    [Investigation of Gsi Strike]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

    rB"

    "^S^mSESo

    Given  By
    U»  S.  SUPT.  OF  DncUMEN^iSf

    ■^

    3^

    INVESTIGATION  OF  GSI  STRIKE

    /

    HEARINGS

    BEFORE  A

    SPECIAL  SUBCOMMITTEE  OF  THE

    COMMITTEE  ON  EDUCATION  AND  LABOR

    HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES

    EIGHTIETH  CONGEESS

    SECOND  SESSION
    PURSUANT  TO

    H.  Res.  Ill

    (SOth  Congress)

    HEARINGS   HELD  AT    WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,

    JANUARY  20,  26,  28,  FEBRUARY  2,  3,  10,  11,  28,

    MARCH  6,  8,  AND  9,  1948

    I'rinted  for  the  use  of  the  Committee  on  Education  and  Labor

    UNITED  STATES

    TMENT   PRINTING

    WASHINGTON  :   1948

    GOVERNMENT  PRINTING   OFFICE

    .1^f

    k,

    ^Ssc

    /

    V/i  "^kd

    >UPERINmiDENr  Of  KCUKM1S

    m.MAm

    COMMITTEE  ON  EDUCATION  AND  LABOR

    FRED  A.  HARTLEY,  Jr.,  New  Jersey,  Chairman

    GERALD  W.  LANDIS,  Indiana

    CLARE  E.  HOFFMAN,  Michigan

    EDWARD  O.  McCOWEN,  Ohio

    MAX  SCHWABE,  Missouri

    SAMUEL  K.  McCONNELL,  Jr.,  Pennsylvania

    RALPH  W.  GWINN,  New  York

    ELLSWORTH  B.  BUCK,  New  York

    WALTER  E.  BREHM,  Ohio

    WINT  SMITH,  Kansas

    CHARLES  J.  KERSTEN,  Wisconsin

    GEORGE  MacKinnon,  Minnesota

    THOMAS  L.  OWENS,  Illinois

    CARROLL  D.  KEARNS,  Pennsylvania

    RICHARD  M.  NIXON,  California

    W,  Manly  Sheppard,  Clerk

    JOHN  LESINSKI,  Michigan
    GRAHAM  A.  BARDEN,  North  Carolina
    AUGUSTINE  B.  KELLEY,  Pennsylvania
    O.  C.  FISHER,  Texas
    ADAM  C.  POWELL,  Jr.,  New  York
    JOHN  S.  WOOD,  Georgia
    RAY  J.  MADDEN,  Indiana
    ARTHUR  G.  KLEIN,  New  York
    JOHN  F.  KENNEDY,  Massachusetts
    WINGATE  H.  LUCAS,  Texas

    Special  Subcommittee  To  Investigate  the  GSI  Strike
    CLARE  E.  HOFFMAN,  Michigan,  Chairman

    WINT  SMITH,  Kansas
    II

    O.  C.  FISHER,  Texas

    v\

    ^\  80th  Congress,  Ist  Session

    J

    H.  Res.  Ill

    ^'

    m  THE  HOUSE  OF  EEPRESENTATIVES

    February  21,  1947

    Mr.  AiXEN  of  Illinois,  from  the  Committee  on  Rules,  reported  the  following  reso-
    lution ;  which  was  referred  to  the  House  Calendar  and  ordered  to  be  printed

    February  26,  1947. — Agreed  to

    Resolution

    Eesohjed,  That  the  Committee  on  Education  and  Labor,  acting  as  a
    whole  or  by  subcommittee,  is  authorized  and  directed  to  conduct  thor-
    ough studies  and  investigations  relating  to  matters  coming  Avithin  the
    jurisdiction  of  such  committee  under  rule  XI  (1)  (g)  of  the  Rules  of
    the  House  of  Representatives,  and  for  such  purposes  the  said  commit-
    tee or  any  subcommittee  thereof  is  hereby  authorized  to  sit  and  act
    during  the  present  Congress  at  such  times  and  places  within  the
    United  States,  whether  the  House  is  in  session,  has  recessed,  or  has
    adjourned,  to  hold  such  hearings,  and  to  require  by  subpena  or  other-
    wise the  attendance  and  testimony  of  such  witnesses  and  the  production
    of  such  books,  records,  correspondence,  memoranda,  papers,  and  docu-
    ments, as  it  deems  necessary.  Subpeiias  may  be  issued  over  the  signa-
    ture of  the  chairman  of  the  committee  or  any  member  of  the  committee
    designated  b}'^  him,,  and  may  be  served  by  any  person  designated  by
    such  chairman  or  member.  The  chairman  of  the  committee  or  any
    member  thereof  may  administer  oaths  to  witnesses.

    That  the  said  committee  shall  report  to  the  House  of  Representatives
    during  the  present  Congress  the  results  of  their  studies  and  investiga-
    tions with  such  recommendations  for  legislation  or  otherwise  as  the
    committee  deems  desirable.

    CONTENTS

    LIST  OF  WITNESSES

    Page

    Ayei's,  Robert,  general  manager,  Government  Services,  Inc.,  Washington,

    D.  C 2-3,  6,  8-9,  20-21,  269-270,  308-309,  341,  345-346

    Bancroft,  Richard  A.,  president,  Local  471,  United  Cafeteria  Employees

    Union,  Washington,  D.  C 177-196,203-206

    Bernstein,  Alfred,  negotiator  for  United  Public  Workers  of  America,  Wash-
    'ington,  D.  C 52-58,  63-65,  76-87

    Boehm,  Albert  C,  manager  of  Pentagon  Post  Restaurants,  Washington,
    D.    C 196-203,  211-213,  215-219

    Brown,  W.  H.,  steward.  Local  471,  LTnited  Cafeteria  Employees  Union.
    Washington,  D.  C 225-227

    Chapman,  Hon.  Oscar  L.,  Under  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  Washington,
    D.  C 22-27

    Childress,  Horace  S.,  coi-poral,  Metropolitan  Police,  Washington,  D.  C 30

    Collins,  William  O.,  United  States  deputy  marshal,  Washington,  D.  C 52

    Cross,  John  W.,  attorney  for  GSI,  Washington,  D.  C 9,

    17-20,  268-270,  307-308,  312

    Daly,  Victor,  chief  of  personnel  and  fiscal  division,  L'nited  States  Employ-
    ment Service  for  the  District  of  Columbia,  Washington,  D.  C 107-115

    Davitt,  J.  S.,  administrative  officer,  Navy  Department,  and  trustee,  GSI,

    Washington,  D.  C 272-275,  312,  348

    Demaray.  Arthur  E.,  associate  director.  National  Park  Service,  Washing-
    ton, D.  C 276-277

    Denham,   Robert  N.,  general  counsel,  National  Labor  Relations  Board,
    Washington,  D.  C 43-51

    Dew.  Mrs.  p:thel,  receptionist.  Local  No.  471,  UPWA,  Washington,  D.  C 107

    Donaldson,  H.  S.,  Department  of  Justice,  Washington,  D.  C 284-290

    Flaxer,  Abram,  president.  United  Public  Workers  of  America,  CIO,  New

    York,  N.  Y 119-148, 150-158

    Fleming.   Maj.   Gen.    Philip  B.,   Administrator,   Federal   Works   Agencv,

    Washington,  D.  C 207-209,  210-211,  212-215,^282-284

    Forer.  Joseph,  of  counsel  for  Alfred  Bernstein  and  Abram  Flaxer,  Wash-
    ington, D.  C 66-69, 148-150, 167

    Gibson.  John  W.,  Assistant  Secretary  of  Lal)or,  Washington,  D.  C 291-299

    Gillen,  F.  F.  (retired).  Department  of  the  Interior,  Washington,  D.  C 285-289

    Gi'ant.  Maj.  Gen.  U.  S.,  3d,  chairman.  National  Capital  Park  and  Planning

