to the fall of 1954. In the fall 
of 1954, Teamsters Local 886 in Oklahoma City approached me 
through my office there and said, "We want a contract covering your 
pickup and delivery drivers." 

I said, "Do you represent them?" 

They said, "Yes." • . 

I went to Oklahoma City, where we had only one pickup and de- 
livery driver. He said, "I am a provisional member of the union. 

I said, "Do you want for us to sign a contract ? " 

He said, "Well, it doesn't make any difference to me. I am a 
member. They do represent me." 

I said, "All right, then, I will sign a contract under those circum- 
stances,"' and I did, covering that one pickup and delivery driver. 

Then in the spring of 1955, a contract was thrown on our desk and 
we were told to sign it. 

The Chairman. By whom? lnM . TT , 

Mr. Barry. By a representative of Teamsters Local 968 m Houston, 
Tex. We are a Texas corporation. Our headquarters are in Hous- 
ton. We are actually, a small, irregular route common carrier. We 
have only one other terminal, that one in Oklahoma City. 

The demand that we sign the contract was not followed up by any 
proof of representation of our employees. They just said, "You 
will sign it." . 

I said, "Well, I am not so sure that we will, but we will discuss it 

with you." - , 

After my refusals to sign, they then telegraphed us from Oklahoma 
City, asking us to meet at the Southern Conference of Teamsters 
headquarters, which is Dusty Miller's headquarters, in Dallas, to 

(ilSOUSS it 

I took 'my general manager, Mr. Hardy, and one of our drivers, 
J. B. Sullivan, went to Dallas, and met with them at their headquar- 
ters, discussed with them the contract that they were intending that 
we sign, and again asked, "Do you represent our employees? 



15600 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

They said, "That doesn't make any difference. We are organizing 
you from the top." 

I said, "Well, that may be so ; it may not. We will discuss it." 
At that time, they wanted to know why I had brought Sullivan 
there. They said, "We don't want him in the meeting." 
I said, "He will stay here." 
The Chairman. Sullivan was a laborer ? 

Mr. Barry. He was one of our drivers, a long-time employee. 
Those demands then were that the contract be signed in its entirety 
as it was the standard over-the-road contract that the other carriers 
had signed. 

I said, "You understand, of course, there is a difference in the char- 
acterization of operation here between the regular rout carriers to 
whom this contract conforms, and our irregular operation, which 
is an entirely different operation." 

He said, "That makes no difference. You will sign the contract 
as is. 1 " 

I said, "How about the clause in the contract that requires that an 
employer's previous contract with his employees that contains a 
superior clause to one in the Teamsters Union contract, what will 
happen?" 

They said, "You will sign this contract and conform to it as it says." 
I said, ''Even if it makes me pay more than my competitors?" 
They said, "You will sign the contract as is, and I want it on my 
desk by Tuesday morning at 8 o'clock." 

I said, "Gentlemen, I don't think you will get it by Tuesday morn- 
ing, but I invite you to attend a meeting of our employees." We 
have regular safety meetings the first Saturday of each month, and 
I invited him to come down and talk to our employees. 
He said, "I don't want to do that." 

I said, "We have a policy with our employees where if we are going 
to change anything in our operation, then quite clearly we are going 
to discuss this with them and have them decide what they want." 

They said they didn't think they would go along, and I said, "Well, 
you have your invitation." 
That broke up the meeting. 

Prior to the meeting I invited them again and they did come to the 
meeting. At that meeting they told the employees they didn't care 
what they wanted, that they were signing a conract with me, not 
with them. 

Senator Curtis. Who were the individuals? 

Mr. Barry. Randy Miller of local 968 in Houston, and W. W. 
Teague, out of the Southern Conference headquarters in Dallas. 
The Chairman. Is that Miller the one they call "Dusty" Miller ? 
Mr. Barry. No, sir; this is a different Miller. 

Senator Ervin. That may be orthodox unionism, but it certainly 
is peculiar law, that the agent of the principal does not care what 
the principal wants, but the agent makes a contract irrespective of the 
wishes of the proposed principal. 

Mr. Barry. I was very naive in those days, but even then it looked 
peculiar to me. 
The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. Barry. During that meeting I asked any of our employees if 
they wished to question those members of the Teamsters Union that 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15601 

were making these demands. They did not seem to wish to, so I asked 
the specific question: "What will happen if one of my employees does 
not desire to belong to the Teamsters Union ?" 

He said, "Then he wouldn't haul any freight for Galveston." 

I said, "Whoa, wait a minute. What about the Texas right-to-work 
law?" 

He said, "Well, I didn't mean it that way. What I meant was that 
he would probably have trouble loading or unloading in Oklahoma." 

He said, "You must remember, we are working very closely with 
the Stevedores Union, and they are a mighty tough bunch." 

So to the demands we now had some very thinly veiled threats. 
Nevertheless, they left when they saw that our drivers were getting 
a little unhappy with them. 

I asked my employees if they wanted the union to represent them. 
They said, "We do not." 

I said, "That is all I need to know. I will not force you mto a 
union against your will." 

The Chairman. About how many employees were at that meeting? 

Mr. Barry. There were, I would imagine, about 15 or 16 at that 

time. 

The Chairman. What was the total ? 

Mr. Barry. Our total driver employment at that time, oyer-the-road 
drivers, would be somewhere in the vicinity of 20 or 25 drivers. 

The Chairman. There was a majority present? 

Mr. Barry. Correct, sir. 

Following that we began to get additional demands for us to sign 
a contract, but we ran into a peculiar circumstance. These demands 
were no longer coming from the local 968 in Houston, our corporate 
headquarters, but suddenly were beginning to come to us exclusively 
from local 886 in Oklahoma City. At that time I knew of no employee 
of ours who belonged to local 886. 

The demands continued. They were accompanied by threats of 
economic pressure. 

I had my attorney, Jim Saccamanno, send a letter to them, suggest- 
ing to them that they petition for a representation election, and if that 
election indicated that they did represent our employees I would sit 
down and bargain in good faith. 

That letters was first sent to 968 in Houston. A duplicate of the 
letter was later forwarded to local 886 in Oklahoma City, and neither 
one has yet been replied to. 

Nevertheless, on April 18, 1955, a secondary boycott was invoked 
against us at Oklahoma City. 

On the previous day, the one pickup and delivery driver that I 
referred to, who was contracted to the local in Oklahoma City, was 
instructed by the union not to report to work. As soon as that was 
reported to me, I told my Oklahoma City manager to get him on 
the phone and tell him to get to work and start hauling freight. 

He immediately followed those instructions, and did work from then 
on. My employees in Houston kept right on operating. 

The secondary boycott was invoked against us under the "hot cargo" 
clause, of course, but to me there were very peculiar circumstances 
to the invoking of that boycott. There was no notice officially put out 
by the Teamsters Union, to any of the motor carriers that were 
involved in the boycott. 



15602 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The boycott started on April 18. There were sporadic refusals and 
acceptance of our freight. That is a very dangerous situation to a 
recipient of such treatment. 

The Chairman. Now, may I ask at this point, were there other 
companies also involved in the secondary boycott ? 

Mr. Barry. Suffering from the boycott 

The Chairman. Was the secondary boycott applied to other truck- 
ing companies, other than yours ? 

Mr. Barry. Not at that time. 

The Chairman. Only to your company ? 

Mr. Barry. Only to our company. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Barry. The carriers up there who were refusing our freight by 
the 28th or 29th, I think it was, of April, had shut us down completely. 
Our men were still operating, our trucks were still rolling, but they 
wouldn't take the freight at Oklahoma City, and got on those trucks, 
went with those trucks, and physically tendered the freight to the boy- 
cotting carriers. 

I think it is extremely important, the attitude of the recipient of 
those tenders. They were the employees of these carriers to whom I 
tendered this freight. 

Senator Curtis. Who were those carriers in Oklahoma City that at 
this time you refer to were using the boycott ? 

Mr. Barry. There were practically every carrier to whom we 
tendered freight. You see, our operating authority permits us to 
operate general commodities from Houston to Oklahoma City. Those 
commodities that are destined for points beyond Oklahoma City we 
must necessarily interchange or interline at Oklahoma City. All of 
the carriers to whom we tendered freight refused it. 

Senator Curtis. Could you, for the record, name some of the 
principal ones ? 

Mr. Barry. Yes, sir. Sante Fe Trails Transportation Co. ; Lee Way 
Motor Freight Lines ; Sooner Freight Lines ; BeMac Transportation 
Co. ; Kiss Co. ; M. & D. ; Chief. 

Senator Curtis. Now, just one more question in that connection and 
then I will not interrupt : At this time, your boycott trouble was pri- 
marily in Oklahoma City and not in Galveston and Houston ; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Barry. We never had any boycott trouble anywhere except 
Oklahoma City. 

Senator Curtis. It was all at Oklahoma City ? 

Mr. Barry. All at Oklahoma City. 

The Chairman. I have one other question for clarification. Was it 
the employees of those companies that refused to handle it because of 
the hot cargo situation, or was it the company officials themselves ? 

What I am trying to differentiate between is whether it was union 
members, Teamster Union members in the employ of these companies 
that refused to handle it, or did the companies, the officials of the 
companies, reject it. 

Mr. Barry. I started at the bottom and worked up. I took every 
employee on every dock of every truckline, went to his supervisors, to 
his manager, and got to the vice president of the company, if he was 
present. In each instance, the refusal was by each individual. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15603 

The Chairman. It was by both, then ? In other words, the refusal 
was at least condoned, if not approved, by management? 

Mr. Barry. I would like to go a little further than that, if you will 
permit, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Barry. On tenders that I made to Chief Freight Lines, for 
example, I had visited some of the other motor carriers. I was being 
refused here and there. I was attempting to get some carriers to accept 
the freight so that I could immediately phone the rest and say, "Do 
you want your competitor to get all your business?" 

We took an 82,000-pound shipment over to Chief. They accepted 
the 82,000-pound shipment after they had refused many smaller LTL 
shipments. I then demanded that they take the LTL shipments, 
ordered my office to send the truckloads back there with every pound 
of freight that would go over the lines to that carrier. They said 
they couldn't take it. And this was the vice president of the company, 
Mr. Hoff heintz, that was making the statement. 

I said, "Why can't you take the freight ?" 

He said, "We have a real, tough dock steward." 

I said, "I am not tendering it to him. I am tendering it to you.'' 

He said, "We can't take it." 

I said, "Let me suggest, sir, that you carefully look into what you 
are doing, because you are obviously discriminating one shipper 
against the other. This is not our freight. This is the public's 
freight that we are hauling. Your refusals, therefore, are not only 
a secondary boycott of us, but to the shippers who are tendering the 
freight to us as the originating carrier. I would suggest to you that 
you now get your attorney and have him advise you properly." 

He went to the telephone and called, and came back laughing, and 
said, "The Teamsters Union said it is OK for me to take it." 

I am sorry, but I blew up. I said, "Who in hell is running your 
truckline, you or the Teamsters Union ?" 

Nevertheless, I pointed out to him then what he was getting into. 
He said, "What are you going to do, sue me?" 

I said, "I will do what my attorney suggests under the circum- 
stances. I am just getting the facts." I said, "Now, I want to know 
why you will take one shipper's goods and refuse another." 

He said, "Well, I will tell you why I am doing it. The union says 
I can take the last shipments that were on the road." 

I said, "For your information, the shipment that you have accepted 
has a later date than all of the other shipments I am tendering to 
you. Now, will you accept the earlier shipments?" 

He said, "No, I am not going to accept them." 

I said, "That is all I want to know, sir." 

Senator Ervin. These companies base the boycott of the freight 
handled by your company on the hot cargo clause in their contracts 
with the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Barry. Correct, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And the Teamsters apparently invoke these hot- 
cargo contract provisions solely because of the fact that you had 
refused to compel your employees to join the Teamsters? 

Mr. Barry. I would say it probably is a great deal more serious 
than that, sir. 



15604 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Since then, innumerable individuals, including members of the 
Teamsters Union involved in our case, have advised me, "We did not 
go after you to organize you. Your competitors forced us to." 

Senator Ervin. They did make demands on you that you make your 
employees, your drivers, members of the Teamsters, and pay dues for 
them? 

Mr. Barry. Correct, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And agree to a contract even though that contract 
was contrary, the provisions of it in many instances were contrary, 
to the wishes of your employees ? 

Mr. Barry. It was simply organizing from the top, because my 
employees did not desire to belong. 

Senator Ervin. And you assured the Teamsters locals that if they 
had called for a representation election and carried the election that 
you would sit down with the Teamsters local as the bargaining agent 
for your employees and negotiate in good faith with a view to reaching 
the contract ? 

Mr. Barry. I definitely did. 

Senator Ervin. And they ignored that offer, in your mind ? 

Mr. Barry. I was ignored quite often, sir. But I would go a little 
further on this now, because I think it is important. 

When I was visiting these various carriers and making these 
tenders of freight to these individuals, in every instance it was ob- 
vious that those individuals were not making their own decisions. 
When I would pin them down as to their reasons for refusal, they 
would say, "The steward told me not to take it." 

I said, "How about your own rights?" 

In others, they said, "Well, my employer tells me not to take the 
freight." 

Senator Ervin. The Taft-Hartley law has a very democratic pro- 
vision in it with respect to these matters. It makes it obligatory for 
an employer to negotiate in good faith with any union which has been 
selected in an election as a representative of the employees by a ma- 
jority vote; does it not? 

Mr. Barry. Correct, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And the Taft-Hartley law also makes it illegal to 
resort to boycott for the purpose of compelling the employees to want 
recognition of the union as a bargaining agent in the absence of an 
election or assurance that it had been selected by a majority of the 
employees ? 

Mr. Barry. Correct, sir. And following that particular statute, 
when I saw that these refusals had made me an adequate record, I 
went to the National Labor Relations Board regional office at Fort 
Worth, Tex., and filed an unfair labor practice charge against local 
886. It was investigated immediately, and the reports of the investi- 
gating team were forwarded to the NLRB here in Washington. 

At the same time, it must be remembered that this now is on or 
about the early part of May. 

On the 29th of April, the Teamsters Union did finally send a letter 
to the motor carriers telling them that on this date, Galveston Truck 
Lines is officially declared unfair. 

We were enjoying a hot-cargo secondary boycott from April 18 to 
April 29, and suddenly we are officially unfair. Not a single employee 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15605 

of Galveston Truck Lines was on strike, not a single one ever went 
on strike or on the picket line. We had no picket line. 

This particular complaint with the NLRB that I referred to was 
filed on May 6. 

On May 4 I filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission an 
emergency temporary authority application to provide the motor- 
carrier service that the other carriers were refusing to provide in the 
boycott area. The Commission granted that authority with us and 
we were suddenly armed with a parallel authority to that of the boy- 
cotting carriers to provide the service that they had refused to provide. 
Of course, that kind of threw the whip cream in the fan. 

Senator Ervin. At any time during the occurrence of these events, 
did you have any knowledge that any of your employees had affiliated 
themselves with the Teamsters Union, except the one in Oklahoma 
City that you mentioned ? 

Mr. Barry. I knew of none. My men were all working, all operat- 
ing. If they had belonged, I imagine that the fictitious strike might 
have pulled them off. 

After obtaining that emergency temporary authority, I filed a 
formal complaint with the ICC. 

I am going into some of this detail because I think it is important 
to indicate to you that we pursued every legal remedy that we could 
think of, that we provide a freedom of commerce on the highway for 
the shipping public. Even after that, these conditions still exist T 
and that it why I am desirous of putting in what we attempted to do 
in following legal recourse. 

In that formal complaint, we charged the boycotting carriers with 
a violation of their certificates, in that they were refusing to provide 
a continuous adequate service to the public. That was filed with the 
Interstate Commerce Commission here in Washington. It was sent 
back as being improperly prepared. 

In the meantime, we were operating under this emergency tem- 
porary authority. We are primarily a truckload concern, and we 
could then deliver those shipments to destination, beyond what our 
normal territory authority had been. 

On the LTL shipments, it became necessary for us to effect other 
means of delivery because they were still being refused. Those 
tenders that we made in Oklahoma City were normally from that 
point on made over the telephone because it would be ridiculous to 
attempt to take our trucks to every dock of every carrier in town 
each day, when the same shipments were the ones that were being 
retendered. 

We then began to load our trucks with those shipments and take 
them to other points and tender them to the carriers where they were 
refusing them in Oklahoma City. Many of the shipments that were 
refused in Oklahoma City I then sent back to Wichita Falls, Tex., 
truckload lots, interlined them with Best Way there, who then took 
them back to Oklahoma City, and tendered them to the carriers who 
had refused them from us, and those carriers took them and delivered 
them to destination. In the meantime, those shipments were delayed 
weeks. 

On May 9, the carriers in Oklahoma City contacted us and asked, 
"Do you have a strike ? Do you have a picket line ?" 



15606 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

We told them we did not. I got thinking about it and phoned them 
back and asked why the question. 

They said, "The question was asked because we are now notifying 
the Teamsters Union officially that we are violating the hot-cargo 
contract we have with them because there is no strike and there is no 
picket line at Galveston Truck Lines." 

I said, "Who did you pass that information to?" This was M & D 
Motor Freight Lines. 

They said, "We passed it to Mr. Bacon, our boss in Dallas." 

I got on the plane and went to Dallas and asked for an appoint- 
ment to talk to him. He did talk to me on the telephone. 

He said, "Yes ; I did ask that question." 

I said, "For what purpose ?" 

He said, "Well, I wanted to pass it on to Mr. Moore, who was the 
chairman of the association committee who negotiated the contract 
with the union, including the hot-cargo clause." 

I said, "Fine, but for what purpose?" 

He said, "We wish to advise Mr. Hoffa in Chicago that there was 
no strike and no picket line at Galveston and therefore the contract 
was being violated." 

I immediately reported that to the National Labor Relations Board 
at Fort Worth, and the next morning, for the first time in 3 weeks, 
we did have pickets. They were strangers, and we enjoyed their 
company from then on. But it never included one of our employees, 
because we kept right on hauling freight. 

Mr. Kennedy. The explanation for that is that the employers' 
inquiry of the Teamsters Union was employers that actually got the 
picket line established before your place of business ? 

Mr. Barry. It would seem reasonable to assume that. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was the employer's implied suggestion to Mr. 
Hoffa that ultimately or the next day brought about the picket line ? 

Mr. Barry. Correct, sir. At least, I assume that from the cir- 
cumstances. 

Then the Interstate Commerce Commission advised they were not 
going to continue our 15-day emergency temporary authority. They 
gave us an additional 2 days while they advised it. That was a 
pretty good indication that we probably wouldn't get any more. 

I got on the plane and came to Washington and went to the ICC 
and banged on every door that I could get into to talk to anybody 
about it. 

By the same token, I went to the National Labor Relations Board 
and pursued the same tactics. 

I will admit I came up here quite fearful of what the results would 
be. 

Back in the spring of 1955 it was not proper to pick on the Team- 
sters Union. Today there are many adherents to our belief that it was 
a racket then and it is today. 

At the ICC I was advised that we were not going to get a further 
extension of our temporary authority. 

I then insisted that our complaint be pursued, that an investigation 
be set up, a hearing be set up, and that the whole issue be investigated 
thoroughly. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15607 

At the same time, I filed a petition for reconsideration of the Com- 
mission's denial of an extension of our emergency temporary authority 
and the complaint went with it. 

The Commission reconsidered and did give us another 15-day 
ETA. 

The following day, the National Labor Relations Board here in 
Washington instructed the regional office at Fort Worth to proceed 
against the Teamsters Union at Oklahoma City for an injunction. 

That was about the 23d of May. 

On May 31, the Teamsters Union and the National Labor Relations 
Board sat down and signed a stipulated settlement agreement that 
they would cease and desist from the illegal practices that they were 
denying they had engaged in. 

Suddenly, one of the loopholes — if I might bring it out, Senator — ■ 
in the Taft-Hartley law become evident, in that whenever the Team- 
sters Union wished to pursue a tactic that would be illegal under the 
law, and could get pinned down to that illegality, they then could 
plead guilty and the determination finally could no longer go forward. 

I then refused to sign that stipulated settlement agreement on the 
grounds that it did not include clauses necessary to determine the 
legality of the issue that we had put in the hands of the NLRB under 
the Taft-Hartley Act. 

They were forced then to forward it here to Washington without 
our signature and we then filed a formal protest to the NLRB to 
the acceptance of the stipulated settlement agreement, and said, "Let's 
go to court. We want this issue tested." 

Our petition was denied. 

On May 31, 1955, our secondary boycott was over. The carriers were 
taking our freight. That stipulated agreement was later substantiated 
in a decree in the Federal court, which presently holds in the Tenth 
Circuit Court of Appeals, over their head, not to boycott us at Okla- 
homa City under circumstances such as this. 

There is little or no protection in such an act and in such a proce- 
dure when the injunction is as limited as that. 

We then seriously looked into the whole picture, because we could 
see that, yes, we have no trouble. Our boycott is over. But we have 
not produced one iota of defeat for the hot cargo clause itself. It 
still exists in the contracts of all of these carriers and they are invok- 
ing it against shippers and receivers elsewhere. 

Senator Ervin. This field that you are talking about is one that in- 
terests me legally. It seems that in this particular area, the Congress 
itself was blowing both hot and cold. As I understand the Taft- 
Hartley, and it is a very complex law, Congress itself has legalized, 
apparently, some hot cargo contracts under the Taft-Hartley law; 
whereas Congress shall provide in respect to the transportation of 
freight, at least by common carriers, that they have a legal obligation 
to accept and transport freight of anybody that tenders the freight to 
them as long as these people are willing to pay the tariffs, and as long 
as they have any facilities. 

So we have two acts of Congress which apparently permit two con- 
flicting situations. 



15608 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Barry. Senator, the very points that you are bringing out is 
one that Jim Saccamanno and I went very carefully into at the be- 
ginning of the boycott. 

I might point out at this time that at the time of the boycott, I went 
to many of the top attorneys who were experienced in labor law, or as 
practitioners before the Interstate Commerce Commission. In every 
single instance I was told "Des, you can't win." They said that the 
Teamsters are riding mighty high in the saddle. 

Well, I know from now down in Texas that a burr under the saddle 
unseats the mightiest, and I went looking for one, and the burr I 
found was little Jim Saccamanno, who was not an ICC practitioner, 
not a labor attorney. He had never read the Taft-Hartley Act. He 
said, "Des, I don't know," and I said, "Well, Jim, you are the only 
qualified attorney I have talked to." 

Senator Ervhst. Of course, you stood up and fought for what you 
conceived to be your rights and the rights of the people who were 
working for you. 

Mr. Barry. Very definitely. 

Senator Erven. But that hasn't happened except one time out of 
a thousand, and these tactics, which were clearly in violation of the 
provisions of the Taft-Hartley probably brought in fruit to the Team- 
sters in 999 cases, at least, out of 1,000. In other words, there are a 
lot of people who would probably pay tribute than make expenditures 
for defense. 

Mr. Barry. I think there is nothing more needed in this country 
than a few people who will stand up and fight for rights. We have 
seen too many instances where minority power has been knuckled 
under. We will never do it in our truck lines. The loyalty of our 
employees is such that I would never find a way to turn my back on it. 

Senator Ervin. I think we need more Americans like Steven Deca- 
tur, making the comment about the Barbary pirates of millions for 
defense but not one cent for tribute. 

Mr. Barry. I agree with you. But to follow that difference of 
opinion between the Taft-Hartley and the Motor Carrier Act, we 
could not see that if we pursued a defensive procedure in our battle 
on this issue, that we had any possibilities of winning, because there 
had been too many instances of loss. We thought it necessary that we 
find some other method of proceeding, some other forum, or some 
other statute under which we could proceed. 

Jim's summation of it was let's go back to the basic common law. 
The basic common law says that two individuals cannot contract 
together away the rights of another not a party to that contract. He 
says, "A common carrier is a public utility, and a utility may not 
refuse the public service." 

So we went, first, as I mentioned, to the Interstate Commerce 
Commission. But let's go a little further. 

In every instance that I have seen in the past, where someone stood 
up to the Teamsters Union, sooner or later violence came. I was 
afraid of violence more than anything else. I had seen too many 
instances where the police powers of a municipality would protect 
the rights of a minority group but ignore those of an individual. 

So I admit that I went to the newspapers in Oklahoma City and , 
I said, "I want you to take a look at this. I want the spotlight of 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 15609 

publicity on this issue so that public opinion can determine what is 
going on. And if you spotlight this sufficiently, then there will be no 
violence." 

By the same token, as I had mentioned before in going to the mem- 
bers of the union who were refusing to handle the freight, they were 
following orders, they resented the position they were being put in, 
because the normal union member is a dad-gummed good American, 
and he doesn't like that kind of stuff. By the same token, so do many 
of the officers of the local. 

I went to many of the officers of the local. This may be just inci- 
dental, but to me it is important. My manager in Oklahoma City is 
a Mason. So are some of the officers of the Teamsters local there. 
My manager said, "Look, we are brother Masons. Violence is some- 
thing that we should never countenance." 

We never had one iota of violence in Oklahoma City, and I think 
some of the reasons are obvious. 

But to continue and pursue the action of what we were attempting 
to do, because I think it is most important for us to indicate to you 
what we tried to do in order to convince you that we did everything 
that we could find under law, and then you can decide whether addi- 
tional legislation is necessary to protect against such power or pro- 
cedures, as I said, we went to the XLRB with a complaint against the 
union. That is the only instance in which we have proceded against 
the Teamsters Union. 

As I say, they pleaded guilty, when they capitulated in our instance. 
"We did not then sue the union. If you sue the union, you don't get to 
the president, who is responsible for it. You get the members' money, 
and the members resented as much as we did, what they were forced 
into. I know we could have collected by suing the union, but what 
would we have gained on the issue that was more paramount ? 

We then decided that our action must be against the carriers. We 
had been told that the carriers forced the union into going after 
Galveston Truck Lines. We had been told by the president of the 
local when I signed the pickup and delivery contract : 

I do not represent your employees, your road-haul drivers. I will make no effort 
to organize them because I don't represent them. 

Yet I have had other officers of that union tell me that he attended 
a meeting at Dallas, Tex., at which time certain individual carrier 
executives insisted that he go get J. H. Rhodes and Galveston Truck 
Lines. 

They said : 

We want you to get Galveston Truck Lines to show J. H. Rhodes they have 
to knuckle under, because both of them are flagging off on rates. 

This gets pretty complex as we go along. I will come back to 
flagouts, if you will permit me. 

Senator Ervex. I think that the provision in the Taft-Hartley law 
allows a majority of employees in a company to elect a bargaining 
agent for the group is a very fine thing, be cause it is something that 
would tend to bring industrial peace if there is any reasonable ad- 
herence to the law, and it also puts the employees on the basis where 
they can bargain effectively. But for the life of me I have never been 
able to understand why any human being is so greedy of power that 



15610 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

he would like to represent or purport to represent men who are un- 
willing for him to represent them. 

In this particular case, this proves what our forefathers knew so 
well when they drew the Constitution, that no man or group of men is 
fit to be entrusted with unlimited power, either legally or illegally. 

Mr. Barky. I surely agree with you, sir, and I think it is quite evi- 
dent in the issue of this case of ours that the president of the Team- 
sters local in Oklahoma City had that unlimited power. He testi- 
fied on the witness stand in one of our numerous cases that he had 
taken the issue of a hot cargo secondary boycott of Galveston Truck 
Lines to his executive committee as required by the contract, and that 
they had approved that boycott. The other members of that local 
say that is a lie, it was never before the executive committee. 

But there, again, is the power that can enforce such things as this. 
And is there then possibly a collusion or a conspiracy between that 
individual and certain motor carriers to invoke this sort of a boycott 
for their own selfish aims ? 

Is there, I ask you, sir. I think it would be worth looking into. 

But to go ahead, we had decided that we must fiind a battlefield of 
our own, and weapons of our own. 

Knowing that the tactics that others had engaged in in protecting 
their rights in similar instances in the past, we did go to the Motor 
Carrier Act, because in that Motor Carrier Act, it says that a motor 
carrier, franchised by the Commission must provide a continuously 
reasonable and adequate service to the public, and that if he does not, 
his certificate may be revoked or suspended. In our complaint, we 
did ask that the investigation, if it proved there was a violation, issue 
then a cease-and-desist order which, if ignored, should subject those 
carriers to the revocation of their certificates. 

As I say, we had stopped the boycott of our company; we hadn't 
gained any defeat for the hot-cargo clause, which still exists. We 
took a good, close look at that situation then, because to us it was a 
danger, not to use as an unorganized motor carrier. "We looked 
at the picture of the motor carrier industry itself. There are 20,000 
motor carriers. Eighteen thousand of those, according to the records 
of the American Trucking Association and the Labor Department, 
have been organized into contracts. That leaves a little couple of 
thousand who are not. 

It did not seem reasonable to me that the entire Teamsters Union 
effort under the hot-cargo clause was to organize a few unorganized 
carriers when there were millions of shippers and receivers of freight 
whose very existence was then subject to the whims of a corrupt 
Teamster official who might invoke a similar type of boycott against 
him. 

When a shipper's freight is cut off, he is out of business. It not 
necessarily would be a legal boycott or strike. It could be both illegal 
and immoral, if it was for the purpose of organizing from the top, 
such as was effected upon us. 

Senator Erven. It is quite possible there is collusion between man- 
agement and labor or the Teamsters, especially once you give cre- 
dence to that thought, in view of the fact that the president of the 
Teamsters, sitting in the same seat you are sitting in, said that he 
didn't believe it was true that a man could not serve two masters. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15611 

He said it was perfectly all right, he thought, for a labor leader, such 
as himself, to occupy positions where he suffered under a conflict of 
interest. 

Mr. Barry. Correct, sir. I might go a little further on that very 
point and say we then did file a damage suit against the boycotting 
carriers, and we filed it under the Sherman Act and various other stat- 
utes, including Taft-Hartley, the Interstate Commerce Act, various 
State statutory requirements. 

We alleged that there was a conspiracy and collusion in restraint 
of trade or commerce in that a group of motor carriers had banded 
together and had, together, negotiated a contract with the Teamsters 
Union with the hot-cargo clause, and that their actions in so doing 
were a restraint of trade or commerce, particularly when they then did 
invoke that boycott. That was heard in the Federal district court 
in Oklahoma City. On the basis of law, the decision was that we had 
not proven that a conspiracy existed in fact, but that we had proved 
an illegal act on the part of the carriers, and should proceed for 
simple damages against them. 

We were and are particularly anxious for a decision that this sort 
of practice is a restraint of trade or commerce, in violation of the 
Sherman Act, because then subjecting the pocketbook of those who 
would restrain trade or commerce to treble damages would certainly 
make them think twice before they would invoke such a boycott 
action. 

Then we went further, because in our complaint proceeding before 
the Commission, the Interstate Commerce Commission did set up a 
hearing on our complaint proceeding. We then filed a permanent 
authority ICC application to serve generally the area that the boy- 
cotting carriers had refused to serve. We had a very specific purpose. 
That was because we saw no protection in the complaint proceedings 
for any shipper or receiver of goods who might be subjected to such 
a boycott, because the delay that goes with an investigation and hear- 
ing in the administrative practices can be so long that the victim 
can be broke for years. The proof? This is our fourth year. The 
final decision in our complaint is not yet handed down. 

The Chairman. Which complaint is that ? 

Mr. Barry. Our formal complaint charging the motor carriers with 
a violation of their certificates under the Interstate Commerce Com- 
mission Act. 

The Chairman. Is that before the Commission ? 

Mr. Barry. We had a 30-day hearing on that back in 1956. The 
examiner's decision was that it is elementary that a common carrier 
may not contract away its duties and obligations to the public and 
thereby relieve itself of such duties and obligations, and he recom- 
mended that a cease-and-desist order be issued. 

That was then followed up with various petitions for reconsidera- 
tion, rehearing, oral argument, and oral argument was finally heard 
before the Interstate Commerce Commission here in Washington. 

The entire 11-man Commission sat on it in the fall of 1957. I think 
it was November. 