    Commission,  Washington,  D.  C 217,  220-225,  287-290,  313,  339-346

    Gross,  Eugene  A.,  Park  Police,  Washington,  D.  C 30-31

    Johnstone,  Alan,  general  counsel.   Federal   Works  Agency,  Washington,
    D.  C 1-2,  3-8

    Martin,  R.  F.,  chi'ef  clerk.  General  Accounting  Office,  Washington,  D.  C--  28-5-289

    McArthur,  Frank  S.,  staff  member.  House  Committee  on  Education  and

    Labor,  Washington,  D.  C 101-102,  349-350

    McCauley,  Harold  W..  deputy  United  States  marshal  in  and  for  the  District

    of  Columbia,  Washington,  D.  C 65-66,  91-93

    Mitchell,  Clarence,  national  labor  secretary.  National  Association  for  the

    Advancement  of  Colored  People,  Washington,  D.  C 158-161

    Morgan,  Capt.  Paul  P>.,  Quarternjaster  Corps,  United  States  Army,  post

    restaurant  officer.  Pentagon  Building,  Washington.  D.  C 227-233

    Morrison,  Robert  A.,  office  manager.  United  States  Employment  Service.
    Washington,  D.  C 11.5-118

    Mowry,  H.  F.,  sergeant,  Metropolitan  Police,  Washington.  D.  C 27-30

    Niehuss.  J.  C,  personnel  manager.  Government  Services,  Inc.,  Washing-
    ton, D.  C 104-106,  222,  224,  225,  269-270,  308

    VI  CONTENTS

    Pag*
    Preston,  John  F.,  Jr.,  member  of  staff.  Joint  Committee  on  Labor-Manage-
    ment Relations,  Washington,  D.  C 293

    Palmer,  Oliver  T..  business  agent,  Local  471,  United  Cafeteria  Employees

    Union,  Washington,  D.  C 164-177

    Patterson,  D.  G.,  assistant  director,  reference  department  for  circulation,

    Congressional  Library,  Washington,  D.  C 89

    Peters,  C.  A.,  deputy  commissioner  for  buildings  management.  Federal

    Works  Agency,  Washington,  D.  C 287-289

    Pollin,  Lila,   secretai-y   in  the  office  of  the  United  Public  Workers  of

    America,  Washington,  D.  C 59-63,69-76

    Reiman,  F.  Albert,  member  of  staff.  House  Committee  on  Education  and

    Labor,  Washington,  D.  C 51,66,348-349,350

    Reynolds,  W.  E.,  Commissioner  of  Public  Buildings,  Federal  Works  Agency,

    Washington,  D.  C 277-282

    Sands,  Charles  E.,  international  representative.  Hotel  and  Restaurant  Em-

    plovees"  International  Alliance  and  Bartenders'  International  League  of

    America,  Washington,  D.  C 32-35,93-101,163-164

    Schwellenbach,  Hon.  Lewis  B.,  Secretary  of  Labor,  Washington,  D.  O 9-20

    Smith,  William  T.,  deputy  United  States  marshal,  Washington,  D.  C 351-353

    Strong,  George  E.,  special  conciliator  for  the  GSI  strike.  Washington,

    D.  C - 246-268,  271,  299-307,  308,  309-312,  315-338

    Tyson,  William  S..  Solicitor,  Department  of  Labor 37-43

    Wiggins,  James  Russell,  managing  editor,  Washington  Post,  Washington,

    D.  C 237-244

    Wilder,  Frank,  reporter,  Washington  Post,  Washington,  D.  C 209-210,  242

    Williams,  A.  J.,  secretary.  Maritime  Commission,  Washington,  D.  C 287-289

    INDEX

    Article  from  the  Fraternal  Outlook,  issue  of  June  1942 90

    Article  in  Survey,  issue  of  April  1942,  excerpts  from 120

    Authorization  by  GSI  employees  for  collective-bargaining  representation,

    leaflet  and  card  soliciting 93-95

    Ayers,  Robert,  statement  and  testimony  of 2-3,

    6,  8-9,  20-21,  269-270,  308^309,  341,  345-346
    Bancroft,  Richard  A. :

    Letter  from  Hon.  Arthur  G.  Klein,  and  reply,  with  memorandum  com-
    paring 1947  GSI  and  1948  National  Food  Corp.  contracts 234-235

    Minutes  of  meeting  of  Local  471,  United  Cafeteria  Employees  Union,

    on  July  22,  1947  (exhibit  No.  5) 206

    Statement  and  testimony  of 177-196,  203-206

    Bernstein,  Alfred,  statement  and  testimony  of 52-.58,  63-65,  76-87

    Boehm,  Albert  C,  statement  and  testimony  of 196-203,  211-213,  215-219

    Brown,  W.  H.,  statement  and  testimony  of 225-227

    Case  No.  5-RM-9,  letter  from  Ross  M.  Madden,  regional  director,  NLRB,  to

    Government  Services,  Inc.,  relative  to 221

    Chapman,  Hon.  Oscar  I.,  statement  and  testimony  of 22-27

    Childress,  Horace  S.,  statement  and  testimony  of 30

    Clark,  Tom  C,  Attorney  General,  letter  from,  to  Hon.  Seth  W.  Richardson,
    transmitting  Department  of  Justice's  list  of  subversive  organizations

    (exhibit  No.  1) 127-130

    Collective-bargaining  status  of  an  employer  with  respect  to  a  union  which
    has  not  complied  with  requirements  of  Labor-Management  Relations  Act
    of  15;!47,  opinion  of  William  S.  Tyson,  Solicitor,  Department  of  Labor,

    relative  to 37-41

    Collins,  William  O.,  testimony  of 52

    Committee  on  Education  and  Labor,  excerpt  from  report  of  the,  on  the

    Labor-Management  Relations  bill r 46

    Communist  affiliation  or  criminal  record  of  certain  UPW  officers,  statement

    of  Hon.  Clare  E.  Hoffman  relative  to 90-91

    Cross,  John  W.,  statement  and  testimony  of 9,  17-20,  268-270,  307-308,  312

    Daly,  Victor,  statement  and  testimony  of 107-115

    Davitt.  J.  S.,  statement  and  testimony  of 272-275,312,348

    Demaray,  Arthur  E.,  statement  and  testimony  of 276-277

    Denham,  Robert  N.,  statement  and  testimony  of 43-51

    Department  of  Justice's  list  of  subversive  organizations  (exhibit  No.  1)_  128-129

    CONTENTS  Vn

    Page

    Dew,  Mrs.  Ethel,  testimony  of 107

    Donaldson,  H.  S.,  statement  and  testimony  of 284^290

    Employee-loyalty  program,  letter  from  United  States  Civil  Service  Commis-
    sion to  all  departments  of  the  Government  relative  to  (exhibit  No.  1) 127

    Excerpts  from —

    Article  in  Survey,  issue  of  April  1942 120

    Remarks  of  Representative  Frank  M.  Karsten,  of  Missouri,  relative  to

    use  of  labor  unions  as  tools  of  the  Communist  Party 46

    Remarks  of  Senator  Wayne  Morse,  of  Oregon,  relative  to  communism

    and  the  destruction  of  the  liberties  of  workers 47

    Report  of  the  House  Committee  on  Education  and  Labor  on  the  Labor-
    Management  Relations  bill 46

    Veto  message  of  President  Truman  on  Taft-Hartley  Act 47

    Exhibit  No.  1 — Letters  relative  to  employee-loyalty  program  and  list  of  sub-
    versive organizations 127-130

    Exhibit  No.  5 — Minutes  of  meeting  of  Local  471,  United  Cafeteria  Employ-
    ees Union,  on  July  22,  1947 206

    Exhibits  Nos.  6-A  and  6-B— Memorandums  Nos.  3  and  4,  submitted  by

    Special  Conciliator  George  E.  Strong  as  basis  for  settlement  of  strike —  335-337