The Interstate Commerce Commission, by unanimous decision did, 
in December, uphold the recommendations of Examiner Frank Saltz- 
man. They did find that his findings of fact were accurate. They 



15612 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

went further and said that a common carrier may not contract away 
its duties and obligations to the public and thereby relieve itself of 
such duties and obligations, but that further than that there is an 
almost absolute requirement that a motor carrier provide service for 
any circumstance short of an act of God or the common enemy. 

I think that decision was the finest Christmas present that the 
shipping public of this Nation ever got. 

Since then many of the State regulatory bodies, including Massa- 
chusetts, recently have handed down comparable decisions. 

But then when that order of the Commission, a unanimous deci- 
sion, resulted in a cease-and-desist order against the carriers involved 
at Oklahoma City, those carriers petitioned for rehearing, reconsid- 
eration, did everything in their power to keep from going along on 
that cease-and-desist order. 

They even went to the extent that without prior notice they went 
before the Federal court in Oklahoma City and charged that if that 
cease-and-desist order stood they would suffer irreparable harm, and 
obtained a 7-day restraining order. The Interstate Commerce Com- 
mission, the Justice Department, and ourselves went to Oklahoma 
City and fought that and prevented another 7-day injunction or issu- 
ance. It was then appealed to a court, and we hope that will be 
heard someday this year. 

The Chairman. Was the permanent restraining order refused? 

Mr. Barky. The first one died of itself, the second one was refused 
bv the court. 

The Chairman. The second temporary was refused ? 

Mr. Barry. Restraining order ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That is on appeal ? 

Mr. Barry. On appeal, yes, sir. I imagine it will be to the U.S. 
Supreme Court probably next spring or next fall. But I cannot 
imagine that the U.S. Supreme Court would overturn a unanimous 
11-man decision of so expertise a body as the ICC. 

Senator Curtis. May I ask at this point, this question : This ruling 
of the ICC in effect says that the hot-cargo clause in contracts is 
invalid ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Barry. Correct, sir. 

Senator Curtis. In just what way does that ruling, standing alone, 
fail to meet the problem without some implementation by some other 
source, from a practical standpoint ? 

Mr. Barry. I think it fails completely. 

Senator Curtis. I want that in the record and your reason. 

Mr. Barry. My reason for so stating is because any victim of a 
"hot cargo" secondary boycott such as we were inflicted with must 
pursue the same tactics that we have in the manner of a formal com- 
plaint which must be investigated. A hearing must be held. The 
defendant carrier naturally must be entitled to his opportunity to 
say "yes" or "nay," this did or did not happen. 

In the meantime, the freight of the shipper is cut off and he goes 
broke. What protection is there? I think there have been many 
instances where victory has been won after the man has been out 
of business for years. 

Senator Curtis. I know of a number of cases of that, and that is 
what 1 wanted the record to show, that while it is a decidedly im- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 15613 

portant decision that was made, it still leaves individual, small busi- 
ness concerns and business concerns of all size, of either submitting 
to the demands or spending months and years and thousands of dol- 
lars to resist only to find that their business is gone by the time they 
win a victory ; is that correct ? 

Air. Barry. That is correct, sir, and I might go further, Senator, 
and say that the little Galveston Truck Lines is a small corporation. 
As a small businessman, I know the burden financially of one of these 
fights. We have enjoyed the scrap but we sure couldn't afford it. 
I mentioned Jim Saccamanno and I am going to brag about that 
guy as long as I live, because Jim Saccamanno is now in his fourth 
year of this fight, on the cuff. He has had no fee paid to him. Now, 
there is a public-spirited citizen. 

This fight, as I say. started and lasted 6 weeks, April and May of 
1955, we had lost half of our business. The boycott had been over 
on May 31, but then the undercover tactics began of contacts to our 
shippers and saying, "you are not going to use Galveston Truck 
Lines; they are having labor trouble." 

Senator Curtis. And perhaps man} 7 well-meaning individuals still 
would avoid you for some imaginary fear that it might have further 
trouble? 

Mr. Barry. I don't think those fears are imaginary, and the record 
before this committee indicates it. 

Senator Curtis. What I mean is this: Instead of ascertaining 
whether on specific times a shipment could go through or something 
or other, they might just avoid you entirely? 

Mr. Barry. That is correct, sir, and in fact I have had the cir- 
cumstance of a particular shipper who discontinued giving us the 
business and when I contacted him to see why, he said, "Well, un- 
fortunately, the paint you deliver on vour trucks is lumpy." 

The Chairman. What is that? 

Mr. Barry. "The paint that you deliver on your trucks is lumpy." 
I said, "Do you manufacture lumpy paint?" and he said, "No, sir, 
I don't, but the people I sell that paint to tell me that their painters 
say it is lumpy." I said, "Do my competitors deliver lumpy paint," 
and he said, "They do not." 

Mr. Kennedy. How much do you think this has cost you, this 
fight that you had had? 

Mr. Barry. Well, as I say, we lost half of our business. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much did that amount to ? 

Mr. Barry. Our business dropped from about $600,000 a year to 
about half of that. I would say that the out-of-pocket cost is almost 
impossible to determine. I will admit now our business is wonderful. 
Those shippers who took their business away from us and many others 
who had never shipped over us before, have seen the value of the de- 
cision that we have obtained before the Commission that there must 
be a free commerce on the highways. 

They have now begun to give us that business back, and in fact 
every decision that we obtained before the Interstate Commerce Com- 
mission, our business would boom. Last month is the best month we 
have had in 1-1 years. But in the next 14 years we will probably just 
pay off what we have lost, if I never pay Jim Saccamanno. If I pay 
him it may be 25 years. 

21243— 59— pt. 41 IT 



15614 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. May I ask you, since the second restraining order 
was refused, from which decision there is now pending an appeal, 
are those freight lines that had petitioned for that order now carrying 
your freight? 

Mr. Barry. We have had no trouble in interline since May 31, 1955. 

The Chairman. In other words, since that second restraining order 
was refused ? 

Mr. Barry. Actually, the second restraining order, or I should say 
the restraining order in connection with the Commission's cease and 
desist order only came in the last 4 or 5 months. You see, the boycott 
ended as far as we are concerned on May 31. 

The Chairman. That is 1955 ? 

Mr. Barry. Yes, what we have been fighting for ever since is to out- 
law these types of practices. We are fighting everybody else's battle 
and not ours. We won ours on May 31, 1955. It is a burden no in- 
dividual should ever be required to carry, and a small businessman 
can't afford it. I will admit we had help. 

The Chairman. You actually have no boycott against you now? 

Mr. Barry. No, sir; not since 1955. 

The Chairman. In that few months' time, and I think you took 
over in 1951, the latter part, of the year of 1954 did you not — in those 
few months' time did you lose all of this that you have been estimating 
here ? 

Mr. Barry. Our business was better during the boycott than it was 
after, because when we began to lose our business is when the under- 
cover tactics started of telling our shippers not to use Galveston Truck 
Lines. 

The Chairman. Well, that is a form of a boycott, isn't it? 

Mr. Barry. It very definitely is, sir. In fact, even today shippers 
who desire to use our services will route movements for interline with 
us at Oklahoma City going to Houston and we never get them. The 
originating carrier delivers it to a competitor and ignores the routing 
on the bill of lading. 

Senator Curtis. At that point, then, when you state that the boycott 
ended on May 31, 1955, you are referring to the specific acts that were 
covered in that order ? 

Mr. Barry. The hot cargo clause boycott period, yes. 

Senator Curtis. But I agree with the chairman that these other 
things that you describe as undercover and so on are still a boycott. 

Mr. Barry. I agree with you, sir. I don't like them. 

Senator Curtis. I know you don't like them, but what I mean is 
this : I think they are a form of boycott and it is a choice of language. 

Mr. Barry. That is right. 

Senator Ervin. I think perhaps you do well in giving credit to 
your lawyer whom you say was not a specialist under the ICC Act or 
under the Taft-Hartley Act. Someone has said a specialist is a man 
who learns more and more every day about less and less until he 
gets to the point where he knows everything about nothing. My 
experience with these specialists under such laws is that they think 
the Taft-Hartley law is made for management or labor, depending 
on their viewpoint, or that the ICC law is made solely for the benefit 
of carriers. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15615 

If you get a lawyer that is not an expert, he is likely not to have 
forgotten that law is here for the benefit of society and law ought 
to serve some social end. 

It is rather surprising to me that some of the carriers appealed 
from the ruling, which was nothing in the world but an enunciation 
or application of the whole principle that the only justification for 
giving a man an exclusive franchise as a common carrier is that he 
will observe the obligation to serve all alike. 

Now, I congratulate you for fighting. 

Mr. Barry. It has been wonderful, and we have enjoyed it. 

Senator Ervin. I congratulate you for getting a general prac- 
titioner who wasn't handicapped by any expert knowledge. 

Mr. Barry. You ask him today how he won, and he will say "No- 
body told me we couldn't." I think it is a pretty good point. But 
to continue with this 

The Chairman. Let us move along. 

Mr. Barry. At the present time we have now reached the circum- 
stance where we have a number of issues going through that I think 
sooner or later are going to determine the illegality of these types of 
practices. But I would like to go below the surface, if I might ; I 
would like to if it is permissible to do so, enter an exhibit here in 
the form of an affidavit. As I mentioned for some period of time I 
have been told that the boycott of the Galveston Truck Lines was 
not instigated by the union. It was backed up by the motor carriers. 

Do you desire me to read this into the record and then enter it 
as an exhibit? It might open you up to some questions you might 
wish to ask. 

The Chairman. Will you submit it to the chairman, please? 

Mr. Barry. Yes, sir. 

(A document was handed to the chairman.) 

The Chairman. The affidavit may be printed in the record at this 
point, and you may make reference to it and comment upon any 
of its provisions. 

Mr. Barry. You would prefer that I not read it ? 

The Chairman. It is going to be printed in the record, and there 
is no use to read the formalities of it. You may comment on it. 

(The affidavit is as follows:) 

Affidavit of Ray J. Hughes 
State of Oklahoma, 
County of Oklahoma, ss: 

Ray J. Hughes, of lawful age, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as 
follows : 

I am now residing at 3100 Northwest 31st Street, Oklahoma City, Okla., and 
am self-employed, engaged in the sales of butane equipment. 

I was formerly employed by Teamsters Local Union 886 of International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, 
as an organizer. I started such work in October 1953 and worked continuously 
as an organizer for this local union under the direction of James Hamilton until 
about April 1, 1958. 

During this time my duties included organizing and helping to organize em- 
ployees engaged in occupations within the jurisdiction of the Teamsters Union. 
Such employees included drivers for various trueklines operating in Oklahoma 
as well as dock and other employees. 

During my employment with the Teamsters. I had personal knowledge of the 
organizing campaign of the Teamsters in connection with Galveston Truck 
Lines. 



15616 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

I personally know that Teamsters Local Union 886 through their officers and 
organizers started this campaign to force recognition by Galveston because the 
other carriers operating in this area insisted to James Hamilton, president of 
the local, and other officials of the union that they organize Galveston and do all 
in their power to force Galveston to recognize the Teamsters. .„•'„. 

I personally know that Riss, BeMac, Lee Way, and Chief agreed with the 
Teamsters that any of Galveston employees who were out of work because of 
this organizing effort against Galveston would be put to work by one of them. 
I know as a fact that one such employee was put to work by Riss in keeping 
with this agreement. I personally drove him over to Riss and they promptly 

PU After the* city pickup and delivery contract between the Teamsters and the 
Oklahoma City carriers was signed in the early part of 1955, all of the opera- 
tors from Oklahoma City including representatives from such lines as Lee Way, 
M. &. D., and others, by Stanley Lee, Roy Griffin, a Mr Moore chairman of 
the operators committee, and others met in Dallas with James Hamilton, and 
other officials from the Teamsters Local Union in Oklahoma and Texas. 

James Hamilton who was at the meeting later told me that they agreed at 
this meeting to picket Galveston in Oklahoma City; that this was done at the 
insistence of the representatives of the carriers present, and that these carriers 
all agreed at that time to support the efforts of the Teamsters in organizing 

G I lY persoually remember several meetings in Oklahoma City at which were 
present James Hamilton and other officials of the Teamsters Union and rep- 
resentatives of the carriers operating out of Oklahoma City such as Lee Way, 
Chief BeMac Santa Fe, Yellow, Riss, and others. At these meetings I remem- 
S that representatives' of these carriers insisted to Hamilton and other union 
officials that thev force Galveston to recognize the Teamsters and that Hamil- 
C agreed to put a picket on Galveston and to do all that he could to force 

Tpersonauy knowlnat BeMac and other carriers agreed with the Teamsters 
before any picket was put on Galveston that they would not handle freight 
tendered to them by Galveston. /&/ ^ ^ Hughes 

Be it remembered, that on this 26th day of September 1958, before me, a 
notary public in and for the State of Oklahoma, personally appeared Ray J. 
Hughes to me known to be the identical person described in and who executed 
the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed 
the lame as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes 

th In e witness°whereof, I have hereunto set my official signature and affixed my 
notarial seal, the day and year first above written. 

[gEAL -j /s/ Bertha S. Byeks, Notary Public. 

My commission expires April 18, 1961. 

Mr Barry. I think it is extremely important to indicate here that 
this affidavit is of a former member of the Teamster Local involved 
in onr case, a former organizer for local 886. In here he charges that 
certain motor carriers and certain individuals of those carriers did 
insist that the union organize Galveston Truck Lines. 

The Chairman. What is his name ? 

Mr. Barry. Mr. Ray J. Hughes. 

Senator Curtis. So could we have the pertinent parts read, and 1 
would like to hear it? 

Mr. Barry. All right, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Leave off the formal part. 

Mr. Barry (reading) : 

During my employment with the Teamsters, I had personal knowledge of the 
organizing campaign of the Teamsters in connection with Galveston Truck 
Lines I personally know that Teamsters Local Union 886 through their officers 
and organizers started this campaign to force recognition by Galveston because 
the other carriers operating in this area insisted to James Hamilton P^ent 
of the local and other officials of the union that they organize Galveston and do 
all in their power to force Galveston to recognize the Teamsters. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15617 

I personally know that Riss, BeMac, Lee Way, and Chief agreed with the 
Teamsters that any of Galveston employees who were out of work because of 
this organizing effort against Galveston would be put to work by one of them. 
I know as a fact that one such employee was put to work by Riss in keeping 
with this agreement. I personally drove him over to Riss and they promptly 
put him to work. « 

After the city pickup and delivery contract between the Teamsters and the 
Oklahoma City carriers was signed in the early part of 1955, all of the operators 
from Oklahoma City, including representatives from such lines as Lee Way, 
M & D , and others, by Stanley Lee, Roy Griffin, a Mr. Moore, chairman of the 
operators committee, and others met in Dallas with James Hamilton, and other 
officials from the Teamsters Local Union in Oklahoma and Texas. 

James Hamilton, who was at the meeting, later told me that they agreed 
at this meeting to picket Galveston in Oaklahoma City ; that this was done at 
the insistence of the representatives of the carriers present, and that these 
carriers all agreed at that time to support the efforts of the Teamsters in 
organizing Galveston. 

I personally remember several meetings in Oklahoma City at which were 
present James Hamilton and other officials of the Teamsters Union and repre- 
sentatives of the carriers operating out of Oklahoma City such as Lee Way, 
Chief, BeMac, Santa Fe, Yellow, Riss, and others. At these meetings I remember 
that representatives of these carriers insisted to Hamilton and other union offi- 
cials that they force Galveston to recognize the Teamsters, and that Hamilton 
agreed to put a picket on Galveston and to do all that he could to force recog- 
nition by Galveston. 

I personally know that BeMac and other carriers agreed with the Teamsters 
before any picket was put on Galveston that they would not handle freight 
tendered to them by Galveston. 

Senator Curtis. What is the name of the affiant ? 

Mr. Barry. Mr. Ray J. Hughes. 

Senator Curtis. What is his address, if you know ? 

Mr. Barry. I have his address ; yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. So that we might have it for such further pur- 
poses as the committee shall determine. 

Mr. Barry. 3100 Northwest 31st Street, Oklahoma City. 

Senator Curtis. And you have met him and discussed this with him % 

Mr. Barry. Yes, sir ; I have. 

Senator Curtis. What would the other carriers gain by forcing a 
unionization of the Galveston Truck Lines ? 

Mr. Barry. Well, here we go. I think this gets complex but I 
would like to get into it, and I think it is extremely important in 
the overall picture of what gain is there in this sort of a practice. 

The motor carrier industry as a rule has its rates published by a 
tariff bureau. The tariff bureau acting as agent for these carriers 
handles its procedures in the following manner: Any carrier may 
file what is called a docket proposal for a rate adjustment, a change 
in the rules, and a change in the provisions. That then goes to a 
formal monthly hearing at which all of the carrier members may be 
present. They vote on that proposal, either that they will approve 
it or disapprove it. 

There has been in the last 6 or 7 years approximately five or six 
general rate increases. These rate increases are approved by what is 
called a general rate increase. 

It applies to all items in a tariff. Any member of that tariff bureau 
who desires to do what we call flag out on the rate may at that 
particular meeting decide, no, for this specific shipper, he will flag out. 

In the instance of truckload carriers where the shipper may put on 
his own trucks and provide the service cheaper and with some advan- 
tages in service, the pressure upon a carrier to flag out becomes pretty 



15618 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

imperative. Since we are primarily a truckloacl concern, if general 
increases go in without a flag out on our part for those shippers that 
give us large shipments, we may lose that business by the shipper put- 
ting his own trucks on the road. 

When a carrier flags out, he is then subjected to the pressure of 
the other carriers who desire the general increase to go through. In 
the instances where we have flagged out, we have been severely criti- 
cized, and the testimony or the statements of some individuals in- 
volved in our case has been that the purpose of getting Galveston is 
to prevent us from flagging out, to run our costs up, but I would like 
to talk about costs a little bit here, because wages alone are not ma- 
terially significant in the difference in the operating costs between a 
regular route common carrier and an irregular route common carrier. 

A regular route common carrier is burdened with a certificate that 
requires service at multiple points. He is burdened with the neces- 
sity for terminals at each of those points, and standby equipment. 
As I mentioned, the little irregular route Galveston Truck Lines has 
only two terminals. We do not have the overhead burden of the 
larger carrier. In testimony in our antitrust suit, we had a Frank 
Leavingwell, who is an expert on tariff work. His testimony was that 
the regular route common carriers had an operating cost of 55 to 60 
cents per mile. 

An irregular route carrier is 30 to 35, and that a private shipper may 
be somewhat lower than that. 

It becomes extremely important then as to the difference in oper- 
ating costs between an irregular route common carrier and a regular 
route common carrier as to what effect forcing the organization of an 
irregular carrier would have. 

Then it becomes important to consider what may be effected under a 
contract if grievance procedure is established in order to force that 
carrier out of business. 

We were told at the time of the demands on us that we were to be 
forced out of business as an example to others. It therefore does 
become important that we get into the game that would be effected 
because they would get all of the truckload business that we had been 
hauling and they are directly competitive. The advantages are 
obvious. 

Senator Curtis. Now, the tariff bureau that you referred to in fixing 
freight rates, that is a non-Government agency ; isn't it ? 

Mr. Barry. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Curtis. That is a sort of a representative of all of the 
carriers in a given area ? 

Mr. Barry. That is correct, sir. It acts only for them. 

Senator Curtis. Does it have full-time personnel, usually ? 

Mr. Barry. It does, sir. 

Senator Curtis. How is it financed ? 

Mr. Barry. It is financed by contributions from the member carriers, 
larger ones in proportion. 

Senator Curtis. Now, does the decision to raise freight rates by a 
traffic bureau become final without any concurrence by ICC or any 
other Government agency ? 

Mr. Barry. Actually, the specifics of it are not that the rates are set 
up by the bureau itself, it is by action of its members in voting upon 
proposals. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15619 

Senator Curtis. Who actually sets the rates ? 

Air. Barry. The carriers themselves vote on the application of a 
rate, and it is then tiled with the Interstate Commerce Commission by 
the bureau. 

Senator Curtis. It is filed with the ICC but do they approve or 
disapprove? 

Mr. Barry. They actually do nothing with it unless there is a pro- 
test or a request for suspension by some interested party, competitor 
or otherwise. 

Senator Curtis. How about a protest by a shipper ? 

Mr. Barry. A shipper may protest. 

Senator Curtis. Based on your years of experience in transporta- 
tion, are most of the freight rates established by the carriers through 
their traffic bureaus ? 

Mr. Barry. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. Without any concurrence by the ICC ? 

Mr. Barry. I would say that by far the greater majority routinely 
go through but there is an interesting point there I would like to pass 
on for a moment, if you will excuse me, sir. 

Senator Curtis. All right. 

Mr. Barry. An applicant or a proponent like Galveston Truck 
Lines, desirous of obtaining a rate adjustment for some specific shipper 
to meet some competitive condition, may make that particular appli- 
cation. If the rate adjustment is a lowering of the rate, the other 
members may decide to vote against it at the docket hearing. If they 
vote against it, then it may be reapplied for by the applicant or he 
may instruct the bureau to file independent action which means it 
would be filed for his account only, at which time any member can 
then protest to the Interstate Commerce Commission and request a 
suspension. 

Such suspensions are automatically for 7 months. The burden and 
cost upon an individual small carrier in obtaining his desires can 
break him, because they could cost $5,000 to $10,000 to fight one 
through. 

(At this point, members of the committee present were: Senators 
McClellan, Ervin, and Curtis.) 

Senator Curtis. In other words, from the standpoint of the con- 
suming public, the shippers, could it be said that in the main the 
tariff' bureau fixes the rates ? 

Mr. Barry. No, sir ; the members of the bureau, the carriers them- 
selves, not the bureau. The bureau only acts for them as their servant. 

Senator Curtis. In getting them to agree ? 

Mr. Barry. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. That is, in getting together on something? 

Does the Government, the ICC or anybody else, through any stat- 
utory authority, if you know, recognize the existence of a traffic 
bureau ? 

Mr. Barry. Very definitely, sir. It is established. 

Senator Curtis. It is established ? 

Mr. Barry. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. What you have said here, does that involve the 
railroads, or is that merely motor transport? 

Mr. Barry. The railroads also operate through bureaus. It is a 
very fine procedure, I might say. 



15620 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Do they operate through the same bureaus ? 

Mr. Barry. No, sir ; they do not. 

Senator Curtis. What has been the freight rates over the last sev- 
eral years ? What does it amount to ? 

Mr. Barry. In the last 6 or 7 years, those increases have totaled 
approximately 25 to 27 percent. The regulated motor carrier in- 
dustry, in which I mentioned a while ago had 20,000 carriers, does an 
annual gross business of about $6 million. The additional tariff, 
therefore, has averaged about a billion dollars a year. 

I think it is extremely important as to the cost to the public because 
we pay the bill, all of us as consumers. 

Senator Curtis. It averaged about a billion dollars a year? 

Mr. Barry. Correct, sir. 

Senator Curtis. In additional cost ? 

Mr. Barry. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Have you concluded your statement, Mr. Barry? 

Mr. Barry. I am just going through the filing cabinet a moment, 
if you don't mind. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Barry. Let me take a quick look at my notes, if you don't mind. 
I might add to this record, if you will permit it, sir, that in the anti- 
trust trial in Oklahoma City last year, in colloquy between our attor- 
ney, Jim Saccamanno, and Nate Wells, representing the union, it was 
substantially placed into the record that at the very most the Team- 
sters local in Oklahoma City could not have represented over three or 
four of our employees, and it would be more interesting, if I would 
say that in a letter of September 8, 1956, from Nate Wells, to the 
Federal court in Oklahoma City, he listed four employees of Galves- 
ton Truck Line that belonged to 886, under letter transfers of the 
following dates : One on April 22, one on February 9, one on March 
26 of 1955, and one of November 4, of 1955. 

So that even those that they did say they represented had not been 
actually members except under transfer. In colloquy on that par- 
ticular subject, it was finally agreed that they could not have repre- 
sented more than two or three of our employees at any time. 

Senator Curtis. How many employees do you have, or just about 
how many employees ? 

Mr. Barry. Our total employees right now are approximately 40, 
which includes about 20 over the roadmen, 20 to 25 over the roadmen. 

Senator Curtis. I would like to ask you something else, if it does 
not cause you to digress from your notes. 

In response to my question, you pointed out that the ruling of the 
ICC on the hot-cargo clause, while it was important, granted no 
protection to anyone who didn't go through the same motion, expense, 
and delays that you did. 

Mr. Barry. Correct, sir. 

Senator Curtis. The Supreme Court has spoken on hot cargo, too ; 
haven't they ? 

Mr. Barry. They have, sir. Incidentally, I might point out that 
the case they recently spoke of, the American Iron and Machine case, 
is a secondary boycott by the same Teamsters local in Oklahoma City. 

Senator Curtis. From the standpoint of the parties involved, as 
well as the public, what observations do you want to make about the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15621 

Supreme Court ruling, so far as it is setUing. anything and giving 
protection to the public as well as the direct parties? 

Mr Barry Well, of course, I am not an attorney, but as 1 read 
that decision 'all that the Supreme Court has decided is that under 
Taft-Hartley, the Court rules that an employee may voluntarily 
refuse to handle freight even today. If he decides voluntarily that 
he will not handle someone's freight, he can do so. 

Senator Curtis. But leaving an implication that concerted action 
in invoking the hot cargo clause and compelling his employer to honor 
it, he cannot do that; is that it? 

Mr Barry. I think the decision specifically points out that the 
hot cargo clause cannot be enforced, but that an employee can volun- 
tarily refuse to serve. Of course, a very fine educational program 
might educate them to the belief that they should not, when such 
instances come up. Then, again, there is little or no protection 
to the shipping public. . 

The Chairman. If you will pardon me, Senator, I am wondering, 
then, if the employer, when his employees elect not to perform a service 
connected with his employment, if the employer is under obligation 
and dutv by law to perform, I wonder then if the employer might 
discharge that employee and replace him with another who^vould 
help the employer to carry out his duty and obligation under the 

a Mr Barry. Under the "hot cargo" clause contract between the 
Teamsters Union and the motor carrier it specifically states that the 
carrier may not discipline the employee for refusal to handle unfair 

The Chairman. I understand that may be the contract, but I am 
thinking of the other aspects of it. 

Mr. Barry. I am quite certain, myself, that most of those employees 
would be very much in favor of handling freight. That is what 
they were hired for. 

The Chairman. But you are talking about cases here, and com- 
menting on the Supreme Court decision. I think it is absolutely 
correct, so far as it goes, that an individual should have the right to 
refuse to do anything that he wants to refuse to do. 

Mr. Barry. I certainly agree with you, sir. 

The Chairman. But I think the employer should have the equal 
right, if an employee refuses in the course of the duties of his em- 
ployment to carry out and perform the service that is essential to 
the employer meeting his obligation— I am speaking of public util- 
ities now, carriers — meeting his obligation under the law, then I think 
the employer should have the right to discharge that man and employ 
another. , 

Mr. Barry. I agree with you, sir. I think the employer hired 
the employee to perform services. But if he hasn't got the guts to 
fire the man, then get on a truck and haul it himself. I will do it. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Under the Supreme Court decision, as I understood 
it, it permits the employers to refuse to handle the goods ? 

Mr. Barry. I do not understand it that way, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think that is the key to the situation. As I un- 
derstood the Supreme Court decision, all it said was that the union 
could not bring pressure on the employers to force them to not handle 



15622 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

the goods. Under the former decisions that is what could happen, 
or under the former ruling that is what could happen. This Supreme 
Court decision said that, as long as the employers decided not to 
handle the goods, they don't have to handle the goods. 

Mr. Barry. I believe you are correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Therefore, the hot cargo clause can still be written 
into a contract between the Teamsters Union and employers. The 
union can then still go to the employer, the truckowner, and say, 
"You shouldn't handle these goods,' 1 and the employer can then 
decide he is not going to handle the goods. The only thing that the 
Supreme Court decision does is say that the individual employees 
cannot then go on strike and refuse to handle the cargo. It seems to 
me that the Supreme Court decision wipes out the whole idea of what 
the ICC held in your case. 

Mr. Barry. I think what you are speaking of is you are speaking of 
a decision from the Supreme Court from a case that was processed 
to them under the Taft-Hartley Act. Our case is going to the 
Supreme Court under an entirely different statute. 

Mr. Kennedy. Maybe that will change it, but certainly as the law 
is now, the truck companies and truckowners can still work in concert 
to refuse to handle the goods in interlining, or "hot cargo" goods. 
Certainly if the Teamsters Union or a Teamsters Union official comes 
to a truckowner and says, "We don't want you to handle Mr. Des- 
mond Barry's cargo," or just hints at it, most of the truckowners are 
not going to be handling it, under the law as it now is. 

Mr. Barry. I think we might go into a little more of the practical 
aspects of such a demand by a union official. I am quite certain that 
most of the carriers are a great deal more afraid of the Teamsters 
Union than they are of any action the ICC might take. The Team- 
sters action is immediate. In the ICC, you can be tied up for years 
in procedures. 

Mr. Kennedy. Certainly it has been a trend of the Teamsters 
Union to move against the small trucking companies in the United 
States. Most of the larger trucking companies are signed up. So, 
if these small trucking companies go out of business, that just means 
more business, perhaps, for them. At least from our investigation we 
haven't found that they have been reluctant to enforce the "hot 
cargo" clause. 

Mr. Barry. It might be interesting to pursue how many small 
carriers have been forced into mergers with the larger carriers by 
collusion and conspiracy between the larger competitor and the union. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think that is particularly true, from what we have 
found, at least, in the Central Conference of Teamsters, where many 
of the small trucking companies in the United States are going out of 
business. 

Mr. Barry. This is one that likes this business. Even if we don't 
make any money out of it, we are having a lot of fun. 

Senator Curtis. Before we leave the court decisions and the ICC 
decisions, though we could go on indefinitely discussing the details 
of it, the fact remains that neither the courts nor administrative 
agencies have provided an adequate remedy and protection of the 
premises, have they? 

Mr. Barry. I think that is quite obvious. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15623 

Senator Curtis. I wanted the record to have your opinion on that 
because, after all, our purpose in gathering this information is for 
legislation purposes. 

Mr. Barry. Correct, sir. Well, my appearance here is for the 
specific purpose of pointing out that we pursued every legal remedy 
that we knew of, and still have not outlawed the practice. I think 
it is an interesting point, The reasons for the boycott are a little bit 
more complex, but I think it is important also to bring out, because 
I have been charged by many people of being antiunion. 

I am not antiunion and never have been. I would stand up at any 
time and protect, the rights of an individual not to belong to a union, 
if he so desires. But I will also stand up and fight for his rights to 
belong if he wishes to belong. That is his individual choice and he 
has that right. 

By the same token, I think it is obvious that, since I have never 
sued the union for anything, I didn't think the union was the guilty 
party. 

The Chairman. Have you anything further \ 

Mr. Barry. Let me take one quick look at my notes, if I might, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Barry, I wonder if you would tell briefly how 
you pay your drivers ? 

Mr. Barry. Our pay basis for our employees is, on all of our over- 
the-road drivers, we pay them a guaranteed monthly wage, whether 
they work or not, We also pay them a percentage of the gross revenue 
produced by the truck that they operate, and we normally keep a man 
on a specific unit. On top of that, we pay him efficiency bonuses and 
safety bonuses, and at the end of "the year our employees participate 
in one-third of all profits produced by the company. They like it that 
way. They are the most loyal group I have ever seen, and I think they 
are well justified in it. 

In fact, I would like to go back and bring out the loyalty of those 
men. At the time of our boycott, those portions of our operating costs 
controlled by our employee, the man who holds the steering wheel, 
were 73 percent of our total operating costs. Voluntarily, those men, 
by proper operation of their equipment, by efficiency, reduced those 
costs to 59 percent. 

I think that is a very interesting commentary as to whether or not 
our men were satisfied at Galveston Truck Lines. I would like to 
bring one other fact in, though, in connection with the flagout, be- 
cause I believe it is important, 

A Richard Kavener testified in our ICC case, he testified to the 
union duty and obligation to the unionized carriers to keep them in 
a competitive position with other carriers; said that unionized car- 
riers pressured the union to reduce wages to meet nonunion carriers. 
It is to the union interest to keep other wages up, plus where they 
could not flagout on rates. I might go a little further. At the time 
that the carriers proceeded to the district court in our cease and desist 
issue on the complaint proceeding before the Interstate Commerce 
Commission, we had been told by so many people that there were 
special agreements between our competitors pushing the union into 
the boycott of ourselves, that we filed about an 80 question interroga- 
tory with each of the carrier defendants in our various procedures. 

One of those carriers, Santa Fe Trail Transportation, within 24 
hours, returned that interrogatory completely answered in detail. All 



15624 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

of the others, through their counsel, fought to keep from answering 
those interrogatories, which might have shown whether there was any 
extra curricular connection between the carrier and the Teamsters. 

One of these attorneys said that he was appalled at such congres- 
sional-type queries. The court upheld them in not replying to those 
interrogatories. 

A question was asked a while ago as to whether or not there are or 
have been other boycotts since the Galveston one by these same car- 
riers. Here are some important ones. 

The Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma City, a secondary boycott 
was put in, in order to force the employer of a contract on that base 
covering his employees. The motor carrier refused to serve the Air 
Force base, which is one of the most strategically important and 
necessary overall bases in the Nation. 

At Fort Sill, Okla., an artillery school, a contractor on that base 
had a secondary boycott thrown against him and Teamster pickets 
were thrown on the gates. Two Cadillacs appeared one day after I 
notified the base that we would provide the service if the others didn't 
want to. They picked up the pickets, took them across the street 
for a cup of coffe. The trucks went through the gates, delivered their 
freight, picked up other freight, came back, and the pickets went 
back on the gate then. 

Senator Curtis. Was that while you picked up the freight? 

Mr. Barry. No, sir; we didn't have authority to serve Fort Sill, 
but I was sure going to file for one. 

Senator Curtis. The trucks that went through were the ones that 
they were resisting before that time? 

Mr. Barry. They were the carriers that before that had refused 
to serve. I might go in also to this point : At this time we had our 
case before the Commission we were very much afraid we would ob- 
tain a decision on a small, legalized issue of a boycott at Oklahoma 
City, when we knew it was nationwide. 

A group of shippers in St. Louis came to us and said, "Would you 
file a petition with the ICC or an application to provide the service 
that the boycotting carriers refuse?'' We did file such an applica- 
tion. I think one newspaper reporter described it as a territory in 
this application roughly equivalent to the Louisiana Purchase. 

We wanted general authority to serve towns over all of those high- 
ways where these carriers would not serve. We put this clause in 
the application, that if the carriers presently certificated to serve this 
area will certify to the Commission to provide the service authorized 
by their certificate, we will amend or withdraw this application. 

Not one of them certified to the Commission that they would serve. 
The Commission set up a prehearing conference on that issue. Some 
150 motor carriers were in appearance or represented by counsel at 
that hearing in Dallas, Tex. Not one single carrier at that time, as 
represented by counsel, would say that they would serve. 

That hearing, though, has never been set on that application. Gen- 
tlemen, I think that is about all I have. I trust you will forgive me 
for taking as long as I did. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Barry. I think you 
have made an excellent record here. You have posed issues and ques- 
tions that will engage the attention of this committee and certainly 
of legislative committees that have the responsibility for considering 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15625 

legislation in this field, and also the Congress, whose duty it is to try 
to enact laws to protect the rights of citizens in this country, the pub- 
lic, labor unions, and management. I appreciate very much your 
appearance. , .... ■, _ ■. 

I will commend you for your courage and your willingness to make 
sacrifices to stand for and defend that which you think is right. 

Are there any further comments ? 

If not, thank you very much, sir. _ 

The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon. 

(Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the committee recessed with the fol- 
lowing members present : Senators McClellan, Ervin, and Curtis, to 
reconvene at 2 p.m., same day.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

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

The Chairman. Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, we are going into a different matter. 
I would like to call Mr. Coffey. 

The Chairman. Do you swear that the evidence given before this 
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and noth- 
ing but the truth, so help you God ? 

TESTIMONY OF TOM COFFEY 

Mr. Coffey. I do. 

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

Mr. Coffey. My name is Tom Coffey, my address is 1981 Ryance, 
Lincoln, Xebr., and I am the former owner and operator of Coffey's 
Transfer Co. 

The Chairman. That is Coffey's Transfer Co. ? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Do you waive counsel, of course? 

Mr. Coffey. I do. 

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

Mr. Kennedy. What happened to the Coffey's Transfer Co., Mr. 
Coffey? 

Mr. Coffey. I closed the Coffey's Transfer Co. on March 1, 1955, due 
to a secondary bovcott by the Teamsters Union. 

Mr. Kennedy/ Could* you tell the committee what happened which 
brought about that boycott, or what the situation was and why you 
were put out of business ? 

Perhaps you could tell us a little bit about your own background, 
how long you have been in the trucking business, and about your com- 
panv, what States and what areas it covered? 

Mr. Coffey. I started the Coffey's Transfer Co. in 1929, as a one- 
truck operation, driving it myself, and built it up to a small concern 
covering two States, the States of Kansas and Nebraska. We were 
what was known as a "peddle" operation. We served small towns in 
the western half of Nebraska and the western half of Kansas, bring- 
ing the freight from the metropolitan areas of Omaha, Lincoln, and 



15626 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Hastings. Our operation was about 25 trucks with about that many 
drivers. In August of 1955 

Mr. Kennedy. You mentioned going out of business in 1955, and 
I think it was 1956. 

Mr. Coffey. It was 1956 ; I stand corrected. In August of 1955 I 
received notice from the, Teamsters Union that they represented my 
employees and wanted to meet with me. I contacted them by phone 
and said that I was perfectly willing to meet with them if they repre- 
sented my employees, and I asked them to bring evidence of this 
representation with them. 

A meeting was arranged in Alma, Nebr., which was the headquar- 
ters of Coffey's Transfer Co. on August 24, which meeting was held. 
A Mr. Nobel, who was an official of the Teamsters Union in Grandi- 
land, and Albert Parker, who is an official of the Omaha local, 554, 
and a Mr. Robert Baker, whom I will not need to identify to this com- 
mittee, attended this meeting. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is also known as Barney Baker; is that right? 

Mr. Coffey. Barney Baker; that is right. They brought with 
them, and I think this is significant, the cards of seven drivers, pur- 
ported to be the signature cards or whatever they called their cards. 
Four of these cards were signed by men who picked up freight for 
us in Omaha, and one of them was signed by a man who picked up 
freight for us in Lincoln, and another one was signed by a man who 
picked up freight or rather hauled freight from the Omaha terminal 
to the Alma terminal, and the seventh one was signed by a driver 
who hauled freight from the Alma terminal west on out into Kansas. 

On their initial contact, they simply tossed a copy of the Central 
States driver area contract before me and asked me to sign it. I 
objected. First I told them that seven men was not anywhere near 
50 percent of my employees, since I had some 22 drivers, I believe it 
was. They gave me to understand that that didn't make any differ- 
ence, and they didn't have time to sign up my men and they were 
going to organize me from the top down. 

The Chairman. With these 7, 7 of the 21 or 22 drivers that you 
had? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. They represented about a third. 

The Chairman. Proceed with your statement. 

Mr. Coffey. They were going to men from top down and they 
didn't have time to fool with the little companies such as mine, and I 
suggested then that we ask the NLRB for an election. They said they 
weren't interested in an election, and I said that I would insist on an 
election. 

They informed me that if I did, that they would stall any election 
that I might insist on until I was bankrupt anyhow. To make a long 
story short, we just couldn't get together on that meeting, and they 
went on, and on September 17 I had notice that I was going to have a 
strike in Omaha. 

Before I go on, after we had had quite a little conversation and 
argument about organizing my company, the Teamsters local then 
went back and said, "Well, we will sign you up just for Omaha and 
Lincoln offices only," and there was some conversation about an over- 
the-road contract. But that was not their talk when they first came 
out. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15627 

On the morning of September 20, three pickets appeared in front of 
our company. There had been no more contact and no negotiations 
between the Teamsters Union and myself since that one meeting m 
Alma. Three pickets appeared on September 20 and a secondary 
boycott immediately invoked. , _ "' 

On September 26 we filed a petition with the National JLabor .dela- 
tions Board asking an election to be held. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me just go back. On September 20, the picket 
line was placed in front of your place of business, is that correct \ 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had three of your employees that walked out l 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they were later joined by a fourth? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. At that time did other companies stop handling your 
shipments I 

Mr. Coffey. Not that day : no. 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, within how many days '. 

Mr. Coffin. Very shortly thereafter. 

Mr. Kennedy. Shortly after Sept. 20, they stopped handling all of 
your shipments, is that right \ 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Also they stopped making deliveries to your truck- 
ing company \ 

\ Ir. Coffey. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did the union pickets begin following your 
trucks ? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And to your various depots, they would get out and 
start picketing the depot 'where you were making shipments, is that 
right ? 

"Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you picking up goods '. 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you start getting threats, you and the driv- 
ers that continued to work. Did you start receiving threats by tele- 
phone I 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir ; that is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And was there some destruction of property that 
started shortly after the 20th of September \ 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir; we had tires slashed, punctured with ice picks, 
or similar instruments, and we had the wiring torn out of trucks, and 
king pins were pulled so that you would drop trailers, and on one 
occasion a load of butter was raided inside of a public garage and the 
contents was scattered all over the floor. 

Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time you were receiving these 
telephone calls I 

Air. Coffey. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. What would the telephone calls say, and what 
would be said to you over the telephone ? 

Mr. Coffey. Well, the telephone calls were principally to my em- 
ployees and to the wives of my employees. They were threatening 
my employees' children, for instance, "If John doesn't quit working 



15628 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

for Coffey's Transfer, something is liable to happen to that kid of 
yours as he comes home from school," and that sort of thing. 

Mr. Kennedy. They would call up the wives and tell them this? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And during this same period of time, when you 
requested an election to see whether your employees wanted to join 
the union, the Teamsters Union would not consent to such an elec- 
tion? 

Mr. Coffey. That is right ; they fought that election. 

Senator Curtis. Would you yield right there? Now, Mr. Coffey, 
about the time that this strike, or this alleged strike Mas called, where 
four people participated, did a day or two before that you get in- 
formation directly or indirectly that Barney Baker had said that he 
was going to strike if you didn't sign up? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir; I did. I received that information through 
my Omaha office, and I think a reporter for the World Herald called 
us and said that Barney Baker had said, "If Coffey isn't here by to- 
morrow morning and signed up, we are going to strike." 

Senator Curtis. About a day later on the 20th, they did attempt 
to strike? 

Mr. Coffey. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. And it was just within a few days, and you said 
shortly after, you mean a few days after that they started boycotting 
and then slashing tires and threatening employees ? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Do you happen to know whether Barney Baker 
remained in Nebraska during that period of time? 

Mr. Coffey. He was there, yes, for quite a period of time during 
the strike. 

Senator Curtis. Where did these offenses occur against your prop- 
erty, and the phone calls to your employees ? Was that in all of your 
terminals or whereabouts, primarily ? 

Mr. Coffey. No ; the offenses were principally in Omaha. We had 
no trouble in Lincoln, and no trouble in Alma, but in Omaha we had 
a lot of trouble. 

Senator Curtis. Where would your trucks be parked when the first 
would be slashed or wiring pulled out or kingpins pulled out so you 
would drop the trailer ? 

Mr. Coffey. They would be parked at a customers' dock loading up 
for instance, or principally that was it, or around our terminal in 
Omaha. 

Senator Curtis. Did it happen in daytime as well as at night? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Where was this butter truck located ? 

Mr. Coffey. We had made arrangements with the Capital Garage 
in Omaha, which is a public parking garage, to store our equipment 
during the duration of this strike. Normally we stored it on an open 
lot, but that was no longer possible with the union strong-arm squad 
in operation. 

We had to keep everything undercover, and this was stored in the 
Capital Garage in Omaha. 

(Members of the select committee present at this point in the pro- 
ceedings were Senators McClellan, Ervin, and Curtis.) 

Senator Curtis. Was the truck locked ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15629 

Mr. Coffey. I do not believe it was. 

Senator Curtis. But at least it was a covered truck and it was 
closed? 

Mr. Coffey. It was an enclosed truck. 

Senator Curtis. An enclosed truck, and it was closed ? 

Mr. Coffey. That is right. I believe it was sealed rather than 

locked. 

Senator Curtis. The number of employees that got telephone calls, 
either involving threats to their children, their wives, or anybody else, 
was that a number of vour drivers that that happened to ? 

Mr. Coffey. It happened to about all the drivers that we had work- 
ing for us in Omaha. We did not get those calls out of State, out 
of the Alma Terminal. 

Senator Curtis. These seven whose cards were presented to you, 
alleging that they signed up, did you ever learn anything from them 
whether or not tliis was their voluntary action and choice ? 

Mr. Coffey. Two of these seven came to me voluntarily and denied 
having signed them. I frankly did not recognize their signatures as 
their signatures. The others I did not question, and they didn't 
volunteer any information. I don't know but what part of them were 
good and part of them were probably forgeries. 

Senator Curtis. I think you were about to tell us what you did on 
the 26th of September with reference to the NLRB. 

Mr. Coffey. We filed a petition on the 26th of September request- 
ing a consent election, and the Teamsters Union objected. This was 
drug out — it was set for a hearing on October 20. The Teamsters 
Union, in compliance with their threat to stall this thing, requested 
a postponement. The hearing was postponed to the 25th of October. 

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

Mr. Coffey. Then later we were finally allowed an election. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let me go back. Let us take it chronologically. 

On September 30, the National Labor Relations Board set a hearing 
date at Alma, Nebr., on the election request ; is that right ? 

Mr. Coffey. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That hearing on September 30 was to establish three 
points : the question of the establishment of a date and a place for the 
election 

Mr. Coffey. Right. 

Mr. Kennedy. The scope of the election, what areas it should 
cover- 



Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And whether your company was a large enough 
company to be included under the National Labor Relations Board, 
a $100,000 company. 

On October 11, 1955, a notice was sent from the regional director of 
the National Labor Relations Board postponing the election from 
October 20 to October 25 ; is that right? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Postponing the hearing, not the election. 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then on October 12, Mr. Kavner came into the 
situation : is that right ? 

21243— 59— pt. 41 18 



15630 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And stated that he and Pete Capellupo represented 
the Lincoln, Nebr., local ; is that right ? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they offered you a contract at that time cover- 
ing only your Omaha and Nebraska phases of operation ? 

Mr. Coffey. Omaha and Lincoln ; that is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me, Omaha and Lincoln ; is that right ? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you filed unfair labor practices against the 
Teamsters with the National Labor Relations Board on October 14? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that was because of this secondary boycott that 
was going on ? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you losing money during this period of time \ 

Mr. Coffey. We certainly were. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee how or what was hap- 
pening as far as these other trucking companies refusing to handle 
your goods ? 

Mr. Coffey. The other trucklines just simply would not take or 
turn over any freight to us. We operate in a small, sparsely settled 
area out there, and you about got to have both intra and interstate 
freight to see the back of your neck. 

Some of the companies would attempt to turn it over to us. How- 
ever, when they did they found themselves under strike conditions at 
some of their terminals. Naturally 

Mr. Kennedy. The union notified them that if they handled any of 
your commodities, any of the things that you shipped, that they them- 
selves would be struck ; is that right ? 

Mr. Coffey. I presume that they notified them. At least, they were 
struck. 

Mr. Kennedy. They were struck if they handled any of your goods ? 

Mr. Coffey. If they handled it ; that is correct. 

(At this point Senator McClellan returned to the hearing room.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you given to the committee staff a memo- 
randum showing how your shipments went down over this period of 
time? 

Mr. Coffey. I have. 

The Chairman. I present to you a photostatic copy of a compila- 
tion entitled, "Effect of Secondary Boycott Against Coffey's Transfer 
Co." I ask you to examine it and state if you recognize it. 

( Document handed to the witness. ) 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir ; I do. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

That may be made exhibit No. 36. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 36 for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee. ) 

Mr. Kennedy. That breaks it down week by week; is that right? 

Mr. Coffey. Week by week. That gives you the tonnage and very 
graphically shows the effect of a secondary boycott. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it gives the various trucking companies on the 
left and then what the number of shipments were and the weight of 
the shipments? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15631 

Mr. Coffey. The number of shipments and the weight of the ship- 
ments each week. 

Mr. Kennedy. It is broken down by various weeks; is that right? 
Mr. Coffey. By various weeks. 

Mr. Kennedy. The first week is September 11 to September 17, 
where the shipments are considerable? 
Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then September 18 to September 24, they get less, 
and then by September 25 to October 1, 1955, they are virtually all 
^ero by that time? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were not getting any shipments nor were you 
able to ship anything out by that time ; is that correct? 
Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 
Mr. Kennedy. That was over a 2,- week period I 
Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. May I inquire there ? What transportation com- 
panies were refusing to turn freight over to you ? Name some of the 
principals. You don't have to name them all. 

Mr. Coffey. Well, Union Freightways, Watson Bros., Merchants 
Motor Freight. You will find listed on there the Darling Transfer, 
who did turn freight over to us. You will notice while their volume 
went down, they continued to turn freight over to us. Then their 
volume went up a little over on about page 4 or 5 of that exhibit, and 
then they had a strike in Kansas City. The only way they could 
settle that strike was for someone from the Darling Transfer to call 
tlie union and finally agree not to give anything to Coffey. 

The Chairman. Was that a secondary boycott ? Do I understand 
that is a strike to enforce a secondary boycott ? 
Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And that strike occurred in another State, in 
Kansas City, Mo. ? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. It was settled as soon as they agreed not to turn 
any freight over to Coffey Transfer ? 
vlr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. Was there also a strike in Des Moines or Minne- 
apolis, something like that? 

Mr. Coffey. There was a strike in Minneapolis against the Des 
Moines Transportation Co. for the same reason. 

Senator Curtis. And that strike ended when the Des Moines Trans- 
fer agreed not to interline freight with you ? 
Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. Did any of these Teamster leaders ever tell you 
they were going to invoke a secondary boycott, or did they just put 
it in to effect ? 

Mr. Coffey. Certainly they did. 
Senator Curtis. Who told you? 

Mr. Coffey. Barney Baker told me, Kavner told me. They all 
told me what was going to happen to me if I didn't sign up. 

Senator Curtis. Did they tell you more than once? What I mean 
was did they mention it several times ? 

Mr. Coffey. Well, it was mentioned several times at the beginning 
of the argument. 



15632 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN the labor field 

Senator Curtis. That is all at this point, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Kennedy. And during this whole period of time, as I under- 
stand it, the Teamsters refused to permit an election of your employ- 
ees, or refused to voluntarily submit to an election ? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then when they were forced to submit to an elec- 
tion, they wanted an election just in a limited area ? 

Mr. Coffey. That is right. They wanted an election in Omaha, 
only. 

Mr. Kennedy. Only Omaha and then Lincoln, as I understand it. 

Mr. Coffey. Originally they wanted — when they originally came 
out to see me they were talking about signing up the entire operation. 
The operation was small. Then when they discovered I was going 
to argue about it, then they backed up to Omaha and Lincoln, and 
then when it finally came to the hearing before the NLRB I believe 
the record will show they wanted Omaha only. 

Mr. Kennedy. Each time they changed their position, this brought 
about another delay in the hearing? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is, before the National Labor Relations Board. 
In the meantime, your business was down to zero ? 

Mr. Coffey. That is right, 

Mr. Kennedy. You were gradually going bankrupt ? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct, 

Mr. Kennedy. Would you go on now ? We are up to October 25. 
There was a National Labor Relations Board hearing at Alma, Nebr., 
and at that time the union contested the scope of the election. 

Mr. Coffey. Yes. The hearing was held on the 25th of October, 
and it was objected to by the union. The NLRB finally decided that 
we did enough interstate business — at that time you had to do $100,000 
worth — and they 

Mr. Kennedy. If you didn't do that much, of course, you would 
have no recourse at all ? 

Mr. Coffey. I would have no recourse, that is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. There would be no board that you could go to ? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. This way, the fact that you did over $100,000 of 
interstate business, that meant you could at least go to the National 
Labor Relations Board, even though it took a great deal of time? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. On December 7, 1955, the National Labor Relations 
Board completed its investigation. The union and yourself signed 
an agreement whereby the union agreed not to induce its members 
to engage in this secondary boycott activity? 

Mr. Coffey. The union signed an agreement; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you sign the agreement, or was the agreement 
with the National Labor Relations Board? 

Mr. Coffey. The agreement was with the National Labor Rela- 
tions Board. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then on December 19 all the parties agreed that 
there would be an election held in Omaha on December 29 ! 

Mi'. (V)ffey. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the eligible voters were the drivers on your 
payroll as of February 8, is that right? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15633 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. The original employees who went on strike on 
September 20 had been replaced by that time? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the ones that were out on strike were not per- 
mitted to participate in the election? 

Mr. Coffey. Their votes were challenged ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. On December 21, 1955, your attorneys and the at- 
torneys for the Clark Co., which is another trucking company having 
the same problem, notified the National Labor Relations Board that 
the union was violating its agreement, is that right? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. On December 31—1 thought this might expedite 
it in going through it— on December 21, 1955, your attorney and the 
attorney for the Clark Co. notified the National Labor Relations 
Board that the union was violating their settlement agreement signed 
earlier in December. Then on December 27, 1955 — is that correct? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. On December 27, 1955, the National Labor Rela- 
tions Board notified you by telegram that the election was being post- 
poned pending an investigation of charges filed by the union on 
unfair labor practices? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is a very important situation. That delayed 
the election result even more; is that right? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. They filed these charges against you that you were 
coercing your employees ? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was filed on December 27, 1955 ? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. In the meantime, your business, as we have said, 
has been down to zero for about 6 weeks? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then on January 18, a month after that, the Na- 
tional Labor Relations Board issued a notice to all the participants 
that the allegations had not been substantiated? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. That was the unfair labor charges that 
were never proved. 

Mr. Kennedy. So a new election was to be held on January 24, 
1956? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then on January 24, 1956, the election was 
held; is that right? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then on January 27, 1958, the local 554 requested 
a review of the regional director's decision relating to the unfair 
labor charges? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. They wanted a review of those charges that had not 
been substantiated ? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was the result of the election held January 24, 
1958? 



15634 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Coffey. Well, there were four votes against the union and none 
for the union. There were three challenged votes that were not 
counted. 

Mr. Kennedy. The election had been restricted by the National La- 
bor Relations Board just to 

Mr. Coffey. To Omaha only. 

Mr. Kennedy. You had tried to get an election for all of your em- 
ployees, and the National Labor Relations Board held that it should 
be just the Omaha employees, and in the election that was held there 
everyone voted against the union? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

The Chairman. How many votes did you say were challenged ? 

Mr. Coffey. Three, sir. 

The. Chairman. Even if they all voted the other way you would 
have won the election ? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. How many people were eligible to vote, if they 
had all voted in Omaha ? 

Mr. Coffey. Seven people voted. 

Senator Curtis. Were there any that were eligible to vote that did 
not vote? 

Mr. Coffey. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Seven of them, and four voted against the union ? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. And three were challenged ? 

Mr. Coffey. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Had the three challenged votes voted for the union, 
it would have been four to three against ? 

Mr. Coffey. It would have still been four to three and we would 
have won it ; that is correct. 

Senator Curtis. When did they finally announce that decision? 

Mr. Coffey. T think the decision was announced after I closed up. 

Mr. Kennedy. After you sold your business ? 

Mr. Coffey. After I sold the business. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you did not receive the notification about the 
election until April of 1956 ; is that right ? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you had already sold your business because of 
the pressure that had been placed upon you around March 30, 1956 ? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

The Chairman. How many months was that after the election that 
you got notice of the results ? 

Mr. Coffey. Well, the election was in January, sir, and I got notice 
in April. 

The Chairman. Do you mean the NLRB postponed the counting 
of seven votes for 4 months ? 

Mr. Coffey. The Teamsters Union filed briefs and all the legal 
maneuvering that they can go through to stall the counting of that 
vote. The actual election — the results of the election were not known 
until April of 1956. 

The Chairman. You knew the result of it so far as those four 
votes were concerned, did you not ? 

Mr. Coffey. I knew the result. I was sure that I knew the result, 
and I had been informed by the union that it did not make much 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15635 

difference to them which way the election went, that I still had a 
secondary boycott on my hands. 

Senator Curtis. As a matter of fact, when they first approached 
you, you said you wanted an election, did you not? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And you made a formal application for an election 
as early as September 26, did you not? 

Mr. Coffey. I believe that is correct, Senator. 

Senator Curtis. So it took the National Labor Relations Board 
from September until January to hold an election of seven drivers ? 

Mr. Coffey. Right. 

Senator Curtis. I think that is an outrageous thing. 

Mr. Coffey. And from January to April to count them. 

Senator Curtis. Especially in view of the fact that the Teamsters 
Union was not a strange party to the NLRB, and their threats that 
they would drive you out of business by delays. This action on the 
part of the NLRB is inexcusable. 

Senator Ervin. I do not know who constituted the officials of the 
National Labor Relations Board that handled that matter from the 
time of the election down to April, but any kind of a thing that pur- 
ports to be a tribunal under those circumstances that would permit 
anything to be postponed like that, certainly is trifling with the law, 
because any court worthy of the name would have seen that if those 
three challenged votes had been counted it would not affect the result 
and everything that was said about them in connection with them had 
no bearing upon the merits of the controversy. 

Mr. Coffey. The union, in all fairness, had challenged the four 
votes that were finally counted, of course. 

Senator Ervin. It ought to take a man witli a little bit of knowl- 
edge of the law about 15 minutes to have passed on seven challenges. 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. That is one of our principal objec- 
tions, the slowness of the NLRB and the courts in protecting a small 
concern. 

Senator Ervin. I cannot conceive of any reasonable, intelligent man 
spending more than that time. I would say it would take half an 
hour to pass on the validity of those seven votes. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Coffey, did you learn through your attorney 
or otherwise how quickly under the statute the election could have 
been held after you made your application ? 

Mr. Coffey. Well, speaking strictly by memory, I think the mini- 
mum is about 10 days, from the time of notification. 

Senator Curtis. In other words, if by the middle of October that 
election could have been disposed of you would have been in a much 
better position to preserve your business, if that had ended the sec- 
ondary boycott, than you were by dragging on all through those 
months ? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. During that time, all of the expenses of the Cof- 
fey Transfer continued, of course. 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Which involves the equipment and the licensing 
and the taxes and insurance and all of those items, is that correct? 

Mr. Coffey. And we were still providing service, and we were still 



15636 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

operating and handling intrastate freight only. We did not cease 
operation until March 1. 

Senator Curtis. When this boycott was invoked, and these various 
concerns refused to turn freight over to you in Omaha and elsewhere, 
did you have any instances where the bill of lading or some other di- 
rection indicated it was intended to be handled by your line ? 

Mr. Coffey. Oh, yes. We had numerous complaints from shippers 
that merchandise had been routed from an eastern point by Union 
Freightways or Watson, or one of the truck lines to be transshipped 
to Coffey at Omaha, and it would come in by some other line. 

Senator Curtis. For the benefit of the record, Omaha being the 
metropolitan city on the very eastern edge of Nebraska, your Alma 
terminal was roughly 250 miles west of there, was it not ? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. Did you serve any communities that had no other 
freight service? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir ; we served a number of them. 

Senator Curtis. Can you happen to think of some of them ? 

Mr. Coffey. Beaver City, the St. Francis branch, and Danbury, 
and Wilsonville, and those are all small Nebraska towns, and one is 
a county seat town, and they had no other truck service in there. 

Senator Curtis. Did they have any other train service ? 

Mr. Coffey. They had train service three times a week. 

Senator Curtis. Three times a week ? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. This boycott was going on, and you received a let- 
ter, and incidentally, this was one of the other trucklines that was 
struck, from a druggist in a small town who said there was no railroad 
in his community and only one truckline certified to serve his com- 
munity, and that was boycotted and it shut the medical supplies com- 
pletely off from the community. He couldn't fill his prescriptions un- 
less there was something he had there or else he was compelled to get 
in his car and go to a metropolitan city to stock up his drugs. 

The Chairman. The Chair will instruct the chief counsel of the 
committee to prepare a letter transmitting a transcript of the testi- 
mony of this witness to the Chairman of the National Labor Rela- 
tions Board. In that letter the Chairman of the Board will be re- 
quested to provide immediately the witness or witnesses of his staff 
or others associated with the National Labor Relations Board who 
have firsthand knowledge and information regarding the handling of 
this election. 

It will be the purpose of the Chair, with the approval of the com- 
mittee, to have them appear here and give a full explanation of why 
this delay and why better service could not be given. 

In my viewpoint, there is no excuse for it. I would like to hear if 
there is or can possibly be established any valid reason why we can- 
not get quicker action and more effective action out of agencies of 
Government. It is ridiculous that seven votes could not be counted 
in 15 minutes and certified one way or the other. Even if every vote 
were challenged, it ought not to take over 3 days for one man to go 
down there and get the information as to the qualifications and eligi- 
bility of the seven who voted, and make a finding on it and 10 minutes 
thereafter. 






IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15637 

Senator Ervin. As a matter of fact, did they not make a declara- 
tion, the National Labor Relations Board representative, as to who 
was eligible to vote ? 

Mr. Coffey. There was. 

Senator Ervin. Usually a man who conducts the election counts 
up the vote, and he does more or less like an election official in a pub- 
lic election, and he counts up the votes as soon as the polls are closed. 

Mr. Coffey. This was not handled that way, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Now, you also sought relief in an injunctive action 
in Federal court, did you not ? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes sir. 

Senator Curtis. Judge Donahue died before it came to trial ? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. So that shut off one other avenue for at least some 
time in getting this topped ? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Now, of course we have there the exhibit showing 
exactly how your interlining of freight was shut off to zero. But 
in summary, I want to ask you this : The secondary boycott continued 
in effect all during these delays, did it not? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And it continued in effect until you sold your busi- 
ness? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir ; that is correct. 

Senator Curtis. To whom did you sell ? 

Mr. Coffey. I sold the business, the operating authority, to the 
Burlington Truck Lines, Inc., and the equipment and so forth I 
simply liquidated at private sale to anyone who would buy it. 

Senator Curtis. Now, the Burlington Truck Lines, that is part of 
the Burlington Railroad ? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. So it followed the usual pattern of the smaller op- 
erator having to sell to a rather large transportation company, is that 
not correct? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct, yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And also in addition to that, it deprived the public 
of the competition which existed ? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Coffey, if you don't mind, do you have an idea 
of what your loss was on your truckline so far as the rights and the 
equipment was concerned by reason of being forced out of business? 

I am not referring to loss of business or future earnings, but on 
your franchise and your equipment. 

Mr. Coffey. My loss was approximately $50,000 on franchised 
equipment. I had sold an option on this truckline in 1953 for $88,000. 

Senator Curtis. That would be 2 years before ? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir; and when I got through liquidating, the 
truckline and the operating authority, I got about $30,000 out of it. 
That is $30,000 some-odd which makes me about a $50,000 loss on the 
truckline itself, in addition to the operating loss that I took all during 
this secondary boycott. 

Senator Curtis. Now, of course the cost of equipment was higher in 
1955 than 1953. 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 



15638 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. So if it was much higher, your $88,000 figure, if 
that became $90,000, it would be that you got a third. 

Mr. Coffey. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Of the value of it. 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. In other words, to say nothing of your loss of fu- 
ture business and the earnings in there, your actual property, two- 
thirds of it was confiscated. 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. At the present time you are an appointee of the 
Governor of Nebraska? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. In what capacity ? 

Mr. Coffey. I am purchasing agent for the State of Nebraska. 

Senator Curtis. And you have served in the Nebraska Legislature ? 

Mr. Coffey. I have. 

Senator Curtis. For how long a time ? 

Mr. Coffey. I served one term of 2 years. 
^ Senator Curtis. And all during this time that you operated the 
Coffey Transfer, you were a resident of Alma ? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do they have to transfer these votes, when they are 
challenged, to Washington, D.C. ? Did you understand that? 

Mr. Coffey. I could stand corrected on this, but I believe they were. 
I am not sure, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is what I understand. 