    Flaxer,  Abram,  statement  and  testimony  of 119-148, 150-158

    Fleming,  Maj.  Gen.  Philip  B. :

    Letter  from  L.  B.  Schwellenbach,  Secretary  of  Labor 3

    Statement  and  testimony  of 207-209,  210-211,  212-215,  282-284

    Forer,  Joseph,  statement  and  testimony  of 66-69, 148-150, 167

    Fraternal    Outlook    (ofticial   publication    of    the    International    Workers

    Order) ,  pages  12  and  13  of  the  June  1942  issue  of facing  p.  90

    Gibson,  John  W.,  statement  and  testimony  of 291-299

    Gillen,  F.  F.,  statement  and  testimony  of 285-289

    Government  Services,  Inc. :

    Comparison  of  main  points  of  difference  between  1947  GSI  and  1948

    National  Food  Corp.  contracts 235

    Letter  from  Ross  M.  Madden,  regional  director,  NLRB,  relative  to

    case  No.  5-RM-9 221

    Resolution  passed  by  board  of  trustees  February  11,  1948 288

    Grant,  Maj.  Gen.  U.  S.,  3d  :

    Letter  to  Government  Services,  Inc.,  from  Ross  M.  Madden,  regional

    director,  NLRB,  relative  to  case  No.  5-RM-9 221

    Resolution  passed  by  board  of  trustees  of  GSI  February  11, 1948 288

    Statement  and  testimony  of 217,  220-225,  287-290,  313,  339-346

    Green,  William,  president,  American  Federation  of  Labor,  telegram  to

    Charles  E.  Sands 95

    Gross,  Eugene  A.,  statement  and  testimony  of 30-31

    Hoffman,  Hon.  Clare  E.,  chairman  of  the  special  subcommittee :

    Letter  from  United  States  Civil  Service  Commission  to  all  departments
    of  the  Government  relative  to  employee-loyalty  program   (exhibit

    No.  1) 127

    •Letter  to  Hon.  Seth  W.  Richardson  from  Tom  C.  Clark,  Attorney  Gen-
    eral, transmitting  Department  of  Justice's  list  of  subversive  organ-
    izations  (exhibit  No.  1) 127-130

    Press  release  issued  by  the  subcommittee 245-246

    Statement  relative  to —

    Communist  afBliation  or  criminal  record  of  certain  UPW  officers-  90-91

    Pui-pose  of  hearing 1

    House  Committee  on  Education  and  Labor,  excerpt  from  report  of  the,  on

    the  Labor-Management  Relations  bill 46

    House  Resolution  111 iii

    Johnstone,  Alan,  statement  and  testimony  of 1-2,  3-8

    Karsten,  Hon.  Frank  M.,  of  Missouri,  excerpt  from  remarks  of,  relative  to

    the  use  of  lal)or  unions  as  tools  of  the  Communist  Party 46

    Klein,  Hon.  Arthur  G.,  member,  House  Committee  on  Education  and  Labor,
    letter  to  Richard  A.  Bancroft,  and  reply,  with  memorandum  comparing

    1947  GSI  and  1948  National  Food  Corp.  contracts 234-235

    Labor-Management  Relations  Act  of  1947,  opinion  of  William  S.  Tyson,
    solicitor.  Department  of  Labor,  relative  to  collective-bargaining  status
    of  an  employer  with  respect  to  a  union  which  has  not  complied  with
    requirements  of 37-41

    VIII  CONTENTS

    Fase
    Leaflet  and  card  soliciting  authorization  by  GSI  employees  for  collective

    bargaining  representation 93-95

    Letter  from  United  States  Civil  Service  Commission  to  all  departments  of

    the  Government  relative  to  employee-loyalty  program  (exhibit  No.  1) 127

    Letters  and  telegrams  to —

    All  departments  and  agencies  of  the  Government,  from  the  United
    States  Civil  Service  Commission,  relative  to  employee-loyalty  pro-
    gram (exhibit  No.  1) 127

    Bancroft,  Richard  A.,  from  Hon.  Arthur  G.  Klein,  and  reply,  with
    memorandum  comparing  1947  GSI  and  1948  National  Food  Corp.

    contracts 234-235

    Fleming,  Maj.  Gen.  Philip  B.,  from  L.  B.  Schwellenbach,   Secretary

    of  Labor 3

    Government  Services,  Inc.,  from  Ross  M.  Madden,  regional  director,

    NLRB.  relative  to  Case  No.  5-RM-9 221

    Klein,  Hon.  Arthur  G.,  from  Richard  A.  Bancroft,  with  memorandum

    comparing  1947  GSI  and  1948  National  Food  Corp.  contracts 234-235

    Richardson,  Hon.  Seth  W.,  from  Tom  C.  Clark,  Attorney  General,
    transmitting  Department  of  Justice's  list  of  subversive  organiza-
    tions (exhibit  No.  1) 127-130

    Sands.  Charles  E.,  from  William  Green,  president,  American  Federa-
    tion of  Labor 95

    Schwellenbach,  Hon.  Lewis  B.,  from  Charles  E.  Sands 96,  97

    The  Secretary  [of  Labor]  from  William  S.  Tyson 37-41

    Truman,  Hon.  Harry  S.,  President  of  the  United  States  of  America,

    from  Charles  E.  Sands 95-96

    List  of  subversive  organizations,  as  compiled  by  the  Department  of  Justice

    (exhibit  No.  1) 128-129

    Local  471,  United  Cafeteria  Employees  Union,  minutes  of  meeting  on  July

    22,  1947  (exhibit  No.  5) 206

    Madden,  Ross  M..  i-egional  director,  NLRB,  letter  to  Government  Services,

    Inc.,  relative  to  Case  No.  o-RM-9 221

    Main  points  of  difference  between  1947  GSI  and  1948  National  Food  Corp.

    contracts,  memorandum  comparing 235

    Martin.  R.  F.,  statement  and  testimony  of 285-289

    McArthur,  Frank  S.,  statement  and  testimony  of 101-102,  349-350

    McCauley,  Harold  W.,  statement  and  testimony  of 65-66,  91-93

    Memorandum  from  Richard  A.  Bancroft  comparing  main  points  of  differ-
    ence between  1947  GSI  and  1948  National  Food  Corp.  contracts 235

    Memorandums  Nos.  3  and  4  sulnnitted  by  Special  Conciliator  Geoi'ge  E.

    Strong  as  basis  for  settlement  of  strike  (exhibits  Nos.  6-A  and  6-B)__  335-337
    Minutes  of  meeting  of  Local  471,  United  Cafeteria  Employees  Union  on

    July  22,  1947  (exhibit  No.  5) 206

    Mitchell,  Clarence,  statement  and  testimony  of 158-161

    Morgan,  Capt.  Paul  B.,  statement  and  testimony  of 227-233

    Morrison,  Robert  A.,  statement  and  testimony  of 115-118

    Morse,  Hon.  Wayne,  of  Oregon,  excerpt  from  remarks  relative  to  com-
    munism and  the  destruction  of  the  liberties  of  workers 47

    Mowry,  H.  F.,  statement  and  testimony  of 27-30

    National  Food  Corp.  1948  contract,  comparison  of  main  points  of  difference

    between  1947  GSI  contract  and 235

    Niehuss,  J.  C,  statement  and  testimony  of 104-106,  222,  224,  225,  269-270,  308

    NLRB  Case  No.  5-RM-9,  letter  from  Ros.s  M.  Madden,  regional  director,  to