Mr. Coffey. You could be correct. 

Senator Curtis. This Pete Capellupo — where does he live? 

Mr. Coffey. Lincoln, Nebr. 

Senator Curtis. But Richard Kavner is not from Nebraska, is he ? 

Mr. Coffey. To the best of my knowledge, he is not. 

Senator Curtis. And Barney Baker is not ? 

Mr. Coffey. No, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Who did Richard Kavner say he represented when 
he came there? 

Mr. Coffey. He told me that he represented the international when 
he came there ? 

He told me that he represented the International Teamsters Union. 

Senator Curtis. Who did Barney Baker say he represented? 

Mr. Coffey. The same people. 

Senator Curtis. I have nothing further. 

Mr. Coffey, was there anything that we have omitted here that you 
felt was important? 

Mr. Kennedy. I have a question. 

On February 15, 1956, the regional director of the National Labor 
Relations Board in Kansas City found that the union was in violation 
of the boycott provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act. Isn't that right? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And filed a complaint with the National Labor 
Relations Board here in Washington, D.C. ? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then on February 16 we had brought out the fact 
that the union brought charges against you for unfair labor practices 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15639 

in the election and these were not sustained by the director in the 
area, the regional director ? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And then the union appealed that, and then a deci- 
sion on that came down, which was also of some importance, on Feb- 
ruary 16, 1956, by the National Labor Relations Board General 
Counsel here in Washington, and he upheld the regional director in 
saying that the charges against you as far as unfair labor practices in 
the election were not sustained. 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then we have the two things going on here, one 
dealing with the election and the other dealing with the boycott; is 
that not correct ? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And on February 20, 1956, the union filed a denial 
of the violation of the Taft-Hartley Act, dealing with the boycotts, 
and appealed to the Board ? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. In the meantime, your business is zero, while all of 
these things are going on ? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then on March 12, 1956, a hearing for both you 
and this other company, the Clark Co., before the National Labor 
Relations Board, was reset for March 13 to April 17. 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then you went out of business on March 30 ? 

Mr. Coffey. I went out of business on March 1, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. March 1 ? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. You went out of business on March 1 ? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you sold it on March 30? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever have the hearing before the National 
Labor Relations Board as to whether the union was, in fact, con- 
ducting a secondary boycott ? 

Mr. Coffey. I had the hearing, yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was that held? 

Mr. Coffey. That went to Federal court, sir, in March of 1956, and 
the Federal court found them guilty. 

Mr. Kennedy. Found them guilty ? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. By that time you were out of business? 

Mr. Coffey. It didn't make any difference to me. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you were sustained both in the election and in 
the secondary boycott, but both of these decisions came to you after 
you were out of business ? 

Mr. Coffey. That is right. I never lost a case before a Federal 
court or before the NLRB, but I lost my business. 

Mr. Kennedy. You won everything, but lost your business ? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. That was because of the various appeals and the 
various delaying tactics of the Teamsters Union during this period 



15640 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

of time. They were found wrong in everything but they were able 
to put you out of business ? 

Mr. Coffey. That is right, because of the effectiveness of their 
boycott while they were stalling, just exactly as they promised me 
they would do. 

The Chairman. The Chair makes this observation. Since I gave 
instructions to counsel a while ago to prepare a letter for transmittal 
of this transcript to the National Labor Relations Board, I have been 
in contact with Mr. Leedom, the Chairman, by telephone, and I re- 
quested that he come up this afternoon and get a copy of the transcript 
of your testimony, particularly relating to this election, where the 
count was delayed for some 4 months. 

In the meantime, he is to assemble his own records, the records of 
the NLRB, and bring with him in the morning at 10 :30 such members 
of his staff that can give information to the committee that it desires 
with respect to any explanation there can be for such unusual delay. 
Mr. Leedom and members of his staff will be here in the morning 
at 10 :30. I withdraw the other announcement that I made. 

Since we found him in town, we can expedite it in that fashion and 
let it follow right along after this testimony rather than delay it. 
I trust that is agreeable. 

Senator Curtis. It is ; and I concur in that very much. I will say 
this, in fairness to the NLRB : If the law is wrong, this committee 
ought to know it. But if it is administration that is faulty, we ought 
to know that. 

The Chairman. I will say, Senator, and I believe you will agree 
with me, certainly on the basis of this testimony an explanation is 
needed. 

Senator Curtis. Yes, and regardless of where the responsibility 
rests, it should be met. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Coffey, how large, approximately, is the city 
of Alma? 

Mr. Coffey. 1,750 people. 

Senator Curtis. It is a county seat town ; is it not ? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. How many people were you giving work to in 
Alma, in the office, and so forth? 

Mr. Coffey. There were about 15 or 18 employees; I could be 
wrong by 2 or 3; there were 15 or 18 employees in the city of Alma. 
It was the largest payroll in Alma. 

Senator Curtis. The largest payroll there. Is that payroll being 
carried on there now ? 

Mr. Coffey. No, sir ; there is one man left there. 

Senator Curtis. How many have moved away, just roughly ? Most 
of them? 

Mr. Coffey. Most of them. There are one, two, or three still there. 

Senator Curtis. Most of them moved away, and while compared 
to industrial centers this is just a handful of people, yet, as you say, 
it was the largest payroll in the town ; was it not? 

Mr. Coffey. To Alma it would be the equivalent of General Motors 
closing down to Detroit. 

Senator Curtis. You were a sizable purchaser of supplies ? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15641 

Senator Curtis. That is, in Alma as well as other points along the 
way? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Coming back to your loss, I wouldn't want the 
record to indicate that your loss was merely two-thirds of the value 
of your franchise and your physical property. You were put out of 
business so far as all of your future earnings are concerned in this 
activity; were you not? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. As well as the provable loss that you can tabulate 
for the months involved from the time the Teamsters walked in your 
door until you had to give up the business ? 

Mr. Coffey. That is right. 

Senator Cuktis. Do you think that if efforts to organize and to be 
recognized and enter into contracts had been left to the people who 
actually worked for you, that you would have found a satisfactory 
solution to every problem raised? 

Mr. Coffey. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. It was the outsiders, such as Barney Baker, Dick 
Kavner, and others, who came in and caused the trouble? 

Mr. Coffey. That is correct. 

Senator Curtis. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervin. I have heard the poet report that wretches hang so 
that jurors may dine. You would just starve to death while justice 
was traveling on leaded feet, despite the fact that you had a just cause 
that ought to have been adjudicated by any man with the intelligence 
of the grade of a moron in not over 30 minutes. That is the tragic 
commentary on the way justice is administered in the industrial field 
in the United States in this particular case. I trust the others are 
not as bad. 

The Chairman. The Chair would make this observation along the 
line of what Senator Curtis said. Let us assume for the moment that 
the Board was diligent in exercising all of its powers, which may 
not be correct ; but assuming that for the moment, there is something 
wrong with our laws when the Teamsters Union can by these methods 
completely destroy a small business enterprise. It is a tactic that 
is reprehensible. It will eventually lead, if followed to its logical 
conclusion, in a civilized society and in a Government such as ours, 
back to the law of the jungle. If the responsibility is on Congress, 
it is the duty of this committee to find it out. If we have failed in 
legislation, we will soon have an opportunity to remedy that condi- 
tion by the enactment of laws that will protect innocent business peo- 
ple and their employees and communities from this sort of an abor- 
tion. 

Mr. Coffey. That is particularly true in the light of a threat or 
remark made to me by Barney Baker at our meeting in Alma, which 
I spoke of. He informed me that I just happened to be in the 
road 

The Chairman. That what? 

Mr. Coffey. That I just happened to be in the road. That it was 
the intention of the Teamsters Union, through these tactics, to organ- 
ize everybody in the State of Nebraska, clear on down to what he 
called the prune peddler, referring to the grocery store clerks. 
"First we will get you and all the rest of the truckers. Then we will 



15642 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

get the warehousemen, and then we will get every grocery store and 
hardware store in the State of Nebraska through the same methods." 

That was their plan at that time. 

The Chairman. We have had Mr. Barney Baker before us, and 
he is a flagrant example of just what any American citizen shouldn't 
be, in my opinion. 

Mr. Coffey. I concur, sir. 

The Chairma- . Proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Coffey. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Glen Coffey. 

The Chairman. Will you be sworn, please ? 

You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this 
Senate select committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and noth- 
ing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Glen Coffey. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF GLEN COFFEY 

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

Mr. Glen Coffey. I am Glen Coffey, formerly terminal manager 
for Coffey Transfer. I live in Omaha, Nebr. I now work for Ford 
Van Lines, in Omaha. 

The Chairman. Mr. Kennedy, you may proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Coffey, you were associated with the Coffey 
Bros. ? 

Mr. Glen Coffey. Coffey Transfer Co. I was terminal manager 
in Omaha. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you handle the goods that were transported by 
the Coffey Transfer Co. when they were being transshipped or inter- 
lined with other trucking companies ? 

Mr. Glen Coffey. Yes. After the pickets were placed around our 
terminal in Omaha, and three men went out on the picket line, it 
was necessary to get the freight delivered, and instead of staying in 
the office and actually running the terminal, I actually went out on 
the trucks and made or attempted to make deliveries and pickups. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you find that other trucking companies would 
not handle your freight ? 

Mr. Glen Coffey. Yes; that is right. When we would attempt 
to deliver freight to the other companies or attempt to pick up freight 
from them, in practically all cases where it involved union truck lines, 
we were refused. 

Mr. Kennedy. Was the action of refusing to handle your freight 
coordinated by any individual or group of individuals? Did you 
learn that? 

Mr. Glen Coffey. Well, actually there were pickets following our 
trucks, and whenever we would stop to unload, the pickets would 
picket back and forth in front of our trucks. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am asking whether the activities of not handling 
your freight, of not making deliveries to your company, whether 
those activities of refusing to do these things were coordinated or 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15643 

handled by any individual or group of individuals, namely Mr. John 
Bridge, in Chicago? 

Mr. Glen Coffey. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. What role did he have in all of this ? 

Mr. Glen Coffey. At practically all of the terminals where we 
attempted to deliver freight, we would run into the problem that the 
men would refuse it on the dock. They would just refuse to handle 
the freight. We would go on to management and try to get them to 
handle it. 

In some cases, management would sign for the freight and we would 
set it off on the docks. In other cases, they said, "No, we can't handle 
it. We have a letter from John Bridge saying that we would have 
trouble at terminals outside of the State of Nebraska if we continued 
doing business with Coffey or Clark Transfer." 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was John Bridge ? 

Mr. Glen Coffey. It was my understanding that he was a labor 
consultant or something for the trucklines in Chicago. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you learn of his relationship with Mr. Hoffa ? 
Did you know of any relationship that he had with Mr. Hoffa ? 

Mr. Glen Coffey. Well, he appeared to be working hand in hand 
with Mr. Hoffa. All directives seemed to be from him, but they all 
were in favor of the Teamsters Union, and it appeared, as near as we 
could see, that he was working more for Mr. Hoffa and the Teamsters 
Union than he was for the carriers. 

Mr. Kennedy. And letters would come out of his office in Chicago 
telling these other trucking companies not to handle your freight, 
is that right ( . 

Mr. Glen Coffey. Yes, that is right. I would like to say this. 
In one instance, I attempted to take some letters that came from the 
schools on commodities. I had 37 letters asking our company to 
pick up commodities from the Omaha Cold Storage Co. there in 
Omaha. I took those letters over to Omaha Cold and gave them to 
Mr. David Saunders, who is their manager. I gave them to him so 
that he would get them ready for me the next day. 

He told me that he couldn't handle them ; that he had been put on 
the blacklist through a letter put out to the companies by John Bridge, 
saying that as long as he done business with Coffey and Clark that 
none of the other trucklines would do business with him. 

Naturally, they were a big concern and did a lot of business with 
the larger trucklines. In one instance he said Watson Bros, refused 
to pick up from him for him doing business with us. If Watson and 
the big lines wouldn't do business with Omaha Cold, that would put 
them out of business, so they had to turn down our business. I then 
took the letters and gave them to another line, Consolidated Motor 
Freight Terminal, and asked them to pick them up from Omaha 
Cold and then deliver them to me at our dock. 

They were a nonunion carrier, and they did this: In May of 1956, 
I testified to this before a hearing of the National Labor Relations 
Board, leaving out the name of the carrier, and Mr. Weinberg, who 
was the attorney for the Teamsters Union, insisted that I give the 
name of the company, of this Consolidated Motor Freight that I had 
pick up these commodities for me. Over the objection of our lawyer, 
or the NLRB lawyer, Mr. Knockman, the trial examiner, insisted that 
I give the name of this company. 



15644 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 

So I had to divulge their name as Consolidated Motor Freight 
Terminal. Within a few days, there was a letter out from John 
Bridge saying that the companies would have trouble in terminals 
outside of the State of Nebraska if they continued to do business with 
Consolidated Motor Freight Terminal. 

The Chairman. As I understand it, Bridge presumably was repre- 
senting management ? 

Mr. Glen Coffey. He claimed to be, as near as we know, and we 
understand that he was on the payroll of some of management. How- 
ever, his letters went out to companies that he did not represent at 
all. Anyone that had a union contract received these letters from 
Bridge, whether he represented them or not. He still mailed the 
letters to them. 

The Chairman. In other words, there was collusion between man- 
agement and the union to put you out of business? 

Mr. Glen Coffey. It appeared that way. 

Senator Curtis. Do we have any of those notices sent out by Bridge 
here ? 

Mr. Kennedy. We have quite a few and we have other witnesses 
that we are going to introduce them with. 

Senator Curtis. I just want to say at this point, that some of those 
notices from John Bridge were shown to me 2 or 3 years ago, and they 
have a very official look ; isn't that correct ? 

Mr. Glen Coffey. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. I couldn't tell, right at the moment, when I glanced 
at them whether this was a notice coming from a Government agency 
or not. It didn't say it was Government, but it wasn't arranged and 
couched in terms of a letter; was it? It was more of a notice? 

Mr. Glen Coffey. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. There was a blacklist, and each week a notice would 
go out from John Bridge's office, telling the various trucking com- 
panies that they shouldn't do business with the following companies ; 
isn't that right ? 

Mr. Glen Coffey. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. Under the hot cargo clause of the contract, and 
otherwise they themselves would be in difficulty with the Teamsters 
Union, and each week the list would change. 

Mr. Glen Coffey. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. It was no more nor less than a blacklist which was 
arranged between Mr. Bridge and the Teamsters Union, and the 
companies that paid Mr. Bridge ? 

Mr. Glen Coffey. It was referred to as the union's blacklist. 

The Chairman. I have before me here what appears to be a carbon 
copy of a letter, with the typewritten signature of John Bridge, 
executive chairman, and it is on the stationery of Motor Carrier Labor 
Advisory Council, John Bridge, executive chairman, motor carrier 
labor consultant. As I understand that, or did you understand that 
that council represented management or business and that Bridge 
was a consultant or the chairman of this council that served the man- 
agement side of the issue ? 

Mr. Glen Coffey. Yes, sir; and he was supposed to be a go-between, 
between management and labor, supposedly. 

The Chairman. Presumably representing management '( 

Mr. Glen Coffey. He was supposed to represent management. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15645 

The Chairman. I hand you a series of carbon copies of letters and 
I will ask you to examine them and, if you can, identify them. I don't 
know whether you can identify them or not. See if you can identify 
them as letters that you referred to that were sent out. 

(Documents were handed to the witness.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Kamerick, you have been previously sworn; 
have you not ? 

Mr. Kamerick. Yes, sir. 

TESTIMONY OP PAUL E. KAMERICK— Resumed 

The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kamerick, I have just presented to 
the witness, Mr. Coffey, a file of carbon copies of letters and possibly 
some other documents. You are familiar with that file, are you? 

Mr. Kamerick. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Where did you procure the file and the carbon 
copies of letters and documents that it may contain ? 

Mr. Kamerick. I secured 'them all under subpena from Mr. John 
Bridge, in his office in Chicago. 

The Chairman. They came out of his file? 

Mr. Kamerick. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Then I think perhaps you should verify them and 
examine them and that package of letters and documents as being 
those you took out of the file of Mr. Bridge. 

Mr.'KAMERiCK. These are the documents I secured from Mr. Bridge. 

The Chairman. They may be made in bulk exhibit No. 37. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 37," for identifi- 
cation and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Now, Mr. Coffey, you may examine them and see 
whether you also identify some of them. 

TESTIMONY OF GLEN COFFEY— Resumed 

Mr. Glen Coffet. Yes, sir. Here is one on May 10 that I recognize. 
The Chairman. Who is it addressed to ? 

Mr. Glen Coffey. It just says, "Gentlemen," and it isn't signed, 
but— 

It is recommended that you immediately discontinue interlining freight with 
the following revised list of carriers in the State of Nebraska. 

and the list is Clark, Abler, Eoss, Consolidated Truck Terminals, 
dated May 10. 

That is a letter that I have seen. 

The Chairman. You have seen the original of it ? 

Mr. Glen Coffey. Yes, I assume an original mailed to a carrier. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Senator Erven. You stated a while ago, as I recall, that you found 
that Mr. Bridge was writing these letters to some carriers by whom 
he was not employed ? 

Mr. Glen Coffey. That is correct. 

Senator Ervin. Did you ascertain whether or not he was giving this 
advice to carriers who wrote him asking for advice? 

Mr. Glen Coffey. I presumed they didn't ask for advice. They 
weren't members of this council or whatever it was that he represents, 

21243— 59— pt. 41 19 



15646 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

and they paid in no dues to it, and their only conceivable connection 
was that they did have a contract with the Teamsters Union, and yet 
they had no contract with Bridge and in no way paid his salary or 
employed Bridge, but these letters were still sent to every carrier 
who had a union contract with the Teamsters. 

Senator Ervin. And they were sent by a man who, so far as you 
have been able to ascertain, had no connection whatever by contract 
or otherwise with some of the people he was sending the letters 
to? 

Mr. Glen Coffey. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions, Senator Curtis? 

Senator Curtis. I do not think of anything right now. 

The Chairman. Did you have a financial interest in this business, 
or were you just an employee ? 

Mr. Glen Coffey. I was just an employee. I was a terminal man- 
ager ? 

The Chairman. All right, sir ; thank you very much. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Clark, please. 

Mr. Chairman, we mentioned during the questioning of Mr. Coffey 
about another trucking company of Mr. Clark's, and Mr. Clark 
represents that company. 

The Chairman. You do solemnly swear that the evidence, given 
before this Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

TESTIMONY OF W. FOY CLARK 

Mr. Clark. I do. 

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

Mr. Clark. My name is W. Foy Clark, and I reside at 601 South 
Third Street, Norfolk, Nebr. I am a copartner in Clark Bros. 
Transfer Co., Omaha, Nebr. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Clark, how long have you been in the truck- 
ing business? 

Mr. Clark. Since about 1938. 

Mr. Kennedy. And were you approached about signing a contract 
with the Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. During what time ? 

Mr. Clark. Two representatives of the Teamsters Union called on 
us in our office at Norfolk, in August of 1955. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many employees did you have at that time? 

Mr. Clark. We had about 35. 

Mr. Kennedy. Where did you operate ? 

Mr. Clark. Our chief operation was from Omaha to northeast 
Nebraska, our home office at Norfolk, and the western point is Ains- 
worth, Nebr. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you operate outside of the State ? 

Mr. Clark. No, we didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Completely inside Nebraska ? 

Mr. Clark. It was an intrastate operation. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15647 

Mr. Kennedy. Who was it that approached you from the Team- 
sters Union ? 

Mr. Clark. We had at one time Mr. Steel and Mr. Parker. At 
another time Mr. Parker and Mr. Kavner. 

Mr. Kennedy. What was Mr. Kavner doing there at the time? 

Mr. Clark. To the best of my knowledge, he represented the Inter- 
national Teamsters Union. 

Mr. Kennedy. Xow, did you agree to sign a contract with them ? 

Mr. Clark. Xo, we didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what reason ? 

Mr. Clark. We didn't believe that they represented the majority 
of our men as bargaining agent. There had been no indication that 
they did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they request an election ? 

Mr. Clark. Xo, sir ; they didn't. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is your salary scale equal to the salary scale set by 
the Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Clark. We have a comparable if not a better scale than the 
Teamsters Union ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. When you refused to sign the contract, did the 
Teamsters call a strike then? 

Mr. Clark. They did. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many of your employees Avent out? 

Mr. Clark. Four employees out of seven at the Omaha terminal. 

Mr. Kennedy. They called the strike only in Omaha ? 

Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And four out of your seven went out ? 

Mr. Clark. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. How many employees did you have totally at that 
time? 

Mr. Clark. About 35. 

Mr. Kennedy. So just 4 out of all of your 35 employees actually 
walked out on strike ? 

Mr. Clark. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Xow, did they also institute a boycott against the 
handling of your freight ? 

Mr. Clark. They did. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did that start ? 

Mr. Clark. About September 14, 1955. 

Mr. Kennedy. At the same time that these individuals went out on 
strike? 

Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did other companies refuse to handle your freight? 

Mr. Clark. They did. 

Mr. Kennedy. And refused to make deliveries to your company ? 

Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did the pickets also follow your trucks ? 

Mr. Clark. They did, to other business places in Omaha. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any acts of violence against your 
equipment ? 

Mr. Clark. We did from time to time, after September 14. 

Mr. Kennedy. What kinds of things? 

Mr. Clark. We had one or two pieces of equipment on which the 
motors had been filled with sugar or some chemical which bound 



15648 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

them up. We had tires ruined by sharp instruments, and on May 12, 
1956, we had a fire which burned almost completely one truck, and two 
others were damaged extensively and our terminal at Omaha was 
burned considerably. 

Senator Curtis. What was the date of that fire ? 

Mr. Clark. May 12, 1956. 

Senator Curtis. Now, did officials representing the fire department 
make an investigation of that fire ? 

Mr. Clark. They did. 

Senator Curtis. What conclusion did they come to and announce 
in reference to the origin of the fire? 

Mr. Clark. The fire marshal determined the fire to be of an arson 
origin. 

Senator Curtis. It was a set fire by someone outside who would 
have access to the property ? 

Mr. Clark. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Where was your equipment located when the fire 
occurred ? 

Mr. Clark. At the rear of our terminal at 1528 North 15th, at 
Omaha. 

Senator Curtis. How many vehicles were set on fire ? 

Mr. Clark. One was set fire, and one on each side of the trailer 
was burned. 

Senator Curtis. To what extent did the terminal burn ? 

Mr. Clark. The west doors, and the roof was damaged to some 
extent. 

Senator Curtis. Now, all of this equipment was located on your 
own property ? 

Mr. Clark. Yes, sir; it was. 

Senator Curtis. It was private property ? 

Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. And where was the equipment located when the 
engines would be damaged with sugar or some other substance ? 

Mr. Clark. They would be parked at our lot. 

Senator Curtis. On your lot ? 

Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. About how many instances of that did you have ? 

Mr. Clark. Two or three that we believed were vandalism. 

Senator Curtis. Did you have any trouble with tires ? 

Mr. Clark. We lost some tires ; yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Damaged or stolen ? 

Mr. Clark. No; I think pierced by some sharp instrument. 

Senator Curtis. Did they ever find out who set this fire? 

Mr. Clark. I believe not. The fire marshal of the State made two 
trips, at least, to Norfolk and questioned certain individuals but to my 
knowledge it was never determined who set the fire. 

Senator Curtis. At least they never appeared to get sufficient evi- 
dence to file charges ? 

Mr. Clark. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. But the damage all occurred in Omaha? 

Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. That is all. 

Mr. Kennedy. How much was the damage from the fire? 

Mr. Clark. I would estimate it to be around $5,000. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15649 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you receive telephone calls as well, or any of 
your employees receive telephone calls ? 

Mr. Clark. I didn't receive any myself because I reside at Norfolk 
and the trouble seemed to be concentrated in Omaha, but I am sure 
and I do not know this definitely, that some of the employees got 
threatening phone calls. One of the boys who lived at Council Bluffs, 
a town next to Omaha, took his wife and family to her mother's home 
in a town downstate until the trouble seemed to be quieted down. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did they tell you that the telephone calls had been 
made to their wives ? 

Mr. Clark. No ; they didn't. 
Mr. Kennedy. Did you learn of that ? 

Mr. Clark. The only coercion or intimidation that was told to me 
personally by one of the employees was one of our employees who 
was on a strike line, or picket line, who came to me and volunteered 
the information that he had been forced to go on the picket line, that 
two representatives from the union had come to his home the night 
before and ask him if he was going to go along with them or get his 
head beat off, and he asked me, "What would you do? 

The Chairman. May I ask, did he identify the representatives ot 
the union that came to him ? _ 

Mr. Clark. Yes, but he didn't give me their names. 
The Chairman. You don't know who they were? 
Mr. Clark. No ; I don't, Senator. 

Senator Curtis. In general, were the same transportation com- 
panies boycotting you that were boycotting Coffey? 
Mr. Clark. Yes, sir ; nearly always the same. 

Senator Curtis. Did you likewise have an experience where a ship- 
per designated your line to carry the freight, and they would refuse 
to give it to you ? 

Mr. Clark. Yes, sir ; many of them. 

Senator Curtis. Did you have an experience with the daily paper 
at Norfolk, in regard to the shipment of paper along that line? 
Mr. Clark. Yes, sir ; we did. 
Senator Curtis. Tell us about that. 

Mr. Clark. It was the radio station owned by the paper there Sen- 
ator, who seemed to be having the difficulty of obtaining paper for 
their teletype machines, and they have had lots of trouble. They 
have routed their shipments various times from the East to be trans- 
mitted to us at Omaha, and they have always come through some 
other carrier. 

Senator Curtis. Even though they would request that it be picked 

up by you ? . 

Mr. Clark. A number of times they have refused shipments be- 
cause they weren't delivered by us, and still it never corrected the 
situation, the boycott continued. 

Senator Curtis. Did information ever come to you of shippers 
located some distance from Nebraska being told that they couldn't 
send freight on your transfer line ? 

Mr. Clark. I have many letters in the file which show that shippers 
have said that they couldn't ship via our line because of the boycott, 

Senator Curtis. How far away were some of them? 

Mr. Clark. Some as far as New York. 



15650 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. As far as New York ? 

Mr. Clark. Yes, sir; the incident I just told about with the radio 
station was the Associated Press in New York. 

Senator Curtis. You mean the Associated Press ? 

Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. The Associated Press shipment of paper for the 
teletype machines, you mean ? 

Mr. Clark. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. You received a notice as far away as New York, 
or someone did, that they couldn't patronize Clark Bros. Transfer ? 

Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did you receive any from any other States ? Did 
you learn of such notice being given in Indiana, any place or Ohio ? 

Mr. Clark. Well, I believe the shipping point for this paper was 
in Indiana, and the home office or the office who had ordered the paper 
to be shipped was New York, and the shipping point would be In- 
diana. 

Senator Curtis. How big was your operation, and about how many 
vehicles and how many employees ? 

Mr. Clark. About 35 employees, and probably 50 units. 
< Senator Curtis. I think Mr. Clark it is very significant that this 
rich and powerful Teamsters Union would go to the extent of carry- 
in their fight clear to New York City, halfway across the continent, 
to drive out a, little businessman in Nebraska that employed 35 people. 
It is quite significant that they had a good goal in mind far beyond 
driving Clark Bros, out of existence? 

Mr. Clark. Driving Clark Bros, out of business, it goes further 
than that. We were merely, as Mr. Coffey stated, in the road to a 
program which I understood was to organize all of the State of 
Nebraska. 

Senator Curtis. Did any Teamster representatives ever say any- 
thing to the effect to you ? 

Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Who did? 

Mr. Clark. Mr. Kavner. 

Senator Curtis. That is Richard Kavner ? 

Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Did anybody else ever say it ? 

Mr. Clark. I do not think so. I got it secondhand from other 
places. 

Senator Curtis. How effective was the boycott against you ? 

Mr. Clark. We were fortunate, inasmuch as we did a great share 
of our business in intrastate and local business, which the Teamsters 
didn't so tightly control, and probably our business was cut in two, 
about the middle, and we were able to continue operation at half-mast 
with intrastate business. 

Senator Curtis. And that fact was the only reason you were able 
to keep going? 

Mr. Clark. It saved our lives ; yes. 

Senator Curtis. Is the boycott still going on ? 

Mr. Clark. We still have a one-man picket line at our office in 
Omaha, and we are still unable to do business with many of the inter- 
line carriers in Omaha. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15651 

Senator Curtis. Have you tried recently ? 

Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. . 

Senator Curtis. You have had instances where they have denied 
you freight, where it would be the logical thing or the direct thing 
that it be given to you ? 

Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. 

Senator Curtis. Will you name those carriers that have recently 
denied you freight? . . . 

Mr. Clark. Well now, Senator, this is more sins of omission than 
commission. We are not receiving the normal flow of interline 
freight from these carriers, but we have been able to deliver freight 
to them. They do not boycott us quite to the extent that they did 3 
years ago, inasmuch as they wouldn't accept any freight from us. 

Senator Curtis. If it is business coming to them, they will take it ; 
and if it is business that they have already handled, you do not get 
your share? 

Mr. Clark. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Does the present form of the boycott take on sort 
of an undercover aspect, so that you don't always know why you don't 
get the business ? Is that correct ? 

Mr. Clark. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. But you can tell that your volume is substantially 
down? 

Mr. Clark. That is correct. 

Senator Ervin. Did the Teamsters ever seek to obtain a representa- 
tion election among your employees ? 

Mr. Clark. No, sir ; they did not. 

Senator Ervin. Did they demand that you make your employees 
join the Teamsters? 

Mr. Clark. What is the question, please ? 

Senator Ervin. Did these representatives of the Teamsters that 
talked to you demand that you as employer make your employees 
join the Teamsters? 

Mr. Clark. They merely demanded that we sign a contract and 
recognize them as bargaining agent for our people. _ 

Senator Ervin. In other words, without ever seeking a representa- 
tion election, the Teamsters demanded that you sign a contract recog- 
nizing that they were the bargaining representatives of your em- 
ployees, who had never chosen them to be such ? 

Mr. Clark. That is right. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? 

Senator Erven. I have one other question. 

Was this injury to your vehicles and your tires done in the daytime 
or at nighttime? 

Mr. Clark. It would be at night. 

Senator Ervin. There is something in the Scriptures which says 
that men love darkness rather than light because it conceals evil. We 
run into that at times when violence involves injury of property. 

Mr. Kennedy. You filed charges with the National Labor Relations 
Board, charges of unfair labor practices against the Teamsters, and 
local 554? 

Mr. Clark. We did. Mr. Kennedy, I have prepared a short chro- 
nology which will bring out or point up to the committee how much 



15652 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

we have done from a legal angle to gain relief and I will submit very 
little relief has been obtained. 

Mr. Kennedy. You don't feel under the laws as they are presently 
written that there is much relief for somebody in your position ? 
Mr. Clark. That is correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. And for instance, in this case, by the time that the 
courts and the National Labor Relations Board actually acted on the 
complaint of unfair labor practice, and on this complaint of the 
secondary boj^cott, some 6 or 8 months had gone by ; isn't that correct? 

Mr. Clark. In many instances 6 months before any action was 
taken. 

Mr. Kennedy. Any by that time, unless you had had this great 
deal of intrastate business you would have been out of business? 

Mr. Clark. That is right. 

Mr. Kennedy. For instance, the injunction by the District Court 
of Nebraska was not issued until July of 1956. 

Mr. Clark. Correct. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand the coordination for handling 
the boycott was handled through a Mr. John Bridge, in Chicago ? 

Mr. Clark. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any information regarding his activ- 
ities? 

Mr. Clark. I saw letters written to interline carriers, whom he 
purported to represent. 

Mr. Kennedy. Telling them not to handle your goods ? 

Mr. Clark. Yes, sir ; we were on the list. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you understand it was a blacklist that was pre- 
pared by the Teamsters Union? 

Mr. Clark. Yes. I saw it many times. 

Mr. Kennedy. And he coordinated this activity and sent it out to 
the various truckowners that they would get into difficulty with the 
Teamsters Union if they handled goods with companies such as yours ? 