    Government  Services,  Inc.,  relative  to 221

    Opinion  of  William  S.  Tyson,  Solicitor,  Department  of  Labor,  relative  to
    collective-bargaining  status  of  an  employer  with  respect  to  a  union  which
    has  not  complied  with  requirements  of  Labor-Management  Relations  Act

    of  1947 37-41

    Palmer,  Oliver  T.,  statement  and  testimony  of 164-177

    Patterson,  D.  G.,  statement  of 89

    Peters,  C.  A.,  statement  and  testimony  of 287-289

    Pollin,  Lila,  statement  and  testimony  of 59-63,  69-76

    Press  release  issued  by  the  subcommittee 245-246

    Pi-eston,  John  F.,  Jr.,  testimony  of 293

    Purpose  of  hearing,  statement  of  Hon.  Clare  E.  Hoffman,  chairman  of  the

    special  subcommittee,  relative  to 1

    CONTENTS  IX

    Reiman,  F.  Albert,  statement  and  testimony  of 51,  G6,  348-349,  300

    Remarks  of —    •

    Karsten,  Representative  Frank  M.,  of  Missouri,  relative  to  the  use  of

    labor  unions  as  tools  of  the  Communist  Party,  excerpt  from 46

    Morse.  Senator  Wayne,  of  Oregon,  relative  to  communism  and  the  de-
    struction of  the  liberties  of  workers,  excerpt  from 47

    Report  of  the  House  Conunittee  on  Education  and  Labor  on  the  Labor-
    Management  Relations  bill,  excerpt  from 46

    Resolution  passed  by  board  of  trustees  of  GSI  February  11, 1948 288

    Reynolds,  W.  E.,  statement  and  testimony  of 277-282

    Richardson,  Hon.  Seth  W.,  chairman.  Loyalty  Review  Board,  Civil  Service
    Commission,  letter  to.  from  Tom  C.  Clark,  Attorney  General,  transmitting
    Department    of    Justice's    list    of    subversive    organizations     (exhibit

    No.  1) 127-130

    Sands,  Charles  E. :

    Leatlet  and  card  soliciting  authorization  l)y  GSI  employees  for  collec-
    tive-bargaining representation 93-95

    Statement  and  testimony  of 32-35,93-101,163-164

    Telegram  from  President  William  Green  of  the  A.  F.  of  L 95

    Telegrams  to —

    Schwellenbach,  Hon.  Lewis  B 96,  97

    Truman,  Harry  S.,  I'resident  of  the  United  States  of  America 95-96

    Schwellenbach,  Hon.  Lewis  B. :

    Letter  from  William  S.  Tyson 37-41

    Letter  to  Ma.i.  Gen.  Philip  B.  Fleming 3

    Statement  and  testimony  of 9-20

    Telegrams  from  Charles  E.  Sands 96,97

    Smith,  William  T.,  statement  and  testimony  of 351-353

    Statements  of  Hon.  Clare  E.  Hoffman,  chairman  of  the  special  subcommit-
    tee, relative  to —

    Comnuinist  affiliation  or  criminal  record  of  certain  UPW  officers 90-91

    Purpose  of  hearing 1

    Strong,  George  E. :

    Memorandums  Nos.  3  and  4,  submitted  as  basis  for  settlement  of  strike

    (exhibits  No.  6-A  and  6-B) '_ 335-337

    Statement  and  testimony  of 24(>-268,  271,  299-307,  308,  309-312,  315-338

    Survey,  excerpts  from  article  in,  issue  of  April  1942 120

    Telegrams.     ( Sec  letters  and  telegrams. )

    Truman,  Hon.  Harry  S.,  President  of  the  United  States  of  America  :

    Excerpt  from  veto  message  on  Taft-Hartley  Act 47

    Telegrams  from  Charles  E.  Sands 95-96

    Tyson,  William  S. :

    Letter  to  the  Secretary  [of  Labor] 37-41

    Opinion  relative  to  collective-bargaining  status  of  an  employer  with
    respect  to  a  union  which  has  not  complied  with  requirements  of

    La))or-Management  Relations  Act  of  1947 37—41

    Statement  and  testimony  of 37-43

    United  Cafeteria  Employees  Union,  Local  471,  minutes  of  meeting  on  Julv

    22,  1947  (exhibit  No.  5) 206

    United  States  Civil  Service  Commission,  letter  to  all  departments  of  the

    Government  relative  to  employee-loyalty  program  (exhibit  No.  1) 127

    Wiggins,  James  Russell,  statement  and  testimony 237-244

    Wilder.  Frank,  testimony  of 209-210,242

    Williams,  A.  J.,  statement  and  testimony  of 287-289

    INVESTIGATION  OF  GSI  STRIKE

    TUESDAY,   JANUARY  20,    1948

    House  of  Representatives,
    Special  Subcommittee  of  the
    Committee  on  Education  and  Labor,

    Washington^  D.  G.

    The  subcommittee  met,  pursuant  to  call,  at  2 :  37  p.  m.,  in  the  com-
    mittee room  of  the  House  Committee  on  Education  and  Labor,  Hon.
    Clare  E.  Hoffman  (chairman  of  the  subcommittee)  presiding.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  will  come  to  order.

    A  statement  was  handed  out  to  the  press  showing  the  purpose  of
    the  meeting,  which,  among  other  things,  is  to  learn,  if  we  can,  on
    what  authority  and  for  what  reason  the  workers  in  cafeterias  in  two
    Government  buildings  were  denied  the  opportunity  to  work  by  the  clos-
    ing of  the  cafeterias,  and  by  what  authority  and  for  what  purpose  the
    Secretary  of  Labor  enters  the  controversy  and  requests  the  employer
    to  bargain  with  a  union  whose  officers  refuse  to  file  the  affidavits  re-
    quired by  statute.

    Is  Mr.  Johnstone  here  ?

    Mr.  Johnstone.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Are  there  any  other  witnesses  here  ?

    Mr.  Sands.  I  represent  the  Hotel  and  Restaurant  Employees,  A.
    F.  of  L.,  and  I  may  be  interested.    I  got  notice  only  at  2  o'clock.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  3- ou  want  to  be  a  witness  ?

    Mr.  Sands.  I  don't  know  what  it  is  all  about.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Then  you  are  just  a  spectator?

    (The  following  witnesses  were  sworn:  Alan  Johnstone,  general
    counsel.  Federal  Works  Agency;  Robert  Ayers,  general  manager,
    Government  Services,  Inc.;  Charles  E.  Sands,  international  repre-
    sentative, Hotel  and  Restaurant  Employees  and  Bartenders  Union;
    J.  C.  Niehuss,  personnel  manager,  Government  Services,  Inc.;  John
    W.  Cross,  attorney.  Government  Services,  Inc. ;  H.  F.  Mo  wry,  sergeant,
    Metropolitan  Police;  Horace  S.  Childress,  corporal.  Metropolitan
    Police;  and  Eugene  A.  Gross,  Park  Police.)

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Mr.  Johnstone,  we  will  start  with  you,  please.  You
    are  connected  with  which  Government  agency  ?

    TESTIMONY  OF  ALAN  JOHNSTONE,  GENERAL  COUNSEL,  FEDERAL
    WORKS  AGENCY,  WASHINGTON,  D.  C.

    Mr.  Johnstone.  I  am  general  counsel  of  the  Federal  Works
    Agency,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  I  should  like  to  say  that  I  understand
    that  the  committee  wished  General  Fleming,  who  is  the  Federal  Works
    Administrator,  to  appear  here  this  afternoon ;  in  his  absence,  Mr.  W.

    1

    2  INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE

    E.  Reynolds,  the  Commissioner  of  Public  Buildings,  which  is  a  con-
    stituent unit  of  the  Federal  Works  Agency.  Both  of  them  happen  to
    be  out  of  town.

    It  is  my  further  understanding  that  when  that  was  communicated
    to  this  committee,  it  was  requested  that  I  appear.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  right.  That  Agency  has  charge  of  the  Fed-
    eral buildings  where  these  cafeterias  are  operated.

    Mr.  JoHNSTOXE.  Yes.  The  Public  Buildings  Administration  has
    responsibility  for  the  management  of  a  considerable  group  of  public
    buildings  in  the  community.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  In  the  Labor  Department  and  the  Supreme  Court
    Building?

    Mr.  Johnstone.  We  have  no  jurisdiction  over  the  Supreme  Court
    Building.  We  do  have  the  management  of  the  building  of  the  Labor
    Department.

    It  is  my  understanding  that  the  Supreme  Court  manages  its  own
    building.    Certainly,  we  have  no  responsibility  in  the  matter.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Very  well.  There  was  a  contract,  was  there  not,
    previously  between  the  Government  Services,  Inc.,  and  local  471?

    Mr.  Johnstone.  I  don't  know  about  the  number.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Mr.  Ayers,  will  you  come  up,  please?

    What  is  your  position?

    TESTIMONY  OF  ROBERT  AYERS,  GENERAL  MANAGER,
    GOVERNMENT  SERVICES,  INC.,  WASHINGTON,  D.  C.

    Mr,  Aiders.  I  am  genei-al  manager  of  Government  Services.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Did  you  have  a  contract  with  a  local  covering  the
    service  workers  in  the  cafeterias

    Mr.  Aters.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Which  operate  in  tlie  Government  buildings?

    Mr.  Ayers.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  HoFFiMAN.  When  did  that  expire?

    Mr.  Ayers.  December  31,  1947.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Then  shortly  after  that,  on  the  following  Monday,
    the  workers  went  on  strike  ?

    Mr.  Ayers.  Yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  are  not  interested  in  the  merits  of  the  dispute
    between  the  service  corporation  and  the  union,  or  the  individual
    employees.  As  I  understand  it,  then,  you  did  get  an  order  closing
    two  of  the  cafeterias?

    Mr.  Ayers.  That  is  right.     We  got  a  request.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  From  whom  ?

    Mr.  Ayers.  Marshal  Waggaman  of  the  Supreme  Court  to  close  the
    cafeteria  there.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  When  did  you  get  that?

    Mr.  Ayers.  We  got  that  on,  I  believe  it  was  either  the  second  or  the
    following  Monday  morning.     It  was  verbal  over  the  phone.

    Mr.  Smith.  Who  is  he  ?

    Mr.  Ayers.  Marshal  Waggaman?

    Mr.  Smith.  Yes.

    Mr.  Ayers.  Marshal  of  the  Supreme  Court.

    Mr.  Smith.  Appointed  by  the  Supreme  Court?

    INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI    STRIKE  6

    Mr.  Ayers.  I  presume  so.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  What  other  cafeteria  was  closed?

    Mr.  Ayers.  The  Labor  Department  Cafeteria.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  From  whom  did  that  order  come?

    Mr.  Ayers.  That  request  came  from  the  Public  Buildings  Admin-
    istration to  the  organization.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Who  gave  it  to  you  ?

    Mr.  Ayers.  It  came  through  General  Fleming's  office  to  General
    Grant,  I  believe,  the  president  of  oar  board  of  trustees.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Was  it  written  or  verbal?

    Mr.  Ayers.  Before  that,  preceding  that,  we  received  a  verbal  request
    from  the  personnel  manager  in  the  Labor  Department.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Who  is  he  ?

    Mr.  Ayers.  I  don't  know  his  name,  sir.  I  think  it  is  Barnes.  A
    verbal  request  that  we  consider  closing  the  cafeteria.

    I  told  them  such  request  would  have  to  come  through  the  Public
    Buildings  Administration,  that  our  contract  was  with  them.

    From  that  point  on.  I  lost  contact  with  the  situation  until  we  had
    the  request  to  close  the  Labor  De])artment  cafeteria.

    Mr.  Johnstone.  If  I  might  interpose,  I  might  say  on  the  2d  of
    January  there  was  a  telephone  request  communicated  to  General
    Fleming's  office  to  his  assistant,  Mr.  James  W.  Fullin,  the  Assistant
    Federal  Works  Administrator,  who  also  is  out  of  town.

    With  reference  to  the  Labor  Department  cafeteria  action  and  on
    the  same  date

    Mr.  Hoffman.  From  whom  did  it  come  ?

    Mr.  Johnstone.  Mr.  Gibson  is  the  Assistant  Secretary  of  Labor.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  A  former  president  of  the  CIO  in  Michigan.

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

    Mr.  Hoffm.^  n.  For  your  information,  he  was.

    Mr.  JOHNSTDNE.  Maybe  so.

    On  the  same  date,  I  don't  know  when  it  was  received,  but  there  was
    a  letter  January  2  from  the  Secretary  of  Labor,  requesting  that  Gen-
    eral Fleming  order  the  closure  of  the  cafeteria  in  the  Labor  Depart-
    ment building.

    Mr.  LIoffman.  Will  you  read  it  to  us,  please  ?

    Mr.  Johnstone.  Yes.

    Dear  Gener.\l  Fleming  :  I  am  in  receii)t  of  a  lettei-  from  U.  S.  Grant,  III,
    president  of  Government  Services,  Inc.,  which  imlicates  that  a  strike  has  been
    called  by  the  union,  which  may  result  in  "some  interruption  or  decrease  of  cafe-
    teria service."

    In  view  of  this,  I  request  that  immediately  upon  the  strike's  becoming  effective,
    the  Department  of  Labor  cafeteria  be  closed.  I  have  been  informed  by  Mr.  W.  B.
    Bartel,  in  behalf  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission,  that  the  Commission
    lias  no  objection  to  this  procedure.

    I  might  say  that  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission  is  housed  in
    the  same  building,  and  is  served  by  the  same  cafeteria.
    Very  truly  yours,

    L.   B.    SCHWELLENBACH,

    Secretary  of  Labor.

    On  the  bottom  of  this  letter  there  is  endorsed :

    Mr.  FoUen  talked  to  Assistant  Secretary  Gibson  on  the  telephone  and  agreed  to
    close  in  the  event  of  a  strike,  to  be  reopened  at  the  request  of  the  Secretary  with
    the  concurrence  of  Mr.  Bartel  of  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commission.

    4  INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE

    Mr,  Chairman,  I  will  file  either  this  original  or  a  copy  of  that  letter.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  A  copy  will  be  sufficient.    Then  what  happened?

    Mr.  Johnstone.  General  Fleming  did  order  the  closure  of  that
    cafeteria.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  brings  us  to  the  point  in  which  we  are  inter-
    ested.

    By  what  authority  or  by  virtue  of  what  statute  was  the  cafeteria
    closed  ?

    Mr.  Johnstone,  I  would  say  that  the  authority  to  manage  Govern-
    ment buildings  stems  from  a  statute  which  gave  that  authority  to  the
    National  Park  Service  years  ago,  and  the  functions  of  the  National
    Park  Service  with  reference  to  the  management  and  operation  of  Gov-
    ernment buildings  was  transferred  to  the  Federal  Works  Agency  by
    the  President's  Reorganization  Plan  No.  1,  which  became  effective
    July  1,  1929.

    We  conceive  that  under  that  authority  we  have  the  right  to  furnish
    cafeteria  service  in  the  Government  buildings  as  a  part  of  their  man-
    agement.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  in  pursuance  of  that  authority?

    Mr,  Johnstone,  In  pursuance  of  that  authority.

    Mr,  Hoffman,  Wait  a  minute.  You  entered  into  a  contract  with
    Government  Services,  Inc.,  did  you?

    Mr,  Johnstone,  I  w^anted  to  say  at  that  time  we  took  it  over  there
    was  an  agreement  between  Park  Service  and  the  Government  with
    reference  to  cafeterias,  which  we  inherited.

    Mr.  Hoffman,  And  that  after  that,  did  you  make  a  new  contract?

    Mr.  Johnstone,  There  might  have  been  some  amendments  to  the
    agreement  since  that  time.