Mr. Clark. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And during this time your employees showed or 
evidenced no interest in wanting to join the Teamsters Union? 

Mr. Clark. Sometime in October of 1955, they voluntarily printed 
in our home daily paper that they were loyal to our company and 
didn't wish to be represented by any union. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Did they have any of your members signed up at 
all that you know of, of your employees ? 

Mr. Clark. I didn't see any application cards, but 4 of our 7 em- 
ployees at Omaha were on the picket line ; only 4 out of 35. 

The Chairman. And one of those told you he was forced to go 
on there under threat of getting his head beat off? 

Mr. Clark. That is right. 

The Chairman. Senator Curtis. 

Senator Curtis. Was your injunction that you filed in the Federal 
court filed before Judge Donohoe during his lifetime, or did you 
experience the same delay that Coffey Transfer had ? 

Mr. Clark. We started hearings before Judge Donohoe and we 
were about 2 days into the session when he suffered an attack. 

Senator Curtis. What judge completed the case? 

Mr. Clark. Judge John J. Delehanty. 



ERRATA SHEET 

This chronology should have been included in the testimony of 
W. Foy Clark, on page 15652 [ part 41] of the hearings entitled 
'"Investigation of Improper Activities m the Labor or Management 
Field." — 



Brief chronology to point up to the Senate Select Committee what we (Clark 
Bros. Transfer Co.) have done, under present laws, to gain relief from secondary 
boycott and other pressures by the Teamsters Union. We are fortunate, in 
that our business was to a large percent intrastate local business which the 
Teamsters Union did not so tightly control. 

August 18, 1955 : Teamsters Union representatives called upon us at Norfolk, 
Nebr., claiming to represent our employees as bargaining agent in the matter 
of wages, hours, etc. 

September 1, 1955 : The Nebraska State Railway Commission granted Ne- 
braska carriers a 10-percent rate increase in intrastate traffic. 

September 7, 1955 : Clark Bros, employees received a 10-percent across-the- 
board wage increase. 

September 14, 1955 : Four of seven employees appeared on a picket line at 
our Omaha terminal. Concerted action was taken by employees of unionized 
carriers to divert business normally tendered to our line away from us to other 
carriers. Also shipments originating in Omaha, at various companies, were 
rerouted away from us to other carriers. 

October 13, 1955 : Much evidence was gathered showing unlawful secondary 
boycott by the Teamsters' Union and on this date our attorneys filed unfair 
labor practices charges with the National Labor Relations Board, case No. 
17-CC^43. A field examiner for the NLRB made an investigation. 

December 8, 1955 : A settlement agreement between the union and the National 
Labor Relations Board was signed stating that the union admitted to no viola- 
tions of the Taft-Hartley law, but agreed not to violate it any more. This 
agreement was signed and posted on the above date. This settlement agree- 
ment had some effect to reestablish our interline business with some of the 
larger carriers almost to normal. 

January 10, 1956 : A picket line of one man appeared at the dock and ter- 
minals of Des Moines Transportation Co., with whom we were doing extensive 
business since the signing of the settlement agreement. As a result we were no 
longer able to do business with Des Moines since the threat heretofore made by 
the union, that any company doing business with Clark Bros. Transfer Co. would 
be struck, was carried out. 

January 27, 1956 : We exchanged a load of freight in the forenoon of this date 
at Omaha with Darling Transfer. In the afternoon of this date a 3-hour strike 
occurred at their terminal in Kansas City. 

February 3, 1956 : Our attorneys filed, in our behalf, an injunction under sec- 
tion 10 of the National Labor Relations Act, with trial commencing March 15, 
1956. 

May 2, 1956 : A hearing before the NLRB trial examiner. 

May 12, 1956 : A fire occurred in our Omaha terminal burning in part three 
trucks and damaging our terminal building to the approximate extent of 
$5,000. 

July 18, 1956 : The trial examiner filed an intermediate report recommending 
the issuance of a cease-and-desist order against local 554. 

July 30, 1956 : Injunction granted. 

December 26, 1956 : The cease-and-desist order above recommended was is- 
sued. Later taken to court of appeals for review and cross petition. Still 
pending to date. 

21243 — 59— pt. 41 (1) 



January 29, 1957 : National Labor Relations Board filed criminal contempt 
proceedings against two agents of local 554, who were ordered to show cause 
why they should not be held in contempt of court by April 9, 1957. This case 
has not been tried to date. 

January 30, 1957 : One-day strike occurred at Bos Truck Lines and Burlington 
Truck Lines in Des Moines, Iowa, for no apparent reason other than that they 
had been interlining freight with Clark Bros, at Omaha. 

December 27, 1957 : A complaint was filed with the National Labor Relations 
Board charging that a secondary boycott still continued. 

February 11 and 12, 1958: Hearing before a trial examiner in Des Moines, 
Iowa, to answer above complaint. 

August 28, 1958 : A cease-and-desist order was issued by the National Labor 
Relations Board. Attorneys for the union have filed petition for review and at 
this time is still pending. 

For Clabk, 
Partner, Clark Bros. Transfer Co. 

o 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15653 

Senator Curtis. He granted an injunction? 

Mr. Clark. He did. 

Senator Curtis. Do you remember when that was t 

Mr. Clark. On Jury 30, 1956. _ 

Senator Curtis. Did Teamster representatives live up to that m- 

' im Mr 10 Clark. It made little difference with them. In fact, they 
didn't even advertise to their constituents that there was an injunction. 

Senator Curtis. Has there been any further proceedings in the 
action ? Has anyone been cited for contempt by the court for violat- 
ing the injunction? . 

Mr. Clark. There has been. Two agents of local 554 in Omaha, 
have been cited for contempt. 

Senator Curtis. What two agents were they? 

Mr. Clark. Albert Parker and Leslie Tieson. 

Senator Curtis. That hasn't been determined yet, has it? 

Mr. Clark. That has not been determined. The case hasn't been 
tried to date. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Clark. 

Mr. Clark. I have one or two words I would like to add. 

The Chairman. All right, sir. You may. 

Mr. Clark. I might say that when this action was first taken 
against us, that our company felt very much alone in a very big 
fight, and that we were fighting a lost cause, and that we saw very 
little light until this committee started action, and many of the 
things were brought to light which you have brought to light. 

I want to commend you Senators for your statesmanship in trying 
to correct a deplorable situation. At one time we thought our per- 
secution was an isolated case, but after some of the revelations of 
your committee the danger to our whole economy is revealed. While 
this may seem a little farfetched to the general public, those of us 
who are acquainted with the situation know that it is dangerous. 

I will add that if enough of the people over on Capitol Hill become 
statesmen for a day or long enough to enact some legislation that will 
help you people to obtain the objectives which you seem to be after, 
your names should go down in history along with George Washington 
and Andrew Jackson. 

The Chairman. Well, that is very complimentary, and we appre- 
ciate your remarks. We are not here to seek any glory. We hope 
that if, as a result of the arduous days that we spend here trying to 
get this information, we can get some legislation that will serve the 
welfare of this country, protect working people from exploitation, 
and also make it possible for small businesses or any business to op- 
erate in a traditional free enterprise system, without oppression, with 
out terrorism, vandalism, other acts of criminal nature being com- 
mitted against them, if we can just accomplish that and get legislation 
that will eradicate these evils that we have exposed, the committee, 
each member of it, will be amply rewarded, whether their names are 
ever mentioned in history or not. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. Clark. I hope some prayers are with you. 



15654 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Dean Joy. 

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. Joy. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF H. DEAN JOY 

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

Mr. Joy. My name is H. Dean Joy. I am the comptroller of 
Darling Transfer Co., in Auburn, Nebr., where I reside. 

The Chairman. You may proceed, Mr. Kennedy. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been with the Darling Co., Mr. 
Joy? 

Mr. Joy. For approximately 5 years. 

Mr. Kennedy. On January 27, 1956, was there a strike called 
against Darling by Local 41 of the Teamsters in Kansas City ? 

Mr. Joy. Yes ; there was. 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us what that was all about, and why 
the strike was called against the company ? 

Mr. Joy. I will give you just a little background before I go into 
the actual items. On the day that the strike was called, Mr. Ralph 
Darling, the general manager of the Darling Transfer, was ill, so I 
was called upon to transact the various phone calls and so forth that 
were required to try to get us back to work. 

At the time, and also on the following day, on Friday and Satur- 
day, I made minutes of all the conversations that occurred so that if 
anything should come up in the future I would be able to refer to them 
and refresh my memory. 

The Chairman. Mr. Joy, I hand you here what purports to be 
photostatic copies of the notes that you made at that time. I believe 
that they consist of four pages. Will you examine it and state if you 
identify it, please, sir ? 

(Document handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Joy. Yes, sir; this is a photostatic copy of the notes that I 
made at the time. I have the original notes before me. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

The photostatic copy may be made exhibit No. 38. 

(Document referred to marked "Exhibit 38" for reference, and 
may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Joy. I will not read directly from the notes, but will refer 
to them. 

On January 27, 1956, at 3 :15 p.m., our terminal manager in Kansas 
City, Mr. Ray Weaver, called me and told me that we were on strike 
in Kansas City ; that a union representative of local 41 had come to 
the dock and ordered our drivers off the job. 

He stated that we would not be able to move any trucks in or out 
of Kansas City. Also, when he asked them what the purpose or what 
the reason was, that they would give no reason, but told him that it 
was something at Auburn and Omaha and to get in touch with us up 
there to find out. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15655 

After talking to him, I drove to Mr. Darling's house and talked to 
him, to try to decide what to do or where to go from there. 

We decided to call the Des Moines Transportation Co. in Des 
Moines, Iowa, who had had a similar strike a few days or weeks 
previous, to find out what they had done and where they had gone 
for relief. I talked to a Mr. Bernie Baker, who is a part owner or an 
owner of the Des Moines Transportation Co. in Des Moines, at ap- 
proximately 4 p.m. He would give me no information except just 
to tell me to call Jolin Bridge in Chicago and get the story from him. 

Senator Curtis. Which Baker was that? 

Mr. Jot. Mr. Bernie Baker, B-e-r-n-i-e, I suppose, of the Des 
Moines Transportation Co. It is not the Barney Baker referred to 
previously in the testimony. 

Then about 4 :05, right after that phone call, our terminal manager 
in Kansas City called and he stated that he had talked with a repre- 
sentative of the Highway Carriers Association, which is another 
trucklines group, and they had advised starting an injunction in 
Kansas City against the union, to get us back to work there. How- 
ever, I told him to hold off for a while until I could get more informa- 
tion from the various sources that I needed it from. 

I called John Bridge in Chicago about 4 :15. 

Mr. Kennedy. Why did you happen to call John Bridge? 

Mr. Joy. That was the advice that I received from the Des Moines 
Transportation Co., as to the method in which we could possibly get 
back to work. 

Mr. Kennedy. All right. Go ahead. 

Mr. Joy. Mr. Bridge explained that the basic reason we were struck 
in Kansas City was because we had given some freight to Clark and 
Coffey in Omaha. In that regard, I might state that we had con- 
tinued giving freight and receiving freight from Clark and Coffey 
even though we had been advised against it previously. We felt tlxat 
we should do all in our power, at least, to try to break this up, and 
continued to do business with those people. 

The Darling Transfer Co. had done business with Clark and Coffey 
for many years, and the business relationship had always been good. 

Senator Curtis. They were both regarded as responsible operators? 

Mr. Joy. Very much so. 

Senator Curtis. And were attempting to serve the public in their 
transportation needs in the areas where they were licensed ? 

Mr. Joy. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Did the Darling Co. have any contract with 
Bridge? 

Mr. Joy. We are a member of the Motor Carrier Labor Advisory 
Council, of which Mr. Bridge is executive secretary. We joined that 
council in, I believe it was, March or April of 1955, under some pres- 
sure. 

Senator Ervin. Under some pressure ? What do you mean by that ? 
Pressure from whom? 

Mr. Joy. Well, I don't know for sure, myself. The pressure was put 
on Mr. Darling by someone. Whom, I can't tell you. I am not sure. 

Mr. Kennedy. A union official ? 

Mr. Joy. I think probably a union official. 

Senator Ervin. Some Teamsters Union official ? 



15656 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Joy. Yes. Mr. Bridge also stated that he was sure that if we 
would agree not to do business with Coffey and Clark, that we could 
get back to work in Kansas City. He said he would get hold of Mr. 
Hoffa and call me back with further instructions. 

At 4 :30, right after the conversation, I called our terminal manager 
in Omaha, who is Mr. Charles Sibley, and brought him up to date on 
what we were trying to do and what happened in Kansas City. He 
had not heard of it as yet at that time. 

Mr. Bridge called back to me at about 4 :50 p.m. and told me to call 
Mr. Frank Fitzsimmons in Detroit any time after 6 o'clock in the 
evening, and tell him that we would discontinue business with Clark 
and Coffey, and he felt that Detroit would take care of clearing us at 
Kansas City. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Fitzsimmons was a Teamster official ? 

Mr. Joy. I assume so. 

Mr. Kennedy. You found that out, did you not ? 

Mr. Joy. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. He is at the Teamster headquarters in Detroit? 

Mr. Joy. Yes. I was to call him at his home, however. But I am 
certain that he was a Teamster official, as he called a Mr. Williams in 
Kansas City, who I know as a Teamster official. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Eoy Williams ? 

Mr. Joy. I believe it is. 

Mr. Kennedy. President of local 41 ? 

Mr. Joy. Yes. 

I called for Mr. Fitzsimmons in Detroit at his home at about 6:15. 
His wife said he had just left, but would be back about 9 p.m., so I 
asked to have him call back or report at that time, whenever he re- 
turned. 

Then I called Mr. Weaver, our terminal manager at Kansas City, 
and told him we would probably get clearance some time on Sat- 
urday and we discussed the advisability or possibility of getting our 
trailers into and out of Kansas City. We had some trailers loaded. 
We had freight on pickup trucks "backed into the docks with open 
backs so that they could be riffled if they were not unloaded onto the 
dock. We were not given an opportunity to have our men unload 
the trucks onto the dock when they were called off, as the usual case. 
They were just sent home summarily, without any opportunity to 
finish the job that they had started. 

The Chairman. Who sent them home ? 

Mr. Joy. A representative, a business agent, or someone from the 
local in Kansas City. He came onto the dock and told them to go 
home, that they were done for the day, as I understand it. 

Senator Ervin. And didn't allow them an opportunity to secure 
the contents of the trucks against possible looting ? 

Mr. Joy. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. Joy. Mr. Fitzsimmons called me at 8 :05 p.m., and I told him 
the story as I knew it, and explained the Clark and Coffey question, 
which he didn't seem to know about. He said that if we agreed not 
to do these things, that he was sure we would be cleared. 

The Chairman. Do what things ? 

Mr. Joy. Apparently doing business with Clark and Coffey, which 
was what I asked him about or told him about, that that apparently 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15657 

was the reason we were struck in Kansas City, and that we would 
agree, out of economic necessity, to not interline with Clark and 
Coffey any more. 

The Chairman. Did you agree to it ? 

Mr. Joy. We agreed to it. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Senator Ervin. Did Mr. Bridge, in your telephone conversation 
with him, ever tell you why the Teamsters were objecting to your 
doing business with Coffey and Clark ? 

Mr. Joy. No, he didn't tell me why. He assumed that I knew why. 

Senator Ervin. What did you assume ? 

Mr. Joy. I assumed it was because of a secondary boycott being put 
on Clark and Coffey. 

Senator Ervin. But did you ever get any information as to what 
was the objective of the secondary boycott? 

Mr. Joy. Xo, sir ; no definite reasons. 

Senator Ervin. You never were informed that the objective ot the 
secondary boycott was to compel Clark and Coffey to sign a contract 
with the Teamsters, recognizing the Teamsters as the bargaining 
agent for their employees, regardless of their consent ? 

Mr. Joy. No direct information that I gathered, nothing direct. 
Secondhand, yes. . . 

Mr. Kennedy. On the first part of the question, this doesn't answer 
that aspect of it, but according to your notes it says, 

Called John Bridge in Chicago about 4:15. He explained that the basic 
reason we were struck at Kansas City was because we had given some freight 
to Clark and Coffey at Omaha, and that he was sure that if we would agree 
not to deal with Coffey and Clark that we could get the dogs called off in 
Kansas City. 

Senator Ervin. He explained that, that Mr. Bridge had told him 
that, I was trying to find out if Mr. Bridge ever gave a reason. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes ; I understood that. 

Senator Curtis. Did your contract with the Teamsters have the 
so-called hot cargo clause in it ? 

Mr. Joy. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. Put in there at whose insistence '. 

Mr. Joy. By the union's, of course. 

Senator Curtis. I am aware of that, but the record should show 
that vou were not the promoters of the idea, 

Mr. Joy. As far as we in the contract are concerned, we are only 
signers, actually. We are not negotiators. The contract is nego- 
tiated by employer representatives in Chicago, but we are a small 
company. 

The Chairman. Was this man Bridge one of the negotiators or 
representatives of the truckers' association group ? 

Mr. Joy. Yes, Mr. Bridge and some representatives of the motor 
carriers, some of the larger carriers in Omaha, who go to Chicago 
on the negotiating committee and help to negotiate a contract. 

Senator Curtis. That is what they called their standard contract? 

Mr. Joy. Yes. It is a 12-State area contract that is the same in 
all areas. 

Senator Curtis. You are told to sign, or else ? 

Mr. Joy. Yes ; that is right. 



15658 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Fitzsimmons, we are still on that subject, called, and he stated 
that he was sure we could be cleared if we did not do business with 
Clark and Coffey, and that he would call Williams in Kansas City 
in that evening if he could reach him. That was on Friday evening. 
That was the last conversation of that evening, so on Saturday morn- 
ing about 9 :30 or 10 o'clock I called our terminal manager at Kansas 
City to see if anything had been done or if he had received any word 
from the union as to whether we would be still out on Monday or 
whether we would still be struck, or whether he received any word 
from the men that they had been instructed in any way. 

But he said that the situation was the same, but he would try to 
get hold of Williams also and see what the situation or the status 
was at the time. 

I called Mr. Bridge again after that conversation and told him 
that I had called Detroit and told them that we would agree to the 
conditions outlined previously. Mr. Bridge said that he would get 
hold of Hoffa and try to get us clear on Saturday. 

On Monday morning our employees were back to work. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you had refused to handle any of the freight 
for either one of these companies ? 

Mr. Joy. Yes. That was the agreement. That was the agreement 
that we had to make to be able to stay in business. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that this 
took place starting on January 27, 1956, just about 1 month after 
the agreement had been signed by local 554 with the National Labor 
Relations Board that this secondary boycott would be discontinued 
against Clark and Coffey. This all took place after the agreement 
had been signed that they wouldn't do this any more. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Counsel, do you know whether the Interna- 
tional Teamsters Union was a party to the agreement ? 

Mr. Kennedy. After both Clark and Coffey brought charges of 
unfair labor practices before the National Labor Relations Board, the 
Board, even though it was delayed, put out an opinion and made them 
sign this agreement, which they signed, but they obviously continued 
the same practice. 

Senator Curtis. Did the representatives of the international sign 
that agreement, or was it just the local ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Just local 554, but it was on behalf of the Teamsters 
that the boycott would be discontinued. 

Senator Curtis. I understand ; yes. 

Mr. Joy. I might go into the reason a little more. 

I brought a copy of a freight bill along that is dated January 25. 
That is the date we picked up the freight, the truckload shipment that 
we picked up in Kansas City. We tendered it to Clark on January 
2G, and we were struck on January 27. 

Mr. Kennedy. In answer to your question, Senator, it was signed 
by the secretary-treasurer for the local and the attorney for the 
international. 

Senator Curtis. Who was the attorney ? 

Mr. Kennedy. David D. Weinberg. He signs himself as attorney 
for the international union. 

Senator Ervtn. Can you think of any purpose for a hot-cargo 
clause in a contract other than the fact that it arms the Teamsters 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15659 

with a weapon to make third persons with whom they have no con- 
tract relations subject to their demands? 

Mr. Joy. I can think of no other purpose. 

Senator Ervin. In other words, it doesn't really have any place in 
governing relations exclusively between the Teamsters and the com- 
pany that agrees to the hot-cargo clause ? 

Mr. Joy. That is right. It only gives the unions, or the Teamsters 
in this case, an organizing tool. 

Senator Erven. It gives them a club by which they can compel the 
company which contracts with them to bring pressure upon third 
parties which is calculated to cause the third parties that have no 
contractual relationship with the Teamsters to submit to the will of 
the Teamsters ? 

Mr. Joy. That is correct. 

(At this point Senator Goldwater entered the hearing room.) 

Mr. Joy. I would like to add a little bit more on the feeling of our 
company, or Mr. Darling and myself, in regard to agreeing to such 

a thing. . 

Kansas City is our major point, our major revenue point, lhe 
bulk of our revenue comes from Kansas City. We are a short-haul 
carrier between Kansas City and Omaha, and without being able to 
pick up or deliver freight in Kansas City we are out of business. So 
a strike in Kansas City is a strike at the heart of our business. I 
would say that this particular short strike probably cost our company 
in the neighborhood of $5,000. 

The Chairman. Why do you sign one of the hot-cargo contracts in 
the first instance? You obligate yourself then to do their bidding in 
order to hurt innocent people, innocent businesses. Why do you sign 
it in the first place ? 

Mr. Joy. As concerns us, we have no recourse except to sign it or 
go out of business. . . 

The Chairman. Why do you have to belong to an association 
where you don't have any voice in what kind of a contract they are 
negotiating for you ? 

Mr. Joy. Well, it is either that or go to Chicago ourselves and try 
to negotiate a separate contract which, under the conditions in the 
past several years, has been impossible. 

Senator Ervin. In other words, you are saying in effect that under 
the practical operation that exists in law, that instead of putting the 
employees on the equality of bargaining power with the employer, 
which it is designed to do, that the Teamsters Union, under existing 
law, has a disproportionate bargaining power under which they can 
virtually dictate the terms of the contract or put a trucker out of 
business entirely ? 

Mr. Joy. Yes. They can do that with the divide-and-conquer con- 
cept of setting up one company or a small group of companies and 
through a competitive necessity, they all go along. 

Senator Ervin. From an economic standpoint, a small trucker has 
to succumb to the demands of the Teamsters when they^ insert their 
hot-cargo clause in their contract, or go out of business; is that true? 

Mr. Joy. Yes ; that is true. 

Senator Curtis. Isn't it a fact that the Teamster international rep- 
resentatives, when they go to an unorganized trucker and demand 
that he sign a contract, that they submit this standard form contract? 



15660 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Joy. I don't know, but I would assume that is true. 

Senator Curtis. I think that is Mr. Coffey's testimony and I be- 
lieve that is true ; that they lay down the standard contract and make 
their demand that they sign that. 

Mr. Joy. Yes. Possibly they might amend the wage rate scale in 
some cases, but that is about the only amendment. No other amend- 
ment such as taking out the hot-cargo clause, or something like that, 
I am sure, exists. They might have a slightly different wage scale 
for different areas. 

Senator Curtis. So, whether a transfer company belongs to a par- 
ticular association of carriers or what, he is still faced with the de- 
mand of the Teamsters to sign the contract as they draw it, with pos- 
sibly a few exceptions that you are able to change? 

Mr. Joy. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further? 

Do you have anything further, Mr. Joy, that you wish to state ? 

Mr. Joy. I can't think of anything, sir. 

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

Call the next witness. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Al May. 

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. May. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ALBERT E. MAY 

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

Mr. May. I am Albert E. May, 5512 Howard Street, Omaha, Nebr. 
I am an attorney, a partner in the law firm of Swawr, May, Royce, 
Smith, Andersen & Ross. 

The Chairman. Thank you. You may proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were the attorney for the Clark Bros. ? 

Mr. May. We handled some work for Clark Bros. ; yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. After the boycott was imposed on Clark and Coffey, 
Clark Bros, was unable to have their freight handled by other com- 
panies or handle the freight of other companies ; is that correct ? 

Mr. May. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. You, yourself, personally investigated and found 
that this hot-cargo clause was being enforced against the Clark Bros. ? 

Mr. May. That is right. If counsel please, I presented to your 
committee yesterday a brochure which I have prepared, which con- 
tains a great number of incidents with reference to the secondary 
boycott, and principally in relation to the Ford Storage & Moving- 
Co. of Omaha, and also some including or pertaining to Clark 
Brothers Transfer Co. Also, in the rear, you will find a complete 
chronology of the Coffey and Clark cases through the courts. 

Then there are some suggestions to this committee with reference 
to proposed legislation. 

If I may make it brief, I would like to talk about a few of these 
instances which, in general, form the same pattern as has been testi- 
fied to by previous witnesses. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LA'BOR FIELD 15661 

The Chairman. Mr. May, with your permission we will make this 
copy you tiled with the committee, "Teamsters Union, Secondary Boy- 
cott, Nebraska," being the title of it, we will make it "Exhibit No. 39" 
for reference. 

(Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 39" for reference 
and may be found in the files of the select committee.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Perhaps, as we have gone through some of the 
samples, and also we have gotten into this folder, possibly it would 
be a good idea if you gave some of your legislative suggestions, rather 
than go through some of these other items. 

Mr. May. I should like to give a couple of instances which do not 
follow the regular pattern you have heard in the past few days, if 
that is agreeable. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. May. With reference to the Ford Storage & Moving Co., the 
chronology there is slightly different. The first intimation of any 
difficulty is a letter which Ford received from the General Drivers 
and Helpers, Local 554. The pertinent points are : 

The undersigned union is collective-bargaining agent for employees in the 
motor carrier and warehouse industry, and, as such, has negotiated agreements 
with respect to wages, hours, and working conditions affecting a large group 
of employees in this industry who are members of the union. The protection 
of the union scales and conditions of employment is an essential and vital mat- 
ter for our union. We therefore requested your company to pay to your em- 
ployees the wage rates and conditions of employment the undersigned union has 
established in this area through collective-bargaining agreements with em- 
ployers in this industry. We wish it specially understood that this letter is not 
a request for union recognition, nor does it constitute a request or demand that 
your employees become members of the undersigned union. Your company is 
not being requested to force or require your employees to join our union. 

You are therefore respectfully requested to comply with the contents of this 
letter and inform us of your decision. 

That was on April 19. 

On April 26, 1956, two pickets appeared at the warehouse at 1024 
Dodge Street, in Omaha, and they carried signs reading : 

Ford Storage & Moving Co. refuses to pay union wages and conditions. 

I don't think that Mr. Parker, who sent the letter I just read, had 
ever talked to Mr. Ford. 

The Chairman. In other words, the signs were false? 

Mr. May. The letter that was addressed to Ford Van & Storage Co. 
signed by Parker. 

A few days after the receipt of that letter, some of the other truck- 
ing concerns in Omaha, who had the over-the-road contract, called 
Ford and made an appointment with him at a restaurant in Omaha, 
and they told him they wanted him to sign the contract because the 
union was insisting upon organizing him. 

Senator Curtis. Other carriers did that ? 

Mr. May. Carriers, yes. And they weren't going to be able to do 
business with them unless he did. ( 

They tried to tell him that he would get a lot more business if he 
went along, because if he didn't go along he wouldn't be able to 
deliver merchandise to or get merchandise from them. 

He say, "What if I don't do it?" And in that meeting was one 
Mickey Krupinsky. 

21243— 59— pt. 41 20 



15662 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Krupinsky is on the negotiating committee for the Central 
Drivers Union. I think there are 11 States in that area, and they 
have a negotiating committee which negotiates the contracts with 
the international union. He said, "What if I don't go along with you 
fellows?" 

And Mickey said, "Well, when the union puts a picket line out and 
our men can't cross a picket line, and if we do it the union calls a 
strike on us — " 

I said, "We don't have a union contract." 

"Well," he said, "if you cut off Clark Bros., and if I knew just 
how much tonnage you give Clark Bros., it may help some, and then 
I can call Hoffa and try to get him to go along." 

He did furnish that information to Mr. Krupinsky. 

Then nothing happened until about a month later when Parker 
called him up on the telephone. I don't think he ever had any con- 
versation with Parker. 

Parker said, "What are you going to do about that contract?" 

And he said, "Nothing." 

From that time on the trouble started. As I recall, none of his 
men belonged to the union. He conferred with them. None of them 
wanted to belong to the union. They weren't interested. They had 
some men besides these pickets across the street in a bar who would 
waylay the workmen on their way home and try to get them to say 
that they would join the union, but they weren't interested. 

Then the boycott really started. These pickets were there 1 year, 
from May 26, 1956, until May 26, 1957. 

There was very little violence there. There was one instance where 
a rock was thrown at Mr. Ford's son. There was another instance 
where a trailer, which was attached to one of Ford's tractors, I think 
it was a Clark Bros, trailer, was burned in the rear parking lot of the 
Ford area. 

Even the railroads would not deliver freight to Ford. The en- 
gineers would not bring the cars into the docks. They would bring 
the cars as far as the picket line and then they would get off and the 
railroad company would have some supervisory official bring the 
cars in. 

We took the matter up with both the Missouri Pacific and the Union 
Pacific Railroad, and they came back and said under the rules of 
the Interstate Commerce Commission, rules which they had com- 
piled, there was this wording : 

Nothing in this tariff shall require the carrier to perform pickup or delivery 
service at any location, from or to which it is impractical through no fault or 
neglect of the carrier, to operate vehicles because of any riot, strike, picketing, 
or other labor disturbance. 

And, therefore, that provision in the railroad tariffs relieved them 
from the obligation of delivering or receiving merchandise from 
someone on strike. Of course, Ford was not on strike. There was 
no strike at his place of business. There was no labor trouble be- 
tween him and his employees. There were merely some pickets who 
had some signs on, walking up and down in front of his place. 

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

Senator Curtis. Were those pickets employees of Ford ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15663 

Mr May. They were not employees of Ford, and so far as we 
could" learn, they didn't live in Omaha. They were imported pickets 

Senator Curtis. Am I also correct that this points up another legal 
problem in the way of a need for corrective legislation? Employees 
of the railroad are not employees under the National Labor delations 
Act ; is that true ? 

Mr. May. That is true. 

Senator Curtis. Therefore, it is not a violation of law to apply 
pressure on railroad employees to get them to cease domg business 
with somebody else? . , 

Mr May. No ; but thev excuse it on the ground or the rule whicn 
I have just read, and which I immediately took up with the Interstate 
Commerce Commission, and inquired as to how that rule got into the 

They said that the procedure was that the companies themselves 
promulgate the rule. The rule is sent to the Interstate Commerce 
Commission and it is published in the Register, the Federal Register, 
and if there are no objections over a period of time, I think he said 
20 days, then it becomes a part of the tariff. I inquired of them, 
and I said, "How does it come that the Interstate Commerce Com- 
mission would permit such a rule to get into their tariff?" 

And they said, "Well, they automatically become a part of the rules 
unless some objection was made." Therefore, they were unable, or 
couldn't do anything about it. 

Now, to show you how some of the . . 

Senator Ervin. I thought the Interstate Commerce Commission was 
empowered to regulate the railroads. It seems that the railroads 
regulate the Interstate Commerce Commission in their interpretation 
unless some third person, stirred up by something he reads in the 
Federal Register, protests. 

Mr. May. Senator, I will not comment on that. But immediately 
the boycott started. I want to mention some of the names of the 
firms that we corresponded with or had dealings with who started 
this boycott and continued this boycott on Ford Bros. 

There was the Union Freightways ; Red Ball Transfer Co. ; Trucker 
Transportation, Inc.; Des Moines Transportation Co., Inc.; McMaken 
Transportation Co., Inc. ; Buckingham Transportation Co., Iuc ; Bos 
Truck Lines; Brady Motor Freight; Highway Motor Freight ; Iowa- 
Nebraska Transportation Co.; Interstate Motor Lines; Moss Truck 
Line- Navajo Freight Lines; Peterson and Peterson; Rock Island 
Motor Transit Co.; Ross Transfer Co.; Trans- American Freight 
Lines; Watson Bros.; West Nebraska Express; Wilson Truck System. 
And tViprp wbfg others. 

Senator Ervin. The Ford Co. ran a warehouse business in addi- 
tion to transporting? 

Mr. May. Yes. They have two warehouses m Omaha and one m 
Council Bluffs, Iowa. 

Senator Ervin. Up to this time they had contracts for warehousing 
various commodities? 

Mr. May. That is right. 

Senator Ervin. Did they lose some of that business ? 

Mr. May. They lost a great deal of business through this boycott. 
It would take this form:' For instance, they store coffee. A truck 



15664 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

comes in here with a load of coffee to be stored in their warehouse and 
then parceled out among the coffee customers. 

(At this point Senator McClellan returned to the hearing room.) 

Mr. May. The coffee company would send a truck up here, and they 
couldn't deliver it. 

The truck company that brought it up here would say they could 
not deliver to Ford. They might inquire why, and they would say, 
"Because you are on strike." 

Ford would say, "We are not on strike. We have no labor diffi- 
culties. Our men are not on strike." 

"Well, anyhow, we can't deliver it there, and so we advised them to 
take it on up to Sioux City and put it in there. We may have to have 
some coffee there." 

Or at other times they would take the merchandise down to some 
other concern who had a union contract, and then Ford would go 
down to that concern and pick it up. 

They found a few fellows who would work in that manner. In 
many instances where merchandise would come into Omaha consigned 
to Ford, Ford would not even be notified that the merchandise was 
there. In one particular instance which I would like to give a little 
chronology of, it was with reference to Merchants Motor Freight, 
Inc., in Omaha. They had received a large shipment of 141 cartons 
of mill work, and it had been in their warehouse 2 or 3 weeks con- 
signed to Ford Bros. Van Storage Co. 

They had not notified Ford that the shipment had arrived, and it 
was only when the owner of the shipment inquired as to why it was 
not being moved out to the Safeway Stores where it was to be installed 
they began to inquire around and found that the Merchants Motor 
Freight had these cartons of millwork. They went out to get them, 
and they refused to give them to them. 

So Mr. Ford came up to our office and the bills of lading were made 
out to them and they were consignees, and I said, "You have a right 
to that merchandise. Of course, we can replevin that merchandise 
for you and I think that is probably what the unions want. But I 
think maybe I can get that merchandise for you without repleving it. 
You take your truck down there tomorrow morning and come by my 
office with the car and pick me up and I will go out there with you 
and bring the bills of lading along." 

We went out there and we backed the truck up. In the meantime 
I had informed the police department they had better send a police- 
man out there because you couldn't tell what might happen. We pre- 
sented the bills of lading and this was on June 22, 1956, to the manager 
of the Merchants Motor Freight Co., and demanded the goods. 

He said, "I am very sorry, I can't deliver the goods to you and I 
can't let you have them." 

I said, "Why not ? The merchandise is consigned to Ford, and we 
are entitled to it and it is our merchandise and we have the bills of 
lading and we are willing to sign a receipt for it, and under the law, 
the Interstate Commerce Act, you are required to deliver merchandise 
to any person who it is consigned to." 

"Well," he said, "anyhow I can't let you have the goods, and you 
can't take it." I said, "I am going to go out and get it. There is only 
one way you can stop me, by force, but it is my merchandise and I am 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15665 

going to get it. If you want to come out and check it off with me, 
okaytand if you don't I will check it myself." 

So we went out into the warehouse and we started to load the mer- 
chandise and we got about 20 cartons on the truck, I think, when the 
manager came tearing out and he said, "I have called their office in 
Minneapolis, and they tell me Jiat you are to unload what you have 
on the truck and under no circumstances can you have the merchan- 

dise " 

He said, "I have been ordered not to let you have it," and I said 
"Who from, the union?" And he said, "Well, we have to get along 
with them." . , . 

Those were the very words he used. So we continued to load the 
merchandise, and then a little later Mr. Bud Welshon said he was 
the terminal superintendent and I think also the union steward, a very 
large fellow came up in a menacing way and say, "You can't take 
that merchandise and get it off the truck and back into the ware- 
house." I said, "Mister, that merchandise is ours and the only way 
you are going to stop it is by force, and if you want to start some- 
thing, start something." 

We took the merchandise and we went. That is one sample, and 
that isn't the only time it happened, and it happened one time with 
the Clark Bros., and they had some 30 or 40 transformers. That is 
contained in my statement which is in this set. They had about 135 
transformers out at the Independent Truckers, Inc. Those trans- 
formers had been there 2 or 3 weeks and it was consigned to Clark 
Bros. They took those transformers up and put them in their ware- 
house at Norfolk, and it is consigned to them, and then if the power 
company wants them they distribute those transformers wherever 
they want them. 

Mr. Clark went out several times and tried to get these transformers, 
and he was told by Mr. Johnson, whom I understand is one of the 
witnesses to appear here shortly, that he couldn't deliver them to him 
because the union wouldn't let him and they would strike every termi- 
nal he had and every place he had if he delivered that merchandise 
to him, and he just couldn't do it. 

So he came up to the office, and I said, "Well now, tomorrow, you 
get your truck, and don't let him know you are coming, you pick me 
up and bring the bills of lading and we will go up there. In the 
meantime I will notify the police department to have a cruiser car 
around there, and we will go in and see what we can do." 

So we went in, and I presented the bills of lading to Mr. Johnson, 
and he said, "I am sorrv, but I can't let you have that merchandise." 
And I said, "Why not?" And he said, "Well, the union will strike 
every place I have. They have told me so, and I am not to give or 
take any stuff from Clark at all," and he said, "I can't let you have 
it." 

"Well," I said, "I am going out and take it and it is our merchan- 
dise, and the only way you are going to stop me is by force, and do 
you want to do that, Howard?" And he said, "No, I don't. I want 
to deliver the merchandise to you and I want to comply with the law, 
but I am just powerless." And I said, "Who is running your busi- 
ness?" And he said, "You know who is running it, the union, and 
not me." I said, "Well, I am going out and get it. Do you want to 
check it?" And he said, "No, I don't even dare to do that." 



15666 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

We started for the warehouse, and we have Mr. Clark there, and 
I think two drivers on the truck, a large transport truck, and we got 
as far as the door and he said, "wait a minute, I had better call 
Mickey." Mickey is Mickey Krupinski, the gentleman I talked about, 
who was at that time the manager of the Union Freightways, and a 
member of the negotiating committee. 

I could only hear one part of the conversation, of course, and I 
heard him talking to Mickey, and finally he hung up the phone and 
said, "Mickey said I can't let you have them." 

He said, "They will strike us all over the country if I let you have 
that merchandise, and I can't do it." I said, "I don't care what Mickey 
says. He can run his business ; we will try and run ours." 

So we got ten or twelve steps farther and he said, "Wait a min- 
ute, let me call Parker." Parker is the secretary-treasurer of the 
local 554, and he called Parker on the phone, and told him that I was 
there with the bills of lading and I was demanding this merchandise, 
and he wanted to know what to do about it. I couldn't hear what 
Parker said, but after he hung up he said, "Parker says I can't let 
you have it." 

I said, "Well, Howard, I am going to take it anyhow and the only 
way you are going to stop it is by force." We went on and we started 
loading the transformers on the truck. 

Well, they weighed 300 to 750 pounds and were stacked 2 deep 
and we had to get one of these hoisters to unload them and one of 
the truckdrivers worked around and found out how it operated. 
We got three or four of them off the top pile, when somebody from 
the office went by and said, "Look out for that hoist, they are coming 
over here and get it and take it away from you." 

I think I made some remark, "Let them come ahead and they had 
better not." And I had a club there beside where we were working. 
Shortly after that, after Mr. Johnson had sold his business, we had 
a like experience with the new management on a shipment of oil. 

That is an entirely different pattern than you have heard from. 
The other part of the pattern is where that merchandise would come 
in consigned to customers and routed to Ford Bros. The carriers 
would hold that merchandise in their warehouses and they would 
write a letter to the consignor stating that Ford Bros, were on strike 
and asking for disposition of the merchandise. 

We wrote to a great many of those concerns telling them that 
Ford was not on strike and there was no reason at all why our mer- 
chandise shouldn't have been delivered to us. I have one case here 
that I think might be interesting, to show a little different pattern. 

Senator Curtis. You mean that one competitor would write con- 
cerning another competitor, and state that he was on strike when 
he was not on strike ? 

Mr. May. Yes, I am saying that that is true, and I have two or 
three samples of those letters in this brochure. In other words, it 
is a form letter that the shipper sends out to the consignor, in which 
he says, "We have received the following merchandise, but we are 
unable to deliver it because Ford Bros, is on strike," and that is 
down below, or "having labor trouble," without even notice to Ford 
Bros, that they had ever received the merchandise. 

Senator Ervin. As a matter of fact, Mr. May, these shippers who 
agree to the hot-cargo contract with the Teamsters are put in a posi- 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15667 

tion where the Teamsters employed them as agents of the Team- 
sters to accomplish their will, are they not ? 

Mr. May. That is right. 

Senator Ervin. And here in this first case that you illustrated, 
the Teamsters in effect compelled some of these carriers that were 
bound by the hot-cargo contract of the Teamsters to act as sort of 
ambassadors or agents of the Teamsters to try to coerce another 
carrier into acceding to the Teamsters' demands ? 

Mr. Mat. I would like to comment on that a little later when we 
talk about the Taft-Hartley law, because I think that that is very 
pertinent with reference to that act. 

This was a shipment from Alan Randal Co., to California, where 
they had sent some merchandise consigned to Ford Bros, warehouse. 
They had not received it. So Alan Randal was inquiring of the Ford 
Co. why they hadn't received the merchandise, and they said they had 
not, and they wrote back, and said we shipped it to you via Bos Lines. 

Alan Randal then wrote to the Bos Lines about why they did not 
deliver their merchandise consigned to Ford Bros., and this is a copy 
of the letter which they sent back dated January 30, 1957. 

We are also in possession of the full facts surrounding our files on the subject 
overage Ford Bros. Van & Storage Co., 1024 Dodge Street, Omaha, Nebr. 

This carton, as you are aware, constitutes the entire shipment of August 24, 
1956, originating via Pacific & Atlantic Shippers, freight forwarders, transferred 
to our lines at Chicago, 111., August 30, 1956, forwarded out of Chicago on Bos 
Truck Lines pro DM 38189 direct to Omaha, Nebr. 

Prior to the arrival of this shipment, and to the present date, the consignee, 
the Ford Bros. Van & Storage of Omaha, Nebr., were and are being boycotted 
by the local Teamsters Union No. 554, which have ordered all members not to 
do business with this party, consequently were unable to effect delivery or allow 
that firm to come to our docks to even pick this merchandise up. 

This places us in a very bad position, as you might imagine. However, we 
cannot find where the terminal issued a written notice to your offices, so must 
admit to an error of omission rather than commission. 

The Ford Bros., completely ignoring our position, that in forcing the issue, and 
doing other than returning the merchandise in question, to the shipper from 
whence it came, we would be threatened with a complete companywide shut- 
down of our facilities by the Teamsters Union, and filed a claim against us in the 
amount of $104. 

This is the present situation as it now stands, until such time as the boycott 
against the consignee, not us or any carrier will be permitted to effect delivery 
until it is lifted by the Teamsters. 

We would appreciate hearing from you regarding this matter. Any comments 
or instructions will be greatly appreciated. 

That is another method of boycott, and you will find in this brochure 
a number of other instances of like kind, and our correspondence with 
a great number of people with reference to these instances. 

Suffice it to say that personally I have made calls to a great number 
of these shippers who are refusing to deliver merchandise and the only 
answer I ever got from any of them was, "We can't do it because the 
union is insisting that if we do they will strike us." 

(Members of the select committee present at this point in the pro- 
ceedings were Senators McClellan, Ervin, Gold water, and Curtis.) 

Mr. May. Of course, all or a great number of them have told me 
about the letters that they have gotten from Mr. Bridge. 

Of course, they base their conception of those letters upon the fact 
that since they had the hot cargo clause, all they were trying to do was 
to tell the companies who had signed the hot cargo clause to comply 
with their contract. 



15668 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

There has been a lot of talk about the Coffey and Clark cases, and 
I say there is complete chronology with the dates in the record. The 
pickets were taken off of Ford Bros, just about a year after they were 
put on, and I think that one of the reasons they were taken off was 
because of the effect of the first few meetings that this committee had. 
It was shortly after this committee started acting that the pickets 
were taken off. 

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

Mr. May. I don't mean to say that the boycott is completely off, 
because a lot of these firms, people who stored merchandise with this 
company, the heat has been put upon them not to do business with 
Ford and some of them have withdrawn their contracts and stored 
their merchandise other places because they don't want to get into 
this kind of trouble that they are in. 

If the committee will permit me, I would like to say a few words 
about legislative recommendations that I think might clear up some 
of this situation. 

In the first place, take the Taft-Hartley law. One of these troubles, 
I think, revolves around that provision of the Taft-Hartley law of 
1947 which makes it an unfair labor practice and illegal to engaged in 
or to induce or encourage employees of an employer to engage in a 
strike or concerted refusal in the course of their employment, to use, 
manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle, work on any 
goods, articles, materials or commodities, or perform any service where 
an object thereof is (a) forcing, requiring an employer or self-em- 
ployed person to join any labor or employer organization or any 
employer or other person to cease using, selling, handling, trans- 
porting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer 
or manufacturer or to cease doing business with any other person. 

After that law was passed, the union said, "Well, now, that doesn't 
cover employer. It merely makes it an unfair practice for us to coerce 
or induce employees." 

So they started this tactic of inducing and coercing employers not 
to accept or to give merchandise, and in that way evade the provisions 
of the Taft-Hartley law. 

I think that that section certainly ought to be amended to prevent 
coercion against employers as well as employees. 

Senator Goldwater. How would you do that, by merely inserting 
the word "employer" ? 

Mr. Mat. I think that may be done very simply by briefly chang- 
ing that paragraph. 

Senator Curtis. I might say that that is one of the principal pro- 
posals in the secondary boycott bill that I have introduced. 

Mr. May. I think that is right. 

There is another thing about the Taft-Hartley law, and it has been 
before your committee in the last day or so, and that is the inadequacy 
of the procedure before the Labor Board. 

The Labor Board is the only one that can bring an injunction. The 
process is that if you file an unfair labor practice, they first send out 
an investigator who makes an investigation, and that may be 30 days 
or 60 days after you have filed your application. Then he determines 
whether or not you do sufficient business so that you may be said to be 
engaged in interstate commerce, which is now broadened out to where 
nobody knows what it is. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15669 

If he finds that the Board has jurisdiction, then the next step is to 
send out an attorney to bring an injunction proceeding in the Federal 
court. The Labor Board is the only one that can bring that 
proceeding. 

Senator Erven. In other words, we have an act from the Congress, 
the effect of which is to prevent a man from protecting his own legal 
rights, notwithstanding the fact that we have a Constitution that 
says that the Federal Government shall, in effect, not deny any man 
due process of law. 

Mr. May. Senator, we attorneys that went to school and practiced 
law — it seems like the Supreme Court has repealed a lot that we have 
known in the last 30 years. 

Senator Erven. They certainly have reversed about everything that 

1 was taught and everything that I read in the decisions until lately. 
Mr. May. Well, anyhow, Senator, after the attorney comes out and 

applies for a temporary injunction, if he can sustain the facts the 
Federal court will issue a temporary injunction. After that tempo- 
rary injunction, then they send out a trial examiner and go through 
a semitrial before the trial examiner. He makes his report to the 
National Labor Relations Board, and if they sustain him, then there 
is an appeal, of course, to the circuit court of appeals. But if they 
sustain him, the injunction is dissolved. 

Usually if you get that far into the proceeding, the union will want 
to make a deal with you, saying, "We will stipulate that we wouldn't 
do this," or "We wouldn't do that." But by the time you get through, 

2 or 3 years have elapsed, and your man is out of business, he is broke. 
In the Coffey and Clark cases, they are still pending. There has 

been no decision on the unfair labor matters, except the proposition of 
the election which has been before you. There the Labor Board does 
have a rule that if the union files an unfair labor practice action 
against the employer, they will not have an election until the issues 
in the unfair labor practice action have been resolved. 

That might account for the delay in that election procedure. 

Senator Curtis. Is that a rule or a statutory requirement? 

Mr. May. No ; I think that is a rule of the Board itself. 

Those are two ways in which the act ought to be amended. 

Then I still think there is another way. There is this are of "no 
man's land," as we call it. The Board has had a rule — I think they 
have liberalized that a little bit — that they would not accept juris- 
diction in a case in which the company doesn't do, say $100,000 
worth of business in the interstate commerce. 

Then the Supreme Court has said that the States have no jurisdic- 
tion in those cases involving interstate commerce, even those States 
having right-to-work laws, because Congress has preempted the field 
in interstate commerce. 

So we have an area in small business where a man has no relief at 
all. He can't get into courts or anything. 

We have another difficulty, and that is 

Senator Ervin. In other words, the court holds in that area that 
the Taft-Hartley law confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the Na- 
tional Labor Relations Board and the National Labor Relations 
Board declines to exercise the jurisdiction in certain cases. 

Mr. May. Well, in 1951, the Congress amended the Railway Labor 
Act and took out the non-closed-shop provision and allowed the closed 



15670 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

shop in the railroad industry, and in Hanson v. The Union Pacific 
Railway the Supreme Court said that the contract which provided 
for a closed shop in the railway industry, and by the way, required 
the companies to discharge anybody within 30 days after they signed 
the contract, was constitutional, and was not the deprivation of 
a civil right of the employee. 

Of course, thousands of employees lost their jobs by reason of that 
situation. 

Then we have the cases following that, where the court has said 
that even in those cases where the State has a right-to- work law, even 
though the Labor Board will not take jurisdiction, the State courts 
cannot take jurisdiction because it is a field that has been preempted. 

Those are three fields in which the National Labor Kelations Act 
could be amended, and I think it would do a great deal of good. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. May, in the Kennedy-Ives bill, which 
failed passage in the last Congress, the attempt made in the direction 
of solving the "no man's land" was to expand the NLKB by giving 
it more money. Do you think that that is the solution or will we find 
the solution in allowing the State courts to handle those matters ? 

Mr. May. These matters out in States like Nebraska are local mat- 
ters. One of our great troubles is this industrywide bargaining 
which has grown up. Conditions are different. Labor conditions, 
economic conditions, are different in all parts of the country. There 
is no reason in the world why we should have this areawide bargain- 
ing. The little man has nothing to say. It is like the man from 
Darling said a moment ago, that they are forced to sign these con- 
tracts or else go out of business. There isn't any other solution for 
them. 

That certainly is something that ought to be left to the States, in 
my opinion. 

Senator Goldwater. Some of the leaders of labor claim that we 
would have chaos in the labor-management field if we turn these 
cases over to local courts. Do you agree with that ? 

Mr. May. I would like to ask you, Senator, what do we have now ? 

Senator Goldwater. Well, let's say we would have more chaos. 

Mr. May. No, I don't believe that for a minute. We have three or 
four situations which will require some legislation, and which are 
difficult. One of them is, you will remember, that unions are vol- 
untary organizations, they claim to be. 

Senator Goldwater. What was that ? 

Mr. May. Unions are voluntary organizations. 

Senator Goldwater. You don't believe that, do you ? 

Mr. May. Well, I am saying what they claim. 

Senator Goldwater. All right. 

Mr. May. But you will find in the constitutions, if you will read 
the constitutions of almost any labor union, that if you are a member 
of the union and you have a grievance against the union, you are 
required to exhaust your remedies in the union before you can bring 
an action in the courts, and the courts in all the States that I know 
of have upheld that doctrine. If you can't show that you have ex- 
hausted your remedies in the union as a grievance against the union, 
then you can't get into court. 

It is well known, I think — I don't think it is a matter of just 
gossip — that a man who dares in some of these unions to stand up 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15671 

and assert any grievance is subject to disciplinary action, taking up 
his card. When you have a closed shop, then his job is gone. He 
can't even support his family. If under the constitution he wants 
to protest, he must file a written protest, and that written protest is 
referred to a committee who can stick it in their pockets, and the only 
way he can get a hearing on it is by getting enough fellows who 
believe like he does, to get him into some meeting and require it to 
be brought up. Then it will be referred to another committee, and 
they will find against him. 

Then what is his remedy ? An appeal to the national organiza- 
tion. That is, when they are in convention. 

You have had a lot of testimony about how delegates are elected, 
and you can see how far that fellow would get. 

Senator Ervix. My recollection of some of the evidence in one case 
where we had one of these trials within a union is that the trial was 
set for 2 :30 a.m. in the morning, and they had the judgment to be 
rendered at the trial written out in advance. 

Mr. Mat. Well, I am not so sure that I don't recall some cases in 
the higher courts in the same way. 

I would like to talk just a moment about this secondary boycott 
business. I would like to review this. I know you gentlemen all 
know this, but I would like to review a little history about the sec- 
ondary boycott. 

In the first place, in common law primary boycotts were legal. 
But with secondary boycotts, most of the courts have held that sec- 
ondary boycotts are illegal, and there are a number of States that 
have laws specifically making them illegal. Iowa and South Dakota 
are two of such States. 

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

Mr. May. They are in the nature of conspiracies in restraint of 
trade. That is what a secondary boycott is. They were generally 
held to be governed by_ the Sherman antitrust law of 1890, although 
under that act, the actions for conspiracy could only be brought by 
the Government itself. 

Then the Clayton Act came along, and the Clayton Act specifically 
exempted labor unions from their normal legitimate actions, ex- 
empted them from the application of the Sherman Act. That was 
the Clayton Act. 

However, in 1921, the Supreme Court held that the Clayton Act 
only protected union activity when it was limited to an employer and 
his own employees. 

Then came the Norris-LaGuardia Act, of course, in 1932, which 
outlawed injunctions against labor unions. 

So, as the situation now stands, the labor unions can do legally 
what you and I cannot do without violating the law. So it seems to 
me that the only way that this practice is going to be stopped is that 
they have to be made amenable to the Sherman antitrust law, just as 
every other individual. I see no other way to stop this thing. 

Let me say this: They talk about the problems of violence, and so 
forth being local problems, that they are problems for the police 
department and for the Governor of the State to take care of. Well, 
let me say that you can see the impossibility of any local police or- 



15672 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

ganization being able to cope with such things as you have heard the 
last few days. 

Just recently in Nebraska we had a contractor from Iowa who has 
a contract to build a bridge in Sarpy County, south of Omaha. They 
put telephone poles across the road, they blew up with dynamite his 
derricks, and so forth. They bombed his office in Des Moines. I say 
"they," but I don't know who it is. 

The sheriff of Sarpy County has two deputies. He goes out there, 
and there is a trailer parked along the road, and at night they shoot 
out the windows in the cars, and so forth, and he is powerless to pre- 
vent that violence. 

If this is the thing in which Congress is going to preempt the field, 
it seems to me that Congress is going to have to police, too. It seems 
to me to be a question of how far Congress is going to go in taking 
away the rights of the States in these situations, and have the 
Federal Government do it. 

Senator Curtis. You are referring to the Jensen Construction Co., 
are you? 

Mr. May. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. A brief has been submitted to the Attorney Gen- 
eral which makes a strong case for the position that the acts com- 
plained of in that Jensen Construction case are a violation of the 
Hobbs Act. But I don't know that the Department of Justice has 
made a determination on that. At least, they haven't made an affirm- 
ative one. 

Mr. May. By the time he gets through that procedure, he will be 
broke, too, though. 

I have some other suggested changes. 

Senator Erven. Some people advocate, as Senator Goldwater stated 
a while ago, that the National Labor Relations Board and its em- 
ployees be expanded to such an extent that they can handle all of 
these matters and thus wipe out the area covered by the so-called no 
man's land now. 

Do you have an}' idea what the increase in the number of personnel 
of the National Labor Relations Board is that would be required to 
do that? 

Mr. May. Senator, one of the objections that I see to it is that there 
are not enough areas spelled out in the National Labor Relations Act, 
and one of the worst things, in my opinion, that the Congress ever did, 
was to put in the enabling act this phrase, "to promulgate, such rules 
and regulations as will effectuate the purposes of this act." 

Well, under that broad wording, any board that is set up has the 
power to formulate their own rules. They have limited personnel, 
and I am not criticizing them. They do have limited personnel and 
they have thousands of cases. They can't just pop out on our case or 
this man's case and go out there and do it effectively. Under their 
own rules and under the law as it is set up, that is. 

I think it could be simplified a great deal where we could get some 
prompt action. But the first action, certainly you ought to be al- 
lowed to go into a State court and get a temporary injunction until 
you can determine these other matters. 

The Taft-Hartley law does not give you that power. You are 
just tied up. 






IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 15673 

Senator Ervin. I have often thought about it. Not having any 
information on the points, I often wondered to what extent you would 
have to expand the personnel of the National Labor Relations Board 
to require it to take jurisdiction of all of these cases, because under 
the present interpretation placed upon the interstate commerce laws, 
it is almost impossible to imagine anybody that is not theoretically, 
at least, under the act in the case of any kind of a labor dispute. 

Mr. May. Senator, wouldn't it be quite a simple matter to permit 
an employer, like these men who have appeared before you, to initially 
go into the Federal court and get a temporary restraining order until 
the Board can act % That seems to me to be a very simple and elemen- 
tal proposition. Then you would place things in status quo. 

Here you had testimony a few minutes ago about two men who are 
under citations of contempt in the Federal court for violating an in- 
junction or a cease and desist order of the National Labor Relations 
Board. It has been 2 years and nothing has been done about it. 

Senator Ervin. In other words, your position is that if the law 
is amended to allow the person whose business or situation was 
threatened by some proposed action to go into court, either Federal 
or State, and get a temporary injunction to maintain the status quo 
until an inquiry could be made with the National Labor Relations 
Board, that that would prevent injuries of the type we have seen here, 
even in cases where the man ultimately won a victory but his victory 
was a barren victory because he was bankrupt before he got that. 

Mr. May. Exactly. I think that is a simple proposition and not 
too much to ask. 

Senator Ervin (presiding). Mr. May, we want to thank you for 
appearing before the committee and giving us the benefit of your ob- 
servations and these factual incidents as well as giving us your rec- 
ommendations as to what you think should be done in the matter 
of legislation. We have a serious problem here. 

Mr. May. I am sure you have. 

Senator Ervin. I think everybody is more astounded by the seri- 
ousness of it as these hearings progress. 

We certainly appreciate your suggestions. 

Mr. May. It has been a privilege. 

Senator Ervin. The committee will stand in recess until tomorrow 
morning at 10 o'clock. 

(Members of the select committee present at the taking of the recess 
were Senators Ervin and Curtis.) 

(Thereupon, at 5 p.m., the hearing recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., 
Thursday, November 20, 1958.) 



INVESTIGATION OF IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE 
LABOR OR MANAGEMENT FIELD 



THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1958 

U.S. Senate. 
Select Committee ox Improper Activities 

in the Labor or Management Field, 

Washington, D.C. 

The select committee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to Senate Resolution 
221, agreed to January 29, 1958, in the caucus room, Senate Office 
Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., presiding. 

Present: Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat, North Carolina; 
Senator Barry Goldwater, Republican, Arizona; and Senator Carl 
T. Curtis, Republican, Nebraska. 

Also present: Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Jerome Adlerman, 
chief assistant counsel; Paul Kamerick, assistant counsel; John J. 
McGovern, assistant counsel ; and Ruth Y. Watt, chief clerk. 

Senator Ervin (presiding). The committee will come to order. 

(Members of the select committee present at the convening of the 
session were Senators Ervin, Goldwater, and Curtis.) 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, the committee decided yesterday to 
request the Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board to ap- 
pear before the committee to discuss these cases. The chairman of 
the NLRB is now present. We have asked Mr. Leedom to come and 
to bring members of his staff to assist in discussing the case. 

Senator Ervin. The committee is glad to have you, Mr. Leedom, 
and members of your staff present. We will be glad to have you give 
us any information in your own way about this matter. 

Would you be sworn, please ? 

You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this 
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Leedom. I do. 

Mr. Constantine. I do. 

Mr. Kleiler. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF BOYD LEEDOM AND FRANK M. KLEILER, AND 
TESTIMONY OF JAMES V. CONSTANTINE— Resumed 

Mr. Leedom. May it please the committee, I believe I understand 
from the word Senator McClellan gave me 

Senator Ervin. Suppose you identify yourself for the record, giv- 
ing your name, occupation, and address. 

Mr. Leedom. I am Boyd Leedom, the Chairman of the National 
Labor Relations Board. I was on the Board and was Chairman of 

15675 



15676 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

the Board at the time that the decision was handed down which is 
now under inquiry. 

I believe I know from the word I had from Senator McClellan 
yesterday what it is the committee would like to know from the Labor 
Board. 

Very briefly, I understand that the testimony developed yesterday 
indicated that the Board failed to order an election within time 
enough to prevent an employer who was under boycott action from 
a union, to keep from going broke. 

Senator Ervin. It wasn't so much the ordering of the election, as 
the evidence was to the effect that in January they had this repre- 
sentation election in which seven votes were cast, and that no decision 
was made about the votes, or the votes apparently not counted, of- 
ficially, at least, until April. 

Mr. Leedom. I would like at the outset to say, of course, that the 
fact that there were seven votes didn't have anything at all to do with 
this. This makes sort of good newspaper copy, that the Labor Board 
failed to count seven votes in 3 months. But this case is simply 
typical of the thing that the Labor Board continually contends with. 

In this case, I think it is fair to say that the union was taking ad- 
vantage of all the rules of due process that we have set up to prevent 
an early decision, because I think in their minds it was to their ad- 
vantage to delay the case as long as they could. I am speaking very 
frankly about this. 

I would also like to say that such tactics are not exclusively tactics 
of unions. Companies do the very same thing when it serves their 
purpose. 

The Labor Board in this instance was caught in the squeeze be- 
tween speedy action and due process. Keally, the reason that this 
case was 3 months in getting these seven votes counted is because two 
separate courts enjoined us while we were in the process of holding 
this election and declaring the results. 

Senator Curtis. May I inquire right there? Did they enjoin you 
from holding the election ? 

Mr. Leedom. Pardon me. 

The Nebraska district judge enjoined us from taking any further 
action after the election was held. That is, we could do nothing. We 
could not count votes, we could not open the ballot boxes. We could 
not rule on challenges that were made to certain voters. 

Senator Curtis. I stated yesterday that the problem may be with 
the law. I do not want to be unfair to anyone. So in the spirit of 
going to the heart of the problem, so that things like this never-, never 
happen again, we are glad you people are here. 

The thing that happened is that the Teamsters Union went to Mr. 
Coffey, accompanied by one of their most famous goons, Barney 
Baker. He is a great big fellow that weighs sometimes 380 pounds. 
Other officers threw down a contract and said, "Sign this." 

From the very first moment, he said, "Let's hold an election," Mr. 
Coffey did. These goons wouldn't do it. 

On September 26, he filed an application for an NLRB election. 
There were only 22 drivers involved. By the time 6 months went by 
before the election was announced, Mr. Coffey is wiped out of business. 

He received for his physical assets and his franchise one-third of 
what he had previously been offered, in approximate figures. His fu- 
ture earnings are gone, with all of his losses then. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15677 

I am not concerned about the regulations. They were made by the 
NLRB and that is their responsibility. 

But he made this application on September 26. It was evident that 
it was a small company. It wasn't a case of asking for an election in 
a plant where 5,000 or 30,000 people worked, where the physical job 
of holding an election amounted to something. 

Under the statute, how soon could the election have been held ? 

Mr. Leedom. The statute doesn't fix a definite time. There are 
interminable times involved. 

Senator Curtis. Aren't there any maximums or minimums? 

Mr. Leedom. There are certain minimum time limits which we 
must allow for certain purposes. There must be a notice of a hear- 
ing. The hearing is held. 

Senator Curtis. How long must that notice take ? 

Mr. Leedom. There is no definite time. Pardon me just a moment. 
Let me ask one of these staff men. 

(Witnesses conferred.) 

Mr. Leedom. There is no time limit as to the holding of the hear- 
ing. It involves some investigation, setting up all that is necessary 
to conduct the election, setting up the arrangements. Then the hear- 
ing is held. 

In the first place, of course, there is a provision in the statute that 
if the company and union will agree, they can hold a consent election. 
But when you have an obstreperous party on either side, they do not 
accept. 