    Mr,  Hoffman.  Have  you  copies  of  those?  Have  you  copies,  Mr.
    Ayers?

    Mr,  Johnstone.  I  will  be  glad  to  furnish  them  for  the  record.

    Mr,  Hoffman.  Did  those  contracts  provide  that  the  Government
    Services  should  have  the  right  to  operate  a  cafeteria  in  those  buildings?

    Mr.  Johnstone.  Yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  What  was  the  limitation  on  their  right  to  operate?

    Mr.  Johnstone.  The  limitation  was,  Mr.  Hoffman,  that  the  Govern-
    ment should  at  all  times  maintain  the  control  of  the  prices  to  be  charged
    to  the  employees.  The  Government  also  maintained  some  control  with
    reference  to  the  character  of  the  service  and  of  the  personnel.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Let  me  interrupt  you  there.

    Has  Mr.  Fleming  found  with  reference  to  these  two  cafeterias — we
    will  say  one,  not  the  Supreme  Court — that  the  service  was  not  main-
    tained in  accordance  with  the  contract  ?

    Mr,  Johnstone.  No  ;  I  think  not.

    I  know  of  no  finding  to  that  effect.

    I  might  say  I  think,  Mr,  Chairman,  it  is  quite  clear  from  the  record
    that  the  cafeteria  in  the  Labor  Department  was  closed  upon  the  re-
    quest of  the  Secretary  of  Labor,

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  for  no  other  reason  ?
    Mr,  Johnstone,  I  know  of  no  other  reason.

    I  would  say  I  think  the  right  of  the  Administrator  to  close  that  cafe-
    teria or  to  close  any  one  of  the  cafeterias  is  beyond  any  question.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Regardless  of  the  contract  they  have  with  the  operat-
    ing agency  ?

    INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE  5

    Mr,  Johnstone.  I  think  the  Govornment  can  continue  or  discon-
    tinue its  cafeteria  services  in  its  buildings  to  suit  itself  and  its  own
    convenience.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Reiz;ardless  of  any  contract  right?

    Mr.  Johnstone,  l^es.

    ]\Ir.  Hoffman.  That  is  to  say,  the  Federal  Government  can  disre-
    gard any  contract  that  it  has  made  with  the  Service  corporation

    Mr.  Johnstone.  No;  I  don't  think  that  the  Federal  Government
    can  disregard  any  contract  that  is  made,  but  I  think,  Mr.  Chairman,
    there  are  two  things  I  would  say  in  reference  to  that :

    I  think  that  this  very  arrangement  itself,  which  you  describe  as  a
    contract,  under  it  the  Government  can

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  mean  the  Government  reserves  the  right

    Mr.  Johnstone.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  As  it  sometimes  does,  to  cancel  with  or  without
    reason  ?

    Mr.  Johnstone.  That  is  right.

    Then,  too,  Mr.  Chairman,  1  entertain  a  pretty  definite  opinion  that
    the  Government  Services,  Inc.,  I  think,  can  assert  no  right  over  the
    Government  property  against  the  Government's  interest,  regardless  of
    any  kind  of  arrangement  that  they  might  have.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Then  if  the  people,  the  Government  employees  who
    have  been  eating  at  these  two  cafeterias,  or  at  the  one  cafeteria,  cannot
    get  service  now,  that  is  because,  and  only  because,  the  Labor  Depart-
    ment, acting  through  Mr.  Schwellenbach,  closed  the  cafeteria ;  is  it  not  ?

    Mr.  Johnstone.  I  would  say,  sir,  in  answer  to  your  question,  it  was
    closed  at  the  request  of  the  Secretary  of  Labor,  according  to  the  letter
    I  have  given  you.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Assuming  that  the  Government  did  reserve  in  those
    contracts  the  right  to  discontinue  them  with  or  without  reason,  what
    would  you  say — you  are  an  attornej^  ?

    Mr.  Johnstone.  Yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  What  would  j^ou  say  as  to  the  effect  on  those  con-
    tracts of  the  enactment  of  the  Taft-Hartley  Act,  which  forbids  lock-
    outs?

    Mr.  Johnstone.  To  begin  with,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  do  not  think  that
    the  closure  of  the  Labor  Department  cafeteria  amounts  to  what  j^ou
    call  a  lock-out.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  can  agree,  can  we  not,  that  the  employees  who
    want  to  go  back  to  work  in  the  Labor  Department  cafeteria  cannot  go
    back  because  the  cafeteria  is  closed  ?

    Mr.  Johnstone.  Well,  certainly  the  cafeteria  is  closed;  that  is
    right.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Yes,  and  there  is  no  place  for  them  to  go  to  work,
    is  there,  in  that  cafeteria  ?

    Mr.  Johnstone.  They  can't  work  there  so  long  as  it  is  closed.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  they  are  deprived  of  employ-
    ment because  Mr.  Schwellenbach  requested  the  other  agency  to  close  it.

    Mr.  Johnstone.  You  might  draw  that  conclusion.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Would  you  not  ?

    Mr.  Johnstone.  No.  "ton  might  say  that  they  voluntarily  decided
    they  would  not  work  there  before  it  was  closed.

    J^r.  Hoffman.  No.

    6  INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE

    How  many  cafeterias  are  there?

    Mr.  Johnstone.  I  don't  know.

    Mr.  Ayers.  About  42,  all  told.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  42,  Mr.  Ayers  says.

    Mr.  Ayers,  I  will  ask  you;  in  all,  except  these  two,  employees  are
    working,  are  they  not  ?

    Mr.  Ayers.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  It  would  be  a  fair  assumption,  then,  Mr.  Johnstone,
    that  the  only  reason  they  are  not  working  in  the  other  one  you  have
    si^oken  of  is  because  Mr.  Schwellenbach  ordered  it  closed?

    Mr.  Johnstone.  I  do  not  know  that  the  employees  that  were  em-
    ployed in  this  cafeteria  to  its  closure  or  any  of  them  are  not  now
    working.    I  don't  know  who  they  are.

    jMr.  Hoffman.  In  any  event,  they  are  deprived  of  the  oppor-
    tunity to  work  if  they  wanted  to  because  Mr.  Schwellenbach  ordered
    it  closed,  are  they  not  ?

    Mr.  Johnstone.  I  would  rather  you  asked  Mr,  Schwellenbach  that.
    I  told  you  we  closed  it  at  his  request.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Yes.  That  deprived  them  of  the  opportunity,  did
    it  not  ?

    Mr.  Johnstone.  Certainly,  nobody  can  work  in  a  cafeteria  that  is
    closed.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  get  down  to  the  fact  that  at  least  the  opportu-
    nity to  work  is  denied  these  people  because  of  this  order  that  you
    issued.

    Mr.  Johnstone.  Yes:  they  can't  work  there  when  it  is  closed.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Now,  as  a  lawyer,  do  you  think  that  the  authority
    given  you  over  the  Public  Buildings  was  in  any  way  lessened  or  im-
    paired b}^  the  passage  of  the  Taft-Hartley  Act,  guaranteeing  to  a
    man  the  right  to  go  to  work  if  he  could  find  a  job  ?

    Mr.  Johnstone.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  that  the  answer  to  your
    question  involves  the  consideration  of  a  number  of  things:

    First,  it  involves  whether  or  not  the  Taft-Hartley  Act  has  any
    application  to  the  controversy  now  existing  between  the  Govern-
    ment Services,  Inc.,  and  the  employees.

    Second,  it  involves

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  think  it  has  or  has  not?

    Mr.  Johnstone.  I  think  the  Taft-Hartley  Act  is  the  act  that  has
    to  do  with  the  operation  of  the  National  Labor  Relations  Board,
    and  I  do  not  know  that  the  Labor  Relations  Board  necessarily  has
    any  responsibility  with  reference  to  this  controversy.

    It  is  not  clear  to  me  that  they  have.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  The  Taft-Hartley  Act  also,  I  think,  has  something
    to  do  with  the  right  of  employees  to  organize  or  not  to  organize,  and
    to  work  or  not  to  work.    Has  it  not?

    Mr.  Johnstone.  Perhaps  it  does.  I  am  not  so  familiar  with  it  as
    you  are.

    ]\Ir.  Hoffman.  Any  questions,  Mr.  Smith?

    Mr.  Smith.  What  is  your  position  down  there?

    Mr.  Johnstone.  I  am  General  Counsel  of  the  Federal  Works
    Agency.

    INIr.  Smith.  Hoav  do  you  advise  ?

    Mr.  Johnstone.  I  advise  General  Fleming  and  his  associates.

    INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI   STRIKE  7

    Mr.  Smith.  Did  you  advise  him  that  it  be  closed?

    Mr.  Johnstone.  I  was  not  asked  for  any  advice  on  this  subject,  sir.

    Mr.  Smith.  You  said  we  closed  it  awhile  ago.

    Mr.  Johnstone.  I  mean,  sir,  when  I  said  ''we,''  it  was  closed  by  or-
    ders of  General  Fleming.

    Mr.  Smith.  And  General  Fleming  did  not  consult  with  you  about
    whether  he  would  close  it  or  not?

    Mr.  Johnstone.  No.

    There  was  no  occasion  for  him  to  desist  if  he  didn't  want  to.

    Mr.  Smith.  What  does  he  have  a  solicitor  for  ^

    Mr.  Johnstone.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  don't  know  that  there  is  any
    legal  question  involved  in  his  right  to  close  this  thing.

    Air.  Smith.  Do  you  mean  to  tell  me  that  Mr.  Schwellenbach  and  Mr.
    Fleming  can  go  down  and  close  any  building  they  want  to  merely  on
    a  caprice  or  whim?

    Mr.  Johnstone.  No;  I  don't  mean  that.  I  certainly  don't  mean
    that.

    But  I  do  mean  to  tell  you  that  I  think  General  Fleming  can  order  the
    closure  of  an}-  one  of  these  cafeterias.

    Mr.  Smith.  AVait  a  minute.  We  are  not  talking  about  cafeterias.
    Can  he  order  the  closure  of  a  building  down  here  because  he  does
    not  like  conditions  down  there?

    Mr.  Johnstone.  I  would  say  that  certainly  nobody  has  any  unlim-
    ited discretion  to  close  or  open  a  Government  building.

    Mr.  Smith.  They  closed  a  cafeteria.

    IVIr.  Johnstone.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  Smith.  What  is  the  diiference  between  closing  the  cafeteria
    on  that  floor  from  closing  the  next  floor  above  it  ?

    Mr.  Johnstone.  Well,  sir,  I  think  there  is  a  good  deal  of  difference.

    Mr.  Smith.  There  probably  is  no  labor  dispute  upstairs.

    Mr.  Johnstone.  Maybe  not.

    Mr.  Smith.  That  is  all.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  might  ask,  before  Mr.  Fisher  inquires,  why,  if  you
    know,  did  Mr.  Fleming  close  it  ?

    Mr.  Johnstone.  My  answer  to  that  would  be  that  he  closed  it  upon
    the  request  of  the  Secretary  of  Labor,  according  to  the  letter  that  I
    have  given  to  you.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Any  other  reason  that  you  know  of?

    Mr.  Johnstone.  I  don't  know  of  any  other  reason,  Mr.  Chairman.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Thank  you  very  much.

    Mr.  Fisher?

    Mr.  Fisher.  I  would  like  to  say  with  reference  to  Mr.  Johnstone  that
    T  have  had  the  pleasure  of  knowing  him  a  long  time,  and  have  the
    highest  regard  for  his  legal  ability  and  the  service  that  he  has  ren-
    dered down  in  the  Department  where  he  works.

    Mr.  Johnstone,  just  what  is  the  legal  relationship  between  the  Gov-
    ernment and  the  Government  Services,  Inc.?

    Mr.  Johnstone.  Mr.  Fisher,  I  would  say  that  that  is  a  matter  that
    has  been  the  subject  of  considerable  controversy  for  a  long  time.

    The  relationship  started  in  1927  at  a  time  when  the  management  of
    these  buildings  was  under  the  Buildings  Branch  of  the  Park  Service.
    At  that  time,  General  Grant,  then  a  colonel,  was  the  director  of  the
    Park  Service,  and  he  organized  a  corporation  to  operate  cafeterias

    72913—48 2

    8  INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE

    and  lunch  counters  in  the  buildmgs  for  the  convenience  of  the  Gov-
    ernment and  for  the  convenience  of  the  Government  employees.

    At  that  time  he  entered  into  what  is  described  here  as  a  contract,
    which  was  an  agreement  or  an  arrangement,  which  ever  you  wish  to
    call  it.  I  have  examined  the  papers.  It  was  signed  by  General
    Grant  as  the  president  of  this  organization  and  as  the  Assistant
    Director  of  Public  Buildings  on  behalf  of  the  Government.

    I  conceive  that  it  was  an  administrative  order  passed  for  the  con-
    venience of  the  Government  and  its  employees,  and  I  conceive  that
    under  it  the  corporation  can  assert  no  rights  of  the  Government  of
    the  United  States.

    That  has  been  recognized  by  the  corporation  itself  which  has  re-
    cently amended  its  charter  and  its  bylaws  to  provide  that  uDon  its
    dissolution  all  and  singular  of  its  property  shall  belong  to  the  Govern-
    ment of  the  United  States.

    Mr.  Fisher.  I  think  that  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  think  that  is  all.     Thank  you  ever  so  much.

    Mr.  Johnstone.  You  are  quite  welcome,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  are  just  wondering  how  far  the  Taft-Hartley
    Act  goes,  and  whether  the  Government  will  comply  with  the  so-called
    labor  law,  or  whether  it  is  set  apart  and  can  act  as  it  wishes  if  and
    when  it  becomes  an  employer.

    Now,  Mr.  Ayres,  have  ycu  copies  of  these  contracts  ?

    Mr.  Ayers.  I  can  furnish  them,  sir.     I  don't  have  them  with  me.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  If  you  will,  please.

    Do  they  provide,  as  so  many  contracts  with  the  Government  do,  that
    the  Government  can  cancel  them  at  any  time,  for  any  reason  or  with-
    out any  reason  ?

    Mr.  Ayers.  I  think  there  is  a  cancellation  clause,  as  I  recall  it,  on
    6-months  notice  period.

    As  a  matter  of  practice  over  the  years,  requests  of  the  Public  Build-
    ings Administration  have  been  complied  with  by  the  organization
    whenever  there  has  been  a  request  to  open  or  close  a  particular
    cafeteria.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  How  long  would  it  take  you  to  get  a  copy  of  the  con-
    tract with  the  cancellation  clause  so  we  would  know  what  is  in  it?  I
    would  like  to  know  what  that  provides.

    Mr.  Ayers.  As  soon  as  I  can  call,  I  will  have  someone  bring  it  by
    messenger  from  the  office  on  Twenty-first  Street.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Not  now.  You  operate,  you  said  a  while  ago,  42
    cafeterias?

    Mr.  Ayers.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Have  you  been  in  a  position  at  all  times  since  the
    strike  to  give  service  in  the  Supreme  Court  cafeteria  and  also  in  the
    one  in  the  Labor  Department  ?

    Mr.  Ayers.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  know  of  your  own  knowledge  that  your  em-
    ployees are  ready  and  willing  and  want  to  work  in  those  two  ?

    Mr.  Ayers.  We  have  some  of  our  old  employees  returning.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  In  those  two?  I  am  talking  now  only  about  those
    two  cafeterias.

    jMr.  Ayers.  I  don't  have  any  detailed  knowledge  of  the  employees
    of  those  two  cafeterias,  sir.     I  will  say  this :

    INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE  9

    That  on  December  31,  our  contract  witli  the  union  expired.  There
    was  no  union  in  the  picture  from  that  point  on.  From  the  corpora-
    tion's standpoint,  there  was  none.