Senator Curtis. They had openly charged that they would delay 
this until they broke him, and they did it. 

Mr. Leedom. Yes ? 

Senator Curtis. What I want to know his how soon after he made 
his application on September 26 could you, under the statute, have 
held an election? 

Mr. Leedom. After the hearing is held there would be a 30-day min- 
imum notice of the election. 

Senator Curtis. Is that required by statute ? 

Mr. Leedom. No ; that is required by our regulations. 

Senator Curtis. How long a time would have to elapse between his 
application and the hearing ? 

Mr. Leedom. There is no set time in the statute or in our regula- 
tions for that. 

Senator Curtis. If a small businessman like this would have stated 
at the hearing that he had been threatened that they would delay this 
and drive him out of business, would that testimony have been ad- 
missible under your rules ? 

Mr. Leedom. I think so. I think it would be admissible. 

Senator Curtis. You see, this didn't take the union by surprise. 
They were the ones that started the controversy. They apparently 
were prepared, because they have a whole array of men and attor- 
neys. They came in and they were ready. 

Would it have been possible to have that hearing within 10 days 
after the application ? 

Mr. Leedom. Yes, that would be a possibility. 



21243— 59— r>t. 41 21 



15678 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Would it have been possible to hold an election 
10 days thereafter? 

Mr. Leedom. No. 

Senator Curtis. Why? 

Mr. Leedom. Because our regulations require 

(Witnesses conferred.) 

Senator Curtis Your regulations require what? 

Mr. Leedom. After a hearing, our regulations permit the parties 
to file briefs on the issues that were developed at the hearing. After 
the briefs are filed we enter an order, a decision really, determining 
the issues and setting a date for the election which, under our own 
regulations, is to be held not later than 30 days. The time involved 
for filing briefs, the maximum allowable time 

Senator Curtis. Is that before or after the hearing ? 

Mr. Leedom. This is after the hearing. Let's see, you are dealing 
with minimums. Of course, we deal with maximums. We allow so 
many days in which to file briefs. 

What is that period ? 

Senator Curtis. Your members of the staff can make answers any 
time they wish. 

Senator Ervin. Would you gentlemen please identify yourselves 
for the record by giving your name, occupation, and residence. 

Mr. Kleiler. I am Frank Kleiler, executive secretary, National 
Labor Relations Board. 

On the question of these minimum periods, you want to bear in mind 
that the Board lacks any authority to direct 

Senator Ervin. How do you spell your last name ? 

Mr. Kleiler. K-1-e-i-l-e-r. 

Senator Ervin. Suppose you identify yourself for the record, please. 

Mr. Constantine. James V. Constantine, Solicitor. 

Senator Ervin. I thank you for sending me the information about 
where I can get some articles on Taft-Hartley. 

Mr. Constantine. I am glad I could help a little bit. 

Senator Ervin. Thank you. 

Mr. Kleiler. I was simply wanting to put this thing in this con- 
text : So far as the statute is concerned, the Board lacks any authority 
to direct an election except upon the record made at a formal public 
hearing. By consent of the parties, and in any case where the parties 
waive their rights, an election can be held almost as soon as they agree 
upon it, allowing for proper notification to the employees of the 
time and place. 

Senator Curtis. Of course, here you had the announced plan of 
one of the richest and most powerful vested interests in the country, 
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, against a little business- 
man employing 22 people. They announced that they were going 
to delay until they drove him out of business, which they did. 

He demanded an election the first day they walked in there, into 
the office. He made an application for an election on September 26. 
He went out of business on March 1. The results of the election were 
announced some time in April. 

Mr. Kamerick. April 3. 

Senator Curtis. April 3. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15679 

I am not interested in embarrassing you men, but I want to know 
whether or not we have to change the law to prevent these things 
from happening. 

May I ask this question : Do you have any provisions in your regula- 
tions for disposing of little simple elections involving a small number 
of employees, for speeding it up, as contrasted to a large number of 
people involved where the issues are complicated and where the physi- 
cal problems of getting voting equipment and secret booths and so 
on are involved ? 

Mr. Leedom. No, Senator, there is no way under the law to take 
care of a small election any differently than a big election, as- 
suming 

Senator Curtis. Well, you have discretion as to when you can set 
the times, do you not ? 

Mr. Leedom. We have discretion within the limits of the rules which 
we have established. We have some discretion. But, of course, the 
number of employees doesn't necessarily indicate the complication of 
the issues. But I think there are defects in the law that might help 
in a situation such as this. It might not, too. 

Senator Curtis. Here is the thing that was complicated. They had 
to determine whether or not they did $100,000 worth of business in 
interstate commerce. That has to be determined before they order 
an election. That was simple. Either Coffey's books would reveal 
that or they wouldn't, What are the other issues ? 

Mr. Leedom. The issues in this case over which they made the most 
were unit questions at the hearing, the question as to whether Mr. 
Coffey's full outfit of some 22 employees, or whether or not one ter- 
minal or two terminals 

Senator Ervin. In other words, the question of the appropriate 
bargaining agent. 

Mr. Leedom. That is right. 

Senator Ervin. And that has to be determined before the election ? 

Mr. Leedom. That is right. 

Senator Ervin. Like the question of who is eligible to vote has to 
be determined before the election. 

Mr. Leedom. That is right. Those are issues that are developed 
at a hearing. 

Then, strangely enough in this case, when we went to the court for 
an injunction, they went on a different issue. They went on the 
question as to whether or not our rule at the Labor Board, as clearly 
dictated by the statute, that striking voters, permanently replaced 
are not entitled to vote, they went to the court on the question as to 
whether or not that was constitutional. That was a very unusual 
ground for a district court to step in and seek to exercise jurisdiction. 

Senator Curtis. But no court restrained you from proceeding with 
the election? 6 

Mr. Leedom. No ; the restraint came after the votes had been cast 
and before they were counted. The Nebraska court enjoined us from 
doing anything after the votes were cast. 

Senator Curtis. Ordinarily, how long is it after an election before 
they count the votes ? 

Mr. Leedom. They count them immediately. 

Senator Curtis. You count them immediately ? 

Mr. Leedom. Yes. 



156S0 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. I can recite a lot of steps here, but he filed for an 
election on September 26 ; they force him out of business on March 1 ; 
the result is announced on April 3, and the Teamsters never got a 
vote. 

Mr. Leedom. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. Not one vote. I think this: You are a judicial 
body, a quasi-judicial body. I don't know of a court in the land 
where, if they hear a matter that is rather simple, if they make time 
for any filings anyone wants to make for briefs and so on, that it is 
not a very short period and you get it over with. And if it does in- 
volve a great many people and huge sums, and very controversial 
determinations, they grant more time. 

These were not employees. These were outsiders that butted in. 

Mr. Leedom. As quickly as we got a change to adjudicate the case, 
that is what we held. 

I would like to say, Senator, in this little lull, that while I am not 
thoroughly familiar with the details of our record in this case, I have 
gone over it with men who are here with me who are, and the Labor 
Board, I say in this case, moved with expedition and dispatch, with 
due regard to due process. 

So the Labor Board was the victim here of circumstances, and I 
think maybe some defects in the law. 

Senator Curtis. What are those defects ? 

Mr. Leedom. The one thing that might have made a difference in 
this case and might not is a very controversial thing in industry. It 
has to do with whether or not there should be a prehearing election 
in what appears to be a kind of trivial case, or one where there are no 
real issues. 

Senator Curtis. Does the present law permit a prehearing election ? 

Mr. Leedom. It does not. It is spelled out that it is not. I speak 
on this reluctantly because this is highly controversial and we are sit- 
ting more or less as a court. I think we ought to keep ourselves as 
free of policy questions as we can. But in this type of case, where 
you have just a few employees, it seems a little unreasonable that it 
takes all of this time, and it has to come to Washington for a decision, 
when you had seven people out there or four people, really, who were 
going to vote to find out if they wanted a certain union to represent 
them. It seems a little unreasonable that they couldn't at the outset 
have indicated their desire and then that might have ended it. 

If the votes in a prehearing election were four to nothing, as they 
turned out to be, maybe nobody would have had the nerve to go ahead 
and raise all of these issues which turned out to be nothing. I don't 
know exactly how this divides, but I think, generally speaking, man- 
agement doesn't want a prehearing election, although you will find 
some segments of unionism that don't want a prehearing election, but 
I think that that provision might have helped in this case. 

It might not, too, because even though you have a small interest 
such as we have here, you might have very complicated issues, and 
the prehearing election is really designed for the case where it is not 
only small but it seems to be simple issues where somebody is seeking 
to delay. 

Senator Curtis. I want to go back and get the timetable right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15681 

After a petition for an election is filed, you must order a hearing, 
and there is no minimum period that you have to wait there, is there ? 

Mr. Leedom. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. That could have been done in 10 days ? 

Mr. Leedom. It could have been. I don't mean to say that it could 
have been in this case, but it would have been possible in a given case. 

Senator Curtis. Well, this was an emergency. A great and pow- 
erful group had jumped on one of our citizens operating a very small 
business. As Mr. Coffey testified yesterday, he was located in a town 
of 1,700. The clerks and so on that he employed in his office there 
were about 16, 17, or 18. It was the biggest employment in town. It 
was equivalent, populationwise, to the closing of General Motors in 
Detroit. 

The business is gone. They are all out of there. Mr. Coffey has 
had his future business taken away. They could have the hearing 
in 10 days. Now, how soon could you have had the election ? 

Mr. Leedom. At such time within the next 30 days after we ordered 
it that the regional director out on the ground wanted to fix it. That 
would depend upon circumstances with which he would familiarize 
himself. 

Senator Curtis. The regional director? 

Mr. Leedom. The regional director, the regional director of the 
Labor Board in that area. 

Senator Curtis. He has to fix the time ? 

Mr. Leedom. He fixes the time. He deals with the parties and fixes 
the time. 

Senator Curtis. He is not the man who holds the hearing ? 

Mr. Leedom. No ; he is not. 

Senator Curtis. But someone could have held a hearing. Is that 
required by statute ? 

Mr. Leedom. The hearing is required by statute. 

Senator Curtis. No. I mean that the regional director has to make 
the decision. 

Mr. Leedom. No; that isn't required by statute. That is simply 
machinery. 

Senator Curtis. That is an odd proceeding. Here a matter comes 
into court, and an individual holds a hearing, and he orders the parties 
to do something. The courts would never think of sending it to an 
appellate or circuit court to enter the order to decide whether they 
should hold an election. Why do they have that ? 

Mr. Leedom. The man who hears it is on the staff of the regional 
director, and the regional director is supervising the hearing, so to 
speak. He doesn't go out himself and hold them. He supervises and 
his people go out and hold the elections. 

Senator Curtis. But you could have had a hearing in 10 days and 
you could have had an election within 30 days after that ? 

Mr. Leedom. Yes ; barring the complication in this case. 

Senator Curtis. That would have been 40 days. Then you could 
have counted the votes immediately, couldn't you ? 

Mr. Leedom. Yes ; we could have. But we are talking now about a 
hypothetical case, not this one, because there were certain things de- 
veloped in this case that stopped us, not only the injunctions, but 
another circumstance. 



15682 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. But there was no injunction holding up your hear- 
ing, your filing of briefs, or holding the election, was there ? 

Mr. Leedom. No. But in this particular case, after we ordered the 
election — was it after or just as we ordered the election that charges 
were filed? — after we ordered the election and in the 30 days in 
which it would have been held, normally, the union filed charges 
against the company of unfair labor practices. 

Senator Curtis. They were never substantiated, were they ? 

Mr. Leedom. They were not. But we have a rule that while there 
are charges of unfair labor practices pending, we do not hold an 
election because — and this is the rationale with which you might 
agree or might not, depending on the case — while unfair labor prac- 
tice charges are pending, we do not hold an election because, theoreti- 
cally, somebody is being coerced, either the company or the employees. 

Senator Curtis. But you state that while there are charges of un- 
fair labor practices pending. 

Mr. Leedom. That is right. 

Senator Curtis. That is far different than a finding that unfair 
labor practices are pending. When those charges are filed, why can't 
a preliminary hearing be determined immediately and a decision 
made on whether or not there is probable cause that there are unfair 
labor practices that have to be gone into, or disposed of ? 

Mr. Leedom. That is essentially the way it is. We do investigate 
those immediately. In this particular case, we got in touch with the 
Director. He got in touch with us, and we sent the word out, in this 
case, to investigate this immediately and give us your decision on the 
unfair labor practices. 

Senator Curtis. Do you remember how long it took to get that 
done? 

Mr. Leedom. We can get that. We have that chronology. 

(Witnesses conferred.) 

Mr. Leedom. In this particular case, in this particular case, he was 
stopped because of the restraining order which the union got just 
a few days later in the Nebraska court, and that prevented us doing 
anything. 

Senator Gold water. Restraining order against what ? 

(Witnesses conferred.) 

Senator Goldwater. Was it a restraining order 

Mr. Kennedy. I think we should get the dates correct. The elec- 
tion was held on January 24, 1956. What prevented a decision on 
that election from being announced immediately ? 

(Witnesses conferred.) 

Mr. Kennedy. It would appear that what happened was that on 
January 27, 1956, the local requested a review of the regional direc- 
tor's decision relating to the unfair labor practice. 

Mr. Constantine. The previous question, Mr. Kennedy, was how 
soon did the regional director dispose of the unfair labor practice 
charges. They were dismissed on January 18. That released the 
so-called holdup of the election so that it could proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. But the big question yesterday was the delay from 
January 24, when the election was held, until April 3, when it was 
announced. The election was held on January 24, 1956. Why was it 
delayed until April ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15683 

Mr. Leedom. How would it be if Mr. Constantine would give you 
the chronology of events, which we have ? 

Mr. Kennedy. Could you just answer the question as to why there 
was delay? 

Mr. Constantine. There were two injunctions, there were objec- 
tions to an election and there were challenges. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let's find out what the injunctions were. The in- 
junctions were for what? 

Mr. Constantine. The first injunction was granted on January 26, 
1956, by the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska 

Mr. Kennedy. What was that injunction ? 

Mr. Constantine. That restrained the Board from proceeding 
with anything in the case, which included counting the votes or even 
taking action on challenges and objections which were filed. 

Senator Goldwater. What did the court base that on ? 

Mr. Constantine. On the unconstitutionality of the provision in 
the statute, in section 9, which says that economic strikers who have 
been permanently replaced may not vote. The court foimd probable 
cause that that statute was unconstitutional and granted a restraining 
order. 

Senator Goldwater. Were there such individuals involved in this 
protective vote ? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes; three. 

Senator Ervin. And one of the 

Mr. Constantine. Excuse me. Four had been replaced by the 
employer. 

Senator Ervin. And one of the conditions in equity for the issuance 
of an injunction is that the complainant make a prima facie showing 
that he is entitled to win on the merits of the final hearing, is it not? 

Mr. Constantine. He must have made that. 

Senator Ervin. How could he make that hearing when the votes 
were not counted ? 

I am not talking about you, but I am talking about the judge. 

Mr. Constantine. Technically, the votes weren't in issue at this 
point. 

Senator Erven. The point is this, though: If the votes had been 
counted, it would have appeared that even if the Constitution had 
been with the Teamsters, that the Teamsters could not possibly have 
won at the final hearing on the merits, could they ? 

Mr. Constantine. That is true, but the votes under our rules, 
Senator, can't be counted when there are any challenges. What 
happens then is ballots which are challenged are placed into sep- 
arate envelopes with the voter's name over it so they can be identified. 

Senator Goldwater. When were they challenged ? 

Mr. Constantine. Immediately after the election. 

Senator Ervin. What kind of an injunction was it? Was this a 
restraining order ? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes. 

Senator Ervin. Was there any notice to show cause, or an op- 
portunity to be heard ? 

Mr. Constantine. Yes, there was a notice to show cause after- 
ward, but it was ex parte in the beginning. 

Mr. Leedom. The restraining order was entered without the Labor 
Board being notified. 



15684 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Ervin. There is no excuse for that kind of restraining 
order to be issued by any court. 

Mr. Constantine. That is something you should take up with 
the court. 

Senator Ervin. Yes. I held the office of superior court judge in 
North Carolina for several years, and I was very frequently applied 
to for issuing a restraining order. 

Really, a judge should never issue a restraining order that would 
tie up a matter of this kind for more than — well, the people used 
to apply to me for them and I would say "I will give you a tem- 
porary restraining order good for 3 days, and at the end of the 3 
days, you come here with your evidence and show it to me." 

I kept many things from being tied up. An injunction is a power- 
ful writ that is designed to prevent a party from suffering irreparable 
injury. 

But it appears here that an injunction was used where the effect of 
it was to cause irreparable injury. That is not the fault of the Na- 
tional Labor Relations Board. That is the fault of the court. I 
know a lot of judges are very careless about signing orders. I 
realize they are busy men. But if they will adopt a policy to issue 
a temporary restraining order for about 3 days, with a notice to 
show cause at the end of that 3 days, to bring in the evidence and 
hear it, they would put an end to a lot of this. 

Also, if some district attorneys will prosecute some people that are 
making false allegations in their applications for injunctions. 

Mr. Constantine. I might add that this was an unusual injunc- 
tion in another respect, Senator. The court didn't have jurisdiction 
over the Board out in Nebraska, and I think the judge and the 
parties, or the petitioner, realized that, because a couple of weeks 
later there was a motion to dismiss and the court granted that. 

Senator Erven. I realize, of course, that the National Labor Re- 
lations Board, like anybody that has an injunction issued against 
them, have to abide by the injunction. Whether they think it is 
wise or not, they have no alternative. That is, up to the point where 
they have an opportunity to move for dissolution. 

Senator Goldwater. What do you find the attitude of the courts 
generally to be relative to the Taft-Hartley provisions? 

Mr. Leedom. We are experiencing now, I think, more than any 
time within my experience, and some of the oldtimers with the Na- 
tional Labor Relations Board say more than in their experience, a 
tendency of the U.S. district courts to move into the area where we 
think we have exclusive jurisdiction, so that in recent months we have 
had several district courts interfering with our election processes. I 
perhaps should not say "interfering," but we treat it as an interfer- 
ence. We think that the law is quite clear that in this area, a district 
court does not have jurisdiction. 

That is a matter, of course, that is in the court system now for 
determination. 

Senator Goldwater. Would you mind telling us what general areas 
of the country you have found this to be true ? 

Mr. Leedom. Let me see. 

(Witnesses conferred.) 

Mr. Leedom. Mr. Constantine points up the fact that the thing is 
happening mostly in the District of Columbia, because that is where 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES EST THE LABOR FIELD 15685 

there is no question about the litigants having jurisdiction over the 
Labor Board. 

There are other areas, but I think you can't pin it on any particu- 
lar area, Senator. It is rather widespread. There is not a lot of it, 
but it is in remote parts. 

Senator Goldwater. Then would I be safe in assuming that some of 
your problems, if not a considerable part of them, stem from a new 
attitude of the Federal courts relative to your position and relative 
to the Taft-Hartley? 

Mr. Leedom. That is right. 

Senator Goldwater. Mr. Chairman, I wanted him to say that be- 
cause I have heard that generally throughout the country. If it is 
true, I think we have come to a pretty bad situation in this country 
when judges whose appointments can mean control then inject them- 
selves into the matters relative to labor-management relations and 
the Taft-Hartley Act, and the activities of the National Labor Rela- 
tions Board. I think it should only point up to the American people 
even more clearly the dangers that we face by this growing power of 
one side of the bargaining table in politics, because you are going to 
see more of it instead of less of it. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Constantine, you started explaining about the 
injunction when I interrupted you with the question. The first in- 
junction was in the district court? 

Mr. Constantine. In the District Court of Nebraska. 

Senator Erven. And you say it had really no jurisdiction? 

Mr. Constantine. It had no jurisdiction because none of the Board 
members was physically present in the State of Nebraska, and they 
couldn't get service on them. 

Senator Ervin. But it was a restraining order or an injunction 
without any termination date, or did it have a termination date? 

Mr. Constantine. It had no termination date. It said "Until fur- 
ther order of the court." 

But the court never got a chance to make a further order because, 
for some reason, which I think was probably the jurisdictional one, 
the plaintiff arbitrarily took a nonsuit. 

Senator Ervin. When did that occur ? 

Mr. Constantine. The nonsuit occurred on February 13, which 
would be roughly 18 days after the injunction was granted. 

Senator Ervin. That is a familiar tactic with people who procure 
injunctions where they have no merit in a claim for an injunction. 
Of course, that is not the law's fault but it is the court's fault in 
many cases. 

You said there was another injunction. 

Mr. Constantine. That injunction, but by the plaintiff's own ac- 
tion, was dissolved on he 13th day of February. Two days later the 
District Court for the District of Columbia granted a temporary 
restraining order, which was not quite as broad as that of the District 
Court of Nebraska, but still was enough to prevent the certification 
of the results. 

It read that the Board may do anything except — and here is the 
language — "down to but not including the certification of results," 
which meant that the Board was then free to proceed to count the 
ballots and to pass on the objections. 



15686 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Senator Curtis. Would you yield for a question ? 

Senator Ervin. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. In a case where the Labor Board determines they 
have jurisdiction, do you submit yourselves to State courts, and do you 
abide by the edicts and decrees of State courts ? 

(At this point Senator Gold water withdrew from the hearing- 
room.) 

Mr. Leedom. Senator, wherever we think a State court infringes 
on our jurisdiction, we are in there protecting our own processes. 

Senator Curtis. That is not the point I am inquiring about. It 
has been declared that in the field of labor relations, the Federal 
Government has preempted the area. You determine that the man 
is engaged in interstate commerce in the required amount. From 
that point on, are you subject to the orders of State courts ? 

Mr. Leedom. No, no ; we are not. 

Senator Curtis. Then you were not subject to a State court in 
this case ? 

Mr. Leedom. This was a Federal court, Senator. 

Senator Curtis. But you kept repeating here that it was the State 
district court. 

Mr. Constantine. I am sorry. If I said that, I was wrong. 

Mr. Leedom. It is the Federal district court of the State of Ne- 
braska. 

Senator Curtis. I will withdraw that proposition, then. Well, I 
might be in favor of it, having Federal agencies subject to State 
courts. I probably wouldn't be, but I haven't run into any bureaus 
that were advocating that yet. 

Senator Erven. When was the injunction issued here in the District? 

Mr. Constantine. February 15. 

Senator Ervin. Under that injunction, you could have gone ahead 
and done everything except certify the results ? 

Mr. Constantine. Except certify the results. The Board did do 
that. The first thing it had to do was to wait on the regional di- 
rector's passing on the objections and on the challenges, because that 
required some investigation. He made his report and sent it in on 
February 17. You will remember that he couldn't have done any- 
thing prior to February 13, when the other injunction was in force,, 
so that in 4 days he handed in his report. 

Under our rules, any party has a right to file objections or ex- 
ceptions to that report, and the union did do that. It filed its ob- 
jections or appeal, as you may want to call it, on February 23. So 
that beginning February 23, the Board was ready to pass upon the 
objections and the challenges. 

Senator Ervin. When did the Board finally pass on those ? 

Mr. Constantine. Well, the case was assigned to a legal assist- 
ant. The Board finally passed on it by March 21, 1956. 

Mr. Leedom. And the time allowed, Senator, for filing exceptions 
to the report made on the objections, is 10 days, plus postal time from 
the place where they are to service. 

Senator Curtis. The sad situation here is that that date, March 
31, was 20 days after Coffey went out of business. 

Mr. Leedom. That is right. While our processes in this case were 
as fast, really, as you could expect, in view of all the circumstances 
they weren't fast enough to save this employer. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IX THE LABOR FIELD 15687 

Senator Erven. Your time limits as fixed by your regulations I 
can't quarrel with because they seem to be about as short, most of 
them, as you could well be. I don't know what the remedy is in this 
field. 

Of course, in ordinary elections, most States have a law that who- 
ever gets the majority vote gets the certificate of election, and then 
the results of the election carried into effect, and the party who con- 
tests the election has the burden of proof. 

There might be some disadvantages to that in this situation ; I don't 
know. But it seems to me as if Congress is going to have to step 
in and pass some kind of a law to give a man a right of action, where 
any party takes and maliciously abuses the adjudicatory processes 
under the National Labor Relations Board. 

I don't know whether there is any other remedy or not. That 
occurs to me as one possible remedy. 

I say no person ought to be allowed to do that. 

Under this kind of a situation, the first court should have told you 
to go ahead and count the votes, but not to certify the results officially. 
Then, if the court had gone through and had a hearing after a few 
days, and made them come in with the evidence, the court could have 
said that there was no probable cause for issuing an injunction and 
dissolved it. 

A lot of these things could be handled rightly in the men in the 
Federal courts have enough discretion to exercise the discretion 
which the law imposes on them. I realize they have a lot of work 
to do, and all of that. But where seven people vote in an election^ 
it seems to me that a court, before the court issues an injunction for 
more than 3 or 4 days, that by the process of an order to show cause 
can make the parties come in with that evidence, and ascertain 
whether or not the injunction instead of preventing irreparable injury 
is going to cause irreparable injury, in his discretion he could deny it. 

I would like to ask this question along this line : Do you think there 
is any kind of a process by which the exercise of the powers of the 
National Labor Relations Board can be decentralized, something like 
the system, for example, of the circuit courts, giving the regional 
directors more power and converting the Board itself largely into 
an appellate body ? 

Mr. Leedom. I think there is a possibility of action in that area, 
Senator. I think there is. 

Senator Ervin. Of course, under the law, as I understand it, the 
duty to make decisions is vested fundamentally in the Board as a 
board ? 

Mr. Leedom. That is right. 

Senator Erven. They could not do too much toward decentrali- 
zation without further authority from Congress, as I understand it? 

Mr. Leedom. That is right. The way the law is written now, we 
are charged with the decisions on these elections here in Washington, 
but I think that it might be improved in another way. 

Mr. Kennedy. I just want to find this out: On February 23 the 
injunction here in the District of Columbia was dismissed, is that 
correct, and you could start counting the ballots ? 

Mr. Constantine. No; it wasn't dismissed but we were free to 
count the ballots under the injunction to begin with. 



15688 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Kennedy. That was February 15 ? 

Mr. Constantine. February 15 ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. So you could start counting the ballots on Febru- 
ary 15 but you couldn't announce it until when ? 

Mr. Constantine. We were free to start counting them, but there 
were procedural problems involved, one of which was an objection to 
the election and the other was challenges by both sides. Those had 
to be disposed of. 

Mr. Kennedy. You were free to count them or start counting on 
February 15? 

Mr. Leedom. I think that the language isn't quite right. There 
is no problem counting seven votes, but our problem was, under the 
law should these three votes be counted and under the law should 
these four votes be counted. Correctly this is the statement, that 
we were then free to begin to adjudicate in such a way we could deter- 
mine which ballots could be counted. 

Mr. Kennedy. There were seven ballots, all of which as I under- 
stand it were challenged, and you had seven votes that you had to 
adjudicate as to whether these individuals could or could not vote, 
and you could start doing that, figuring that answer out on Febru- 
ary 15, is that right? 

Mr. Constantine. No; under our practice, which has been in 
effect 

Mr. Kennedy. It doesn't matter how long it has been in effect? 

Mr. Constantine. The regional director is required to investigate 
that and make a report to the Board. Either side may appeal from 
that decision of his. 

Mr. Kennedy. Let us get down to this : You are talking about the 
court stopped you during this period of time and you couldn't do it. 
Now, on February 15, you could start doing it? 

Mr. Leedom. The regional director could begin investigating the 
objections. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, there are seven votes. 

Mr. Constantine. Objections have nothing to do with the votes. 
The objections are based upon alleged employer misconduct, and 
whether there is such misconduct or not is a question of fact. That 
requires an investigation. 

Mr. Kennedy. When had those claims of misconduct been made ? 

Mr. Constantine. That was made on the 27th of January, but be- 
cause of injunctions, no investigation could be held. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, local 554 requested a review. The regional 
director had already stated that the claims of improper activities on 
the part of the unfair labor practice on the part of the employer were 
not sustained. 

Mr. Constantine. Wait a minute. That relates to the charges but 
not the representation case. There were two sets of objections. One 
was in the form of a charge in a complaint case which is handled by 
the General Counsel, and the other was an objection to the election, a 
separate set of charges, which is handled by the Board. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then let us go back. On February 15 you could 
start making a determination as to whether the election was properly 
held and whether you should throw out any of these ballots ? 

Mr. Constantine. That is right. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15689 

Mr. Kennedy. Well, now, I still don't understand why it took you 
so long to make a decision. 

Mr. Constantine. It takes times to investigate those objections. 

Mr. Kennedy. You can't tell me it took that long for seven votes. 

Mr. Leedom. It isn't a matter of votes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Of course it is. You count seven to find out whether 
these three individuals had the right to vote in an election and it 
shouldn't take that long. You can blame a lot of this on the courts 
and the fact that the Teamsters Union was trying to delay it but 
certainly when you have the information and you were allowed to go 
ahead with it on February 15 and didn't make your decision or make 
an announcement of your decision until the middle of March, it doesn't 
seem fair at all. 

Mr. Leedom. We can explain that. 

Mr. Kennedy. I have been listening, but you can start to explain it. 

Mr. Constantine. You are asking us not to go by our rules. 

Mr. Kennedy. Then change the rules if that is what is happening. 

Mr. Leedom. Nobody is contending that we should do away with 
due process. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have had a lot of time and you are not claim- 
ing that the Teamsters Union wasn't protected. 

Mr. Leedom. Do you think it is excessive time for the regional di- 
rector to take 4 days to investigate these charges and report to us? 
That is what happened. 

Mr. Kennedy. That takes us to February 19. 

Mr. Leedom. Then there is time for the parties to file exceptions to 
his report to us. That is 10 days. 

Mr. Kennedy. Tell me when the regional director issued his find- 
ings? 

Mr. Leedom. He reported to us on February 17 and then there are 
10 days in which the parties can file exceptions to his report to us. 
That is better than the courts do, generally speaking. We have 
shortened these times over court procedure. 

Mr. Kennedy. That takes us up to February 27. 

Mr. Leedom. Then the exceptions come in, and the board is ready 
then to have a legal assistant read the record, and brief the law. 

Mr. Kennedy. You have done all of that, and you have had the 
10 days. 

How long was the brief that the Teamsters Union submitted on 
February 15 ? Could I see that ? 

Mr. Leedom. I am afraid we don't have it here. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long was it, that all of this examination had to 
take place ? How many pages was it ? 

Mr. Leedom. This was a short record, made in the hearing, of 87 
pages, I think. 

Mr. Kennedy. I am talking about the brief the Teamsters sub- 
mitted. 

Mr. Leedom. I really don't know that. 

Mr. Constantine. It is a short brief and it is a typewritten brief, 
and I would say around 15 pages, double spaced. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long did it take you to have all of these people 
study that? 

Mr. Leedom. Not all of these people. One legal assistant, and he 
took it and the issues were joined when the exceptions came in, and 



15690 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

the briefs were filed. One legal assistant went over the case and pre- 
pared a draft of decision. That seemed to him right. That was sub- 
mitted to his Board member. Either as it was being done or after 
if he saw no serious problem he would proceed on his own and sub- 
mit the final report to his Board member. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was that done? 

Mr. Leedom. Then when the Board member decides here is a good 
draft, he circulates it to his colleagues, and we don't have the date, 
I am afraid, on that. 

Mr. Constantine. On March 14. 

Mr. Leedom. The draft of the decision that went down may be 
modified a little. On March 14 it was circulated to the other Board 
members, and they decided to take some time for them to satisfy them- 
selves from the record, and they decided the case then on March 21. 
All of the comments of the Board members had been either added or 
ironed out and the decision went down on March 21. 

Mr. Kennedy. When was it given to the participants ? 

Mr. Leedom. It is mailed immediately ; that day. 

Mr. Kennedy. March 21, to the actual parties. 

Mr. Leedom. To the parties. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you have some suggestions as far as legislation 
is concerned ? If this is the problem, and if the problem is not yours, 
do you have suggestions as far as legislation is concerned so that 
this will not happen? 

The request for the election was made back in September, and, as 
you pointed out, it is not just a question of being unfair to manage- 
ment. It happened to be unfair to management in this case, but often 
it has been unfair to labor. The request was back in September; the 
decision was not until March. 

Now, there might be all of these things that went on, but then cer- 
tainly if it is not your fault, then the legislation needs to be changed 
or altered. Do you have suggestions ? 

Mr. Leedom. I am sorry. This morning we haven't formulated 
any precise recommendations. I have discussed a little bit the one 
thing that might help, to create a prehearing election. I think the 
suggestion that Senator Ervin made of possibly changing the statute 
to give more authority to the region would make sense. 

But, really, I haven't, and I don't think my colleagues here have at 
this moment a real specific recommendation. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is not an unusual situation, is it, Mr. Leedom ? 

Mr. Leedom. No. Within the framework of the statute as Con- 
gress has passed it, we have struggled with this business of purposeful 
delay. We have struggled with it, and we reprimand counsel and 
we make speeches about it and we do a pretty good job of cutting 
through delay where we can. But we have certain rules that we our- 
selves must abide by, our own rules. 

Mr. Kennedy. I would think the rules have to be changed in the 
National Labor Relations Board in a case like this. You give them 
10 days, and by the time it arrives, then it has to be reviewed. It- 
takes at least a month or 6 weeks, and a man can lose his business in 
that period of time. 

Mr. Leedom. If I take out the injunctions in this case, we come up 
with a different result. I am not sure it would have saved this man, 
because the law may not be written to stop picketing even after the 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15691 

results are announced or it may not have been at this time. But if we 
hadn't had the injunctions in this case, we would have had a much 
better record. 

Mr. Kennedy. Certainly your procedure, Mr. Leedom, and maybe 
it is the rules that have been in effect a long period of time, but cer- 
tainly that procedure increases the delay a number-fold, because you 
have the period of time they have allowed for briefs, and then your 
own review and the review by the board above that. Even at best 
this would have taken 6 or 8 weeks and by that time the man is out of 
business, in the case of a lot of small businesses. 

Mr. Leedom. Of course, the Labor Board may not be fully armed 
to deal with ruthless treatment either by an employer or by a union. 
Maybe that is what Congress has to do, figure out a new set of rules. 

Mr. Kennedy. No one knows that better than the National Labor 
Relations Board, which is an independent body, dealing with these 
subjects all of the time. If there is a problem there it would seem in- 
cumbent upon the Board to suggest what should be done in order 
to deal with it. 

Mr. Kleiler. I want to point this out, that the National Labor 
Relations Board headed by five men in Washington must handle 
thousands of cases throughout the country. Wherever Congress vests 
the power to decide in the five men in Washington, there are inef- 
fectible limits to the amount of unreviewable delegations to people 
throughout the country. The alternative, it would seem to me, is 
approximately this: Do we want to delegate with no review by the 
Board in Washington, to people out in the field, the authority to de- 
cide these cases so that they can be decided quickly. If you do dele- 
gate within the spirit of the law as we now have it, you simply have 
to provide some channels for review of what might be arbitrary or 
capricious action or even inconsistent action by regional offices 
throughout the country. 

So you have provided at the top a system of review and ineffectibly 
it looks like redtape to a union or an employer which feels frustrated 
by the delays. But what is one man's redtape is sometimes the other 
man's due process. That it seems to me is the dilemma which you 
have throughout this labor relations field. 

That is how to handle the staggering case load, and providing that 
the people with the ultimate responsibility by appointment of the 
President and confirmed by the Senate, to decide, are in control. 

I wanted to point out one thing in this picture, because I am afraid 
there is emerging the spectacle of the National Labor Relations Board 
sitting idly by and not even trying to do anything while an employer 
goes out of business. I know your questions have related primarily 
to the representation case, but throughout this whole proceeding there 
were charges by the employer against the union and if I might have 
a minute or two I would like to make one explanation that while the 
union was successfully enjoining the Board we were trying with some- 
what less success, to be true, to enjoin the union. 

There is that story which I think needs to be told, to give a fair 
picture of this situation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Before you do that, could I just get some dates 
cleared up. You said that on March 23, 1956, as I understood it, or 
March 21, that the participants received notice that the ballots had 
been counted. 



15692 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Constantine. That is the date it was mailed from Washington. 

Mr. Kennedy. According to the information we have, the par- 
ticipants received information on March 23, 1956, and they received 
a notice that the ballots were to be counted on March 31, 1956. 

Mr. Constantine. The Board's decision is mailed to the parties, 
and to the regional director. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you mail them a notice that the ballots had 
been counted or were to be counted ? 

Mr. Constantine. No; our notice states that the ballots now may 
be counted. When they are counted is the regional director's dis- 
cretion. 

Mr. Kennedy. That puts it another week away, because you gave 
them notice that the ballots were to be counted on March 31, 1956, 
which is a delay of another week, and the result was they didn't 
receive notice until April 3, 1956. 

They didn't receive notice on the 23d of March that the ballots 
had been counted. 

Mr. Constantine. The Board doesn't set the date for counting 
the ballots. That depends upon the docket of the regional director. 

Mr. Kennedy. I just say that all of this is delay. You can go week 
by week, but you received your notice back on February 15 that you 
could count the ballots, and then you sent them a notice on March 23, 
5 weeks later, that the ballots could be counted, and on March 31, 
the ballots were counted and the election was announced, and the 
results of the election announced in April of 1956. 

I just think that that is incredible when that is for seven ballots. 

Mr. Kleiler. Let me ask you this : Would you consider it reason- 
able that ballots be counted in the presence of representatives of the 
parties ? We don't open these ballots in the secrecy of our office, and 
we arrange that when the challenged ballots are opened, each party, 
the employer and the union, shall have an observer present to witness 
the counting and the marking of the ballots to make sure it is all on 
the up and up. We have had a very successful record of the integrity 
of our elections. 

Mr. Kennedy. It might be a successful record of the integrity of 
the elections but you also have had a successful record of small busi- 
nesses going out of business in the United States, while they are 
waiting to have their ballots counted. 

Mr. Leedom. Don't charge that to the Labor Board. 

Mr. Kennedy. This is the procedure. 

Senator ERvin. I believe frankly there could be some way devised 
by which you can count the ballots just like you count them in an 
election and let each party be present and let the man make a ruling. 
You are going to have to decentralize the thing. 

Mr. Leedom. In the normal case, we count them in the presence 
of the two observers, and we count them right then and there, and 
declare the result. 

Senator Ervin. We have an election precinct in North Carolina 
up in the mountains of Haywood County, where they have eight 
voters, and seven Democrats and one Republican, and as soon as the 
polls open at sunrise, they vote and as soon as all of them voted they 
count the votes and the results are announced by 15 minutes after the 
election or after the polls are open. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15693 

It seems to me that there ought to be some machinery devised by 
which the votes are counted right after the polls close. 

Mr. Kleiler. I might say that that is done in practically all ol 
our elections, except where each party exercises its right to challenge 
That is to challenge for cause. We had the circumstances here ol 
these ballots being challenged, and they were the disputed ones, and 
the challenges had to be ruled on. 

Senator Ervin. You see, you have all of these things, you have an 
order made by the Board before or the representatives of the Board, 
defining exactly who is allowed to vote, so in this particular case, 
outside of the question of these subsequent unfair labor charges, you 
had the mere question which one of these seven people were entitled 
to vote under this previous order ? 

Mr. Leedom. That is right. 

Senator Ervin. Now, of course, you are complicated in this situa- 
tion, and I think you could have had a decision by which those votes 
could have been counted then and there. _ 

A preliminary determination could have been made as to which 
challenges were sustained. Then the court would have had a situa- 
tion in which the court would have had some information on which 
to determine whether it ought to issue an injunction. 

Now, I realize that you have to have a procedure that would give 
adequate opportunity of notice and opportunity to be heard where 
unfair labor charges are made, because you can't determine the truth 
or falsity of those charges by reading them. Some of the most false 
charges are dressed up in the finest legal language, and I realize also 
you have to give an opportunity to be heard on those charges. 

You have no way to determine their validity without an investiga- 
tion. Also, I can't quarrel with your procedure where you give each 
party in interest an opportunity to be heard on your proposed findings. 
I think that those are necessary. But I believe that you could have 
some procedure even under the present setup that would fix it so votes 
could be counted more quickly. 

I don't think you can have all of these unfair labor charges made 
or if you do, you have a notice to be heard. I think the fundamental 
trouble is that you have a tremendous job and I think that the Con- 
gress under the act has tried to centralize in effect the administration 
of the act and put the responsibility on five men. 

Under all principles where you have the power vested in five men 
at least a majority have to act one way or the other to get a decision. 
There ought to be a change in the setup, in which in each area there 
would be a man who could make a final decision with respect to every 
matter, and let that decision be binding unless it is reviewed. 

Also, I don't know what the procedure is about, but in this case, 
when they apply for an injunction, they apply for an injunction 
against the Labor Board rather than against Coffey, do they not? 

Mr. Leedom. Yes, in this case the injunction ran against us. 

Senator Ervin. Were they required to give any bond or indemnify 
anybody ? 

Mr. Leedom. Just a moment. They did give a $1,000 bond in the 
case. 

Senator Ervin. The law provides before you can enjoin in this 
character that affects the rights of a third party, you have to give an 

21243— 59— pt. 41 22 



15694 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

indemnity bond for him, to pay all damages that he might suffer as 
a result of the injunction. 

That is some of my horseback observations, and my on-the-spot 
reactions. 

Senator Curtis. I want to again repeat that certainly I wish to 
make no criticism of individuals at all. We are dealing here with a 
system, and a procedure, and it doesn't spring up overnight but it 
springs up over many years. As to my own views on it, I feel this 
way : There was a time many years ago where the judicial processes, 
some of the laws and the administration of them, leaned over very 
heavily in favor of management. 

Then we went into an era where the reverse was true. Immunities 
and special privileges were given to unions. I feel that what we 
should strive for is neither one of those. We should strive for an 
adherence to the good old American principle of equality before the 
law. I think both are strong enough that neither should have any 
special immunities or privileges and certainly Government agencies 
should not be used to advance the cause of either one. I am not con- 
vinced that that hasn't been done over the last quarter of a century. 
The power of Government has been used to advance the cause of 
unions. 

I don't think it should be used to retard them, but I think that it 
should be used to be fair to both parties. 

I do want to ask this : Would it require a change in the statute or 
merely a change in your rules to do away with the procedure that the 
mere filing of charges of unfair labor practice hold up an election. 

Can you change that, that there must be a finding of at least prob- 
able cause that unfair labor practices exist? Would that require a 
change in statute or a change in regulations ? 

Mr. Leedom. That would require a change in regulations only. 

(Members of the select committee present at this point in the 
proceedings were Senators Ervin and Curtis.) 

Senator Curtis. I want to also ask this question : In this case, or in 
a similar case, do you, and can you, take judicial notice of the conduct 
of the parties'? In this case they were conducting a secondary boy- 
cott. Can you take judicial notice of that in determining the speed 
with which you move as well as the good faith of the parties ? 

Mr. Leedom. Yes ; we can and we do. 

Senator Curtis. If someone boasts that they are going to drive 
somebody out of business, and then they proceed to boycott that 
person— in one case we took evidence yesterdav where the effects of 
that boycott were directed even from New York City that goods 
shouldn't be shipped over the Clark Bros. Transfer in Norfolk, Nebr. 
Notice of that was served by the A.P. office in New York City. 

This is a little concern that employs 35. When a great and power- 
ful group openly declare that they are going to drive somebody out 
of business and they resort to those things, they are not coming before 
any courts or any Government agency with clean hands. And they 
are not entitled to all of the delays where there is, in good faith, a 
genuine dispute of facts and laws that takes a lot of time to determine. 

Whether or not, when we get all through with this in the weeks 
and months that lie ahead, the remedy is in regulation changes or 
statutory changes, chances are it will take both. But citizens can't 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15695 

be very happy about the practical results that come about in some of 
these things. 

Mr. Leedom. I agree with you, Senator. I would just like to say 
in connection with that that the Labor Board took notice of what 
appeared to be misconduct on the part of the union in this case, and 
prosecuted that vigorously to the full extent of our power so that we 
now have criminal contempt proceedings pending in court against 
this union in this instance. 

Senator Ervin. Under the procedure followed, so far as court 
procedure is concerned, could Coffey have been heard on the matter 
in the court ? 

Mr. Leedom. Do you mean in that injunction ? 

Senator Ervin. Yes. 

Mr. Leedom. Yes, he could have been heard. I guess he wasn't, 
but he could have been. 

(Witnesses conferred.) 

Senator Ervin. You have a strange situation. Here is the District 
of Columbia having jurisdiction of the Board. Here is a man in 
Nebraska or Saskatchewan, or someplace else, who has an interest 
in litigation. But the suit is brought so far away that he can't really 
be there, unless he is a man of considerable wealth. In fact, he 
wouldn't even be notified. There is no way to be heard. He has to 
come across the Nation. 

Mr. Leedom. In the District of Columbia court proceeding he 
would have had to come clear across the country and then have sought 
intervention. They didn't make him a party here. There was only 
the Labor Board as the party. 

Senator Ervin. Frankly, I think sometimes justice takes place too 
far away from the point where the controversy arises. It may be 
inevitable under the existing act. 

I do believe that it might be possible as far as elections are con- 
cerned to make some changes in regulations that would expedite the 
hearing of an election matter, which would enable the courts, when 
an application is made for an injunction, to determine whether there 
is any chance for the complainant, or the plaintiff, or whatever you 
choose to call him. 

I would like to ask your opinion on this : There has been a great 
deal of complaint among the public about the so-called "no man's 
land" in the labor field. There have been various suggestions made as 
to how that "no man's land" should be eliminated. Some say it 
should be done by expanding the facilities of the National Labor 
Relations Board; others say it should be done by giving jurisdiction 
to any court, State or Federal, where the National Labor Relations 
Board fails to take jurisdiction. 

Do you have any idea or have you made any study to indicate what 
expansion you would have to have in the personnel of the National 
Labor Relations Board if you were to take jurisdiction in all possible 
controversies coming under the Taft-Hartley lav; \ 

Mr. Leedom. I think it would have to expand, Senator, beyond 
practicalities for the Labor Board to handle all cases that would 
arise. 

Senator Erven. I have had that feeling myself, without anything in 
particular to base it on, because there are a tremendous amount of 
controversies in this field in all areas of the Nation. 



15696 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

The committee would appreciate it if you have any recommenda- 
tions as to legislation anytime while the committee is still sitting. We 
would welcome those recommendations. 

Also, we think maybe in certain areas, for example in the election 
area, some more expeditious regulation procedure might be devised. 

I realize that under our system it ought not to be ever denied a 
person, notice and opportunity to be heard, and I realize the necessity 
for those procedures. 

Mr. Leedom. Thank you, Senator. We are never completely satis- 
fied with our rules and regulations. I would say, however, that now 
in this very area there are no glaring defects in our own procedures, 
but we will be glad to take another look. We are continually looking 
at our own rules and regulations and trying to improve them. 

Senator Curtis. I just have one more question, Mr. Chairman. 

Those criminal contempt proceedings are about 2 years old out 
there in court. 

Mr. Leedom. Yes. 

Senator Curtis. What is holding them up ? 

Mr. Leedom. I don't know. The judge is having difficulty with 
the problem. He just hasn't decided it. That is, the judge in Ne- 
braska, The fact of the matter is we have been trying to get a 
hearing to present the issues and there is no time which has been 
set for the hearing. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is all I have. 

Senator Ervin. We want to thank you for coming before us and 
giving us the benefit of this evidence. 

Mr. Leedom. Thank you. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Albert Parker, Mr. Chairman, will be the next 
witness. 

Senator Ervin. Come forward, Mr. Parker. 

You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give in this 
Senate select committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and noth- 
ing but the truth, so help you God ? 

TESTIMONY OF ALBERT S. PARKER, ACCOMPANIED BY COUNSEL, 

H. C. ALLDER 

Mr. Parker. I do. 

Senator Ervin. Will you please identify yourself for the record, 
giving us your name, your residence, and your occupation. 

Mr. Parker. Albert S. Parker, 745 North 75th Street, Omaha, 
Nebr.; secretary-treasurer of local 554, Omaha, Nebr. 

Senator Ervin. Are you represented by Mr. Mulholland ? 

Mr. Parker. I am. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Mulholland — 

Mr. Allder. My name is Harry Clifford Allder, the Washington, 
D.C., bar. 

Senator Ervin. I beg your pardon. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Allder, did you have a statement? 

Mr. Allder. Yes. 

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to make a statement, with 
your permission. 

Senator Ervin. Yes. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15697 

Mr. Allder. This witness is under criminal charge in the United 
States Court for the State of Nebraska, Criminal No. 0171. The facts 
in that case are exactly the facts about which he would be interrogated 
here this morning, violations of the Taft-Hartley Act. 

For those reasons, at this time I most respectfully request that this 
witness not be questioned now, but that his interrogation be postponed 
until there is a determination of the criminal charge against him. 

Mr. Kennedy has a copy of the criminal charges which I gave him 
several days ago. 

Mr. Kennedy. That is correct. 

Senator Ervin. The charge is a charge of criminal contempt? 

Mr. Allder. That is right. 

Senator Ervin. It would seem to me that in the nature of things 
that would be a charge for disobedience of a court order. 

Mr. Allder. No; it is not. It is disobedience of a regulation in 
the Taft-Hartley Act. The court has not ordered him to do some- 
thing which he has violated. The act is what he is charged with 
violating. 

Senator Curtis. What specific thing is he charged with ? 

Mr. Allder. Concerning the secondary boycott. 

Senator Curtis. Specifically what is he charged with? 

Mr. Allder. Doing things, Senator, that he is not allowed to do 
under the regulations of that act, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy has it there. I would rather not quote from memory. 

Senator Ervin. It would seem to me from a hurried reading of 
this thing, the order to show cause and the petition on which it is 
based, that all Mr. Parker is charged with is violation of an order 
of the court. I am unaware of any procedure by which a man can be 
charged with contempt of court for disobeying a statute or regulation. 

Mr. Allder. If you will read it, Senator, it says a rule to show 
cause why he should not be adjudicated in contempt for different 
things that he has done. 

Senator Ervin. Yes, but it alleges in the petition that those things 
were done after the issuance of an injunctive order. If you can 
point out- 



Mr. Allder. That is true; but still all the facts involved in this 
criminal case, which does carry a penalty of jail, are exactly the facts 
about which he would be interrogated here this morning. 

Senator Ervin. I would think your point would be well taken as 
to any conduct on the part of Mr. Parker subsequent to the issuance 
of the order of the court, but not with reference to any conduct of 
Mr. Parker prior to the issuance of the order of the court, because 
the contempt is not for what he did before the order. The allegation 
that he was guilty of contempt is not based upon allegations, as I 
construe this from a hurried reading, of what he did before the order 
of the court was issued, but for what he did after that. 

Mr. Allder. May I explain that, sir ? 

Senator Ervin. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Allder. The acts that he did before the court issued an order, 
they are controverted also. That is an issue in the matter. In other 
words, if the court order had not issued, and he violated, it would 
not be a violation, possibly, under the law. These are all parts of 
his defense. To interrogate him about any of those facts would be 
unjust to him. The committee so far, in my experience here, each 



15698 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

time that someone has been under a definite criminal charge, has not 
interrogated him. The mere fact that he was under investigation 
was not enough, no matter what was going to happen to him that way. 

Senator Ervin. But from the standpoint of law, if the order is 
void, then, of course, he would have complete defense to the order. 
But his guilt or innocence on the contempt charge cannot possibly 
be predicated upon anything he did before the issuance of the order 
of the court. 

In other words, I would rule on this, that he can be interrogated 
as to anything he did before the issuance of the order, but not as to 
anything he did after the issuance of the order. 

Mr. Allder. I beg to differ, Senator. It is all part and parcel of 
the same situation. His acts before the order was issued are a part 
of this case, this criminal case. It has a criminal number on it. It 
is not a civil action. It is not civil contempt. It is criminal contempt 
for which he can be put in jail for a long period of time. As a mat- 
ter of fact, indefinitely. 

Senator Curtis. He is not cited for contempt for any acts that are 
not now prohibited by the Taft-Hartley law, is he? 

Mr. Allder. That is my understanding of it, yes, sir; that these 
things are in violation of the Taft-Hartley Act, 

Senator Curtis. But he is not cited for contempt for any pressure 
that may have been exerted on employers to induce them to cease 
doing business with another. 

Mr. Allder. As I understand it, Senator, there was a complaint 
filed by the Government asking that this rule to show cause be issued, 
and before that there was a charge brought in front of that judge 
that issued this rule to show cause saying he had violated different 
sections of the Taft-Hartley Act, and asking that an order be issued 
that he be directed to do or not to do certain things, in compliance 
with the Taft-Hartley Act. 

Senator Curtis. You missed my point, Mr. Allder. We want to 
inquire about his acts and conduct that admittedly are not violations 
of the Taft-Hartley law. Our purpose is for legislative informa- 
tion. One of the problems here is that it appears, and it has been 
alleged, that pressure was exerted against employers to get them to 
cease doing business with other people. That is not a violation of 
the Taft-Hartley law. 

Therefore, there could be no criminal contempt against Mr. Parker 
for such conduct. 

Mr. Allder. Senator, as I sat here yesterday listening to testimony, 
I heard a witness say that they received telephone calls, various peo- 
ple, and things were told to them, what was going to be done to their 
children. That certainly is a violation of any law. 

Senator Curtis. Is that a violation of the Taft-Hartley law? 

Mr. Allder. I wouldn't say that much. I am not an expert on the 
Taft-Hartley Act. But it certainly is a violation of the law any- 
where, to threaten violence to anyone. 

Senator Curtis. Is arson a violation of the Taft-Hartley law ? 

Mr. Allder. No; but it is a violation against the United States 
law, and in Nebraska it is a violation of the State law. 

Senator Curtis. But there is no arson pending ? 

Mr. Allder. No. 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15699 

Senator Curtis. Is it a violation of law to puncture tires ? 

Mr. Allder. I think so. 

Senator Curtis. But this doesn't cover that. 

Mr. Allder. I agree with the chairman that this technical charge, 
if I can use that word, is that he has disobeyed the order of the court, 
but the order of the court was in compliance with the alleged viola- 
tions of the Taft-Hartley Act. 

Senator Curtis. And I want to inquire about things that are not 
prohibited by the Taft-Hartley law. 

Senator Ervin. The chairman, with the consent of the other mem- 
bers of the committee, will rule that the witness shall be interrogated 
by counsel as to matters which antedated the issuance of the court 
order, but not as to matters which occurred subsequent to the issuance 
of the court order. 

Counsel will proceed. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been secretary-treasurer of local 
554, Mr. Parker? 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were you elected or appointed as secretary-treasurer 
of local 554? 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Barney Baker of the Teamsters Union was 
active in Nebraska during 1955. Could you tell us what Mr. Barney 
Baker was doing up there? 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. According to the testimony we have had before the 
committee, Mr. Barney Baker and yourself, and Bill Noble, a Team- 
ster official from Grand Island, attended a meeting with Mr. Coffey, 
of the Coffey Trucking Co., in Alma, Nebr., on xlugust 24, 1955. Is 
that correct ? 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And at that time, according to the testimony, you 
did not represent a majority of the drivers of the Coffey Trucking Co. 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Nevertheless, you requested that Coffey sign a con- 
tract with the Teamsters Union, and stated that if he did not sign a 
contract, if he attempted to get an election, you would be able to put 
him out of business ? 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you in fact, you and Mr. Barney Baker, and 
Mr. Noble, threaten Mr. Coffey that you would put him out of busi- 
ness if he attempted to get an election and refuse to sign a contract 
with the Teamsters Union ? 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Isn't it a fact that you refused to have an election, 
and after you refused to have an election, a period of harassment and 
violence followed as far as the Coffey Trucking Co. is concerned ? 



15700 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And did you and Mr. Baker participate in calling 
up the wives of the truckdrivers and threatening them and threaten- 
ing what would happen to their children ? 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. According to the testimony before our committee, 
the drivers that continued to drive for the Coffey Trucking Co. 
were called on the telephone and told that their children would be 
hurt coming home from school, if they continued to drive for the 
Coffey Trucking Co. Did you participate in that ? 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And the automobiles and the trucks and the tires 
of the trucks were wrecked. Did you participate in that ? 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Also, a boycott began during this period of time. 
Did you get in touch with the employees or the owners of various 
trucking companies to boycott the Coffey Trucking Co. ? 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you follow the same procedure with the Clark 
Bros. Trucking Co. during the same period of time? Did you fol- 
low the same procedure with them ? 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Did you take steps to impose a boycott also on that 
trucking company ? 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And there was a fire started in the terminal of the 
Clark Trucking Co., a fire which was deemed to be done by an ar- 
sonist. Do you know who was responsible for that arson ? 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time, were you in touch 
not only with Barney Baker but were you in touch with Dick Kav- 
ner in St. Louis ? 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. And Mr. Hoffa, and Mr. Frank Fitzsimmons, of 
Detroit, were you in touch with them also ? 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Kennedy. Were your efforts on the boycott coordinated 
through Mr. John Bridge in Chicago ? 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Parker, I will ask you this question as an 
American citizen: Don't you think it would be a most disgraceful 
proceeding for an organization composed of strong men to try to 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15701 

frighten women and little children in order to acquire jurisdiction 
over their husbands and fathers ? 

Mr. Parker. I honestly decline— I respectfully decline to answer 
because I honestly believe that my answer might tend to incriminate 

me. 

Senator Ervin. You are testifying under oath. 

Do you realize you are testifying under oath that you might tend 
to incriminate yourself in the commission of some criminal offense if 
you would even express an opinion as to whether or not it would be 
disgraceful for a union composed of strong men to attempt to frighten 
women and children in order that it might, by such threats and intimi- 
dation of women and children, cause their husbands and fathers to 
subject themselves to the demands of such union ? 

Mr. Allder. Was that a question, Senator? 

Senator Ervin. Yes, that is a question. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ervin. Don't you wish that you could answer all of these 
questions that have been put to you? Don't you wish you could 
truthfully deny all of these questions that have been put to you freely 
and frankly without pleading the fifth amendment? 

( The witness conferred with his counsel. ) 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ervin. Are you married ? 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ervin. You might get away with that here before this 
committee, but I doubt, if you happen to be a married man, that 
you are going to get away with that when you get home and your 
wife hears that you testified in the face of a congressional com- 
mittee that if you admitted whether or not you were married it would 
tend to incriminate you in the commission of a crime. 

I don't know whether you are married or not, but if you are, you 
will have an explanation to make to your wife. 

Do you have any children ? 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ervin. Would you mind telling this committee how it 
would tend to incriminate you if you informed the committee whether 
or not you are the father of any children ? 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. How long have you lived in Omaha ? 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Where were you born ? 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Parker. Arkansas City, Kans. 

Senator Curtis. How long have you worked for the Teamsters 
Union ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 



15702 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Are you an employee of the International Union 
of Teamsters ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Alder. May he consult for a moment, Senator ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Is local 554 under trusteeship ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Parker. No. 

Senator Curtis. Has it been under trusteeship ? 

Mr. Parker. Could I consult my counsel ? 

Senator Curtis. Yes. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Was local 554 under trusteeship at the time, and 
just prior to, the last convention of the International Brotherhood of 
Teamsters ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Were you a delegate to that convention? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Who were the delegates to that convention from 
local 554? 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Have you ever contacted employers ; that is, man- 
agement, of transportation companies to ask or urge or suggest to them 
that they cease doing business with the Coffey Transfer? 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, that question could not involve a 
criminal offense. 

I will ask the reporter to read the question again, please. 

(The question was read by the reporter.) 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the committee order him 
to answer. It is not a violation of law. It could not incriminate him. 

Senator Ervin. The Chair, with the consent of the committee, or- 
ders and directs the witness to answer the question which has just been 
put to him. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Have you contacted employers; that is, manage- 
ment, of transportation companies, and urged or suggested or in- 
formed them in any way that they were to cease doing business with 
Clark Bros. Transfer ? 



IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 15703 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me 

Senator Ervin. The Chair, with the consent of the committee, 
orders and directs the witness to answer the question. 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because 1 honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Now, Mr. Chairman, I ask the witness : 

Have you or anyone under your direction, contacted the employees 
of a railroad company to inform them, to urge or to suggest in any 
manner, that they were to cease doing business, or to deliver freight, 
to any trucking company in the State of Nebraska ? 

Mr. Chairman, I submit that is not a violation of the law, because 
railroad employees are not employees within the purview of the Na- 
tional Labor Eelations Act, 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Senator Erven. The Chair orders and directs the witness to an- 
swer the question. 

Mr. Allder. Senator, I haven't heard a question yet. 

Senator Curtis started off by saying "Mr. Chairman," and he ad- 
dressed it to you, sir. Then you directed him to answer the question. 
But I think f ormallv for the record's sake 

Senator Ervin. I understood Senator Curtis had put his question 
in substance to the witness. 

Mr. Allder. No, he had not. 

Senator Curtis. I will restate the question. 

Mr. Parker, have you ever contacted— you or anyone under your 
direction— contacted employees of a railroad company to inform 
them or urge or suggest in any manner that they were to cease doing 
business with any trucking company in Nebraska ? 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ervin. The Chair orders and directs the witness to an- 
swer the question, with the consent of the committee. 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Parker, it has been testified here concerning 
a fire of certain trucks and property of the Clark Bros. Transfer Co. 
Did you, or anyone under your direction, have anything to do with 
those fires ? 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer mighttend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Parker, it has been testified here that some 
persons punctured or otherwise damaged tires on trucks belonging 
both to Clark Bros. Transfer and the Coffey Transfer. 

I ask you : Did you or anyone under your control have anything 
to do with those act ? 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
b e li eve that my answer mighttend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Mr. Parker, it has been testified here that a truck- 
load of butter in a truck belonging to Coffey Transfer was entered 
by breaking the seal, and the contents thereof taken out and dis- 
turbed. 

Did you or anvone under your direction have anything to do 
with it? 



15704 IMPROPER ACTIVITIES IN THE LABOR FIELD 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incrimin \ te me. 

Senator Curtis. Did you handle any mone^ that was paid to any- 
one who had anything to do with. ,' 3e offenses that I have just 
mentioned ? 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer becu se I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. How long have you known Richard Kavner? 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. How long have you known Barney Baker? 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. How long have you known Jimmy Hoffa ? 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Did Mr. Hoffa, or anyone representing him, or 
Mr. Baker, or Mr. Kavner, direct or suggest or advise you in carry- 
m ?4° n theSe acts wnich nave been described as a secondary boycott? 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. Have you handled any money for political cam- 
paign contributions for the election of Federal officers ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. The other day there was a report in the paper that 
Dave Beck, referring to Congressmen and Senators, said he wouldn't 
disclose who he helped because he had dumped tens of thousands of 
dollars on their tables and told them to use it. Do you know any- 
thing about any such practice? 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Curtis. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Ervin. With the exception of about two men, Mr. Parker, 
virtually every officer of the Teamsters International, or Teamster 
locals, who have appeared before this committee and who were inter- 
rogated by the committee, have advised the committee that if he 
answered the interrogations, his answers would tend to incriminate 
him in the commission of some criminal offense. 

I wish you would tell the committee whether you would take more 
pride m the Teamsters if their officers had handled themselves in 
such a way that they could come before a committee and make an 
honest disclosure of what they knew. 

Mr. Parker. I respectfully decline to answer because I honestly 
believe that my answer might tend to incriminate me. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Parker, you came here under a subpena ? 

Mr. Parker. Yes. 

Senator Ervin. Do you agree that you will return to the committee 
to be questioned further in the event the committee decides it needs 
to question you further and gives you and your counsel reasonable 
notice in advance as to the time and place that it is desired that you 






\ 



1ELD 15705 

another subpena 



sue sufficient, Mr. Chairman. 
. i itii that ierstanding, the committee will ex- 
cu. further attendance at this time. 

Ca^ ..c next witness. 

Mr. Kamerick. Mr. Howard Johnson, please. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Johnson, will you be sworn ? 

You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this 
Senate select committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and noth- 
ing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Johnson. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF G. HOW