    We  emplo5'ed  over  1,000  people.  We  could  have  staffed  those  cafe-
    terias either  with  old  employees  returning  or  with  new  employees  that
    wanted  to  go  to  work.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Then  you  can  say  of  your  own  knowledge  that  there
    were  individuals,  either  old  employees,  or  new  ones,  who  were  ready
    and  willing  and  who  wanted  to  work  in  the  Supreme  Court  and  the
    Labor  Department  cafeterias?

    Mr.  Ayers.  I  would  say  that,  sir.

    ]\Ir.  Hoffman..  Will  you  give  us  the  reasons — is  there  more  than
    one — as  to  why  they  were  not  given  the  opportunity  to  work,  or  were
    not  permitted  to  work  ?

    Mr.  Avers.  As  Mr.  Johnstone  has  explained  about  the  Labor  De-
    partment, that  was  closed  at  a  request  from  the  Federal  Works  Agency.

    In  the  case  of  the  Supreme  Court,  it  was  closed  on  the  request  of  the
    Marshal,  Marshal  Waggaman,  who  said  that  they  did  not  want  the
    service.

    Tho?e  are  the  only  reasons  that  I  know,  sir,

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Unless  the  rule  is  different  because  you  are  operating
    in  Government  buildings,  you  are  violating  the  Taft-Hartley  Act,  are
    you  not  ?

    Mr.  Ayers.  I  would  like  to  have  our  attorneys  answer  that  question,
    sir.

    Mr.  Cross.  Our  position  on  that  has  been  that  if  there  is  a  violation
    it  is  not  the  responsibility  of  Government  Services,  Inc.

    I  substantiate  Mr.  Johnstone's  testimony  to  the  extent  that  we  have
    followed  the  precedents  that  when  Federal  Works  tells  us  what  to  do
    with  regard  to  opening  or  closing  any  unit,  we  do  it.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  do  not  recall  whether  that  is  because  it  is  a
    Government  agency  or  because  of  a  clause  in  the  contract?

    Mr.  Cross.  Because  of  a  clause  in  the  contract,  and  the  long  period  of
    interpretation.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  All  right.

    If  you  will  just  step  aside  for  a  moment.  I  notice  the  Secretary  of
    Labor  is  here,  and  he  wants  to  get  away  as  soon  as  he  can.  I  know  you
    had  difficulty  in  getting  here.

    We  are  very  appreciative  of  the  fact  that  you  are  here,  Mr.  Secretary,
    with  the  other  engagements  you  had.

    What  we  are  trying  to  learn  is  on  what  authority  the  Department
    of  Labor,  acting  through  you,  requested  the  closing  of  the  cafeteria  in
    the  Labor  Department.

    TESTIMONY  OF  HON.  LEWIS  B.  SCHWELLENBACH,  SECEETARY  OF

    LABOK

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  I  do  not  think  that  there  is  any  specific
    authority.     We  have  had  the  question  come  up  in  previous  years.

    I  simply  wrote  a  letter  to  General  Fleming,  after  receiving  a  letter
    from  General  Grant  saying  that  they  expected  an  interruption  in  the
    service,  and  so  forth,  and  as  a  result  of  a  strike  which  they  expected
    next  week,  which  was  2  or  3  weeks  ago.

    10  INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI    STRIKE

    I  take  the  position  that  there  is  one  phice  in  town  where  you  simply
    cannot  have  picket  lines,  and  that  is  around  the  Labor  Department.
    In  this  instance,  Ave  received  some  communications  from  the  A.  F.  of  L.
    union,  the  local  union  here,  which  indicated  that  they  were  interested
    in  organizing  the  GSI  employees,  and  I  just  cannot  take  the  position
    about  one  labor  union  as  against  another  labor  union.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Is  there  a  jurisdictional  dispute  there?

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  I  have  had  demands  made  there  on  me,  I
    think  three  times,  to  open  the  cafeteria  and  they  would  organize  the
    workers  in  the  cafeteria  in  general.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  The  union  whose  members  were  operating  there  was  a
    CIO  union?

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  Yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  the  demands  came  from  the  A.  F.  of  L?

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  Yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  So  there  w'as  a  sort  of  jurisdictional  dispute?

    Secretary  Schavellenbach.  Yes.

    You  undei'stand  that  I  get  along  remarkably  AAell,  considering  the
    fact  that  there  are  tAA'o  organizations,  but  I  just  cannot  get  myself
    into  the  middle  of  any  particular  dispute  when  there  are  jurisdic-
    tional arguments,

    Mr.  Hoffman.  If  there  Avas  a  dispute  there — let  me  see — the
    CIO  refused  to  sign,  did  they  not,  those  anti-Communist  affidavits?

    Secretary  Sen aa'ellen bach.  Yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Have  the  A.  F.  of  L.  signed ;  do  you  know  ?

    Secretary  Schavellenbach.  I  do  not  know.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  do  not  knoAv,  either.

    Anyway,  the  A.  F.  of  L.  wanted  to  go  in  and  organize,  and  the
    CIO  had  no  right  in  there,  had  they,  any  more  as  a  union  if  they
    would  not  sign  ?

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  I  do  not  so  construe  the  act.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  construe  the  act  to  be  such  that  they  do
    not  need  to  sign;  that  they  may  have  all  the  rights  given  under  the
    Taft-Hartley  Act  if  they  do  not  sign  those  affidavits?

    Secretary  Schavellenbach.  I  construe  the  act  to  mean  this :

    In  order  to  make  use  of  the  NLRB  machinery,  they  have  to  file
    with  us  a  financial  statement  and  a  rather  long  questionnaire.

    They  file  it  Avitli  the  NLEB  and  an  affidavit  to  the  effect  that  these
    officers,  whoever  they  may  be,  are  not  Communists.  That  means  that
    they  are  completely  barred  from  making  use  of  the  NLRB.

    There  are  just  hundreds,  I  Avoukl  say  thousands,  of  unions  in  this
    country  that  ncA^er  have  used  the  NLRB.  They  liaA'e  gone  ahead  and
    bargained.

    I  might  say  one  thing  that  disturbs  me  about  this  business  is  that
    we  tried,  and  got  authority  under  the  Taft-Hartley  Act — I  Avill  call
    your  attention  to  the  fact  that  I  haA^e  not  said  a  Avord  about  the
    Taft-Hartley  Act — and  I  said  I  Avould  not  say  it  unless  Ave  could
    see  Avhether  or  not  it  would  work.

    I  did  not  think  it  was  fair.  We  got  the  registration.  We  always
    figured  there  were  about  60,000  unions  in  the  country.  It  is  rather
    difficult  to  get  lists,  but  Ave  got  out  and  sent  out  200,000  of  these
    forms.  You  have  to  divide  that  by  three,  because  Ave  send  three  to
    each  one.

    INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE  11

    Approximately  three  or  four  thousand  of  them  were  to  lawyers  who
    represented  industries  and  people  of  that  kind.

    Actually,  we  contacted  57,000  unions.  As  of  last  week  we  had
    had  only  "10.003  comply.  That  means  that  50,000  out  of  the  (;0.000
    unions  have  not  complied.  I  asume  if  they  do  not  file  with  us,  they
    do  not  0:0  over  and  file  a  non-Communist  affidavit  with  NLRB.  That
    would  be  just  a  futile  gesture  on  their  part.

    These  other  unions  are  bargaining  all  the  time.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  getting  along  all  right?

    Secretary  Sctiwellexbach.  Yes;  without  the  use  of  NLEB.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  their  privilege.

    Secretary  Schwellenkach.  If  they  can  bargain  and  get  along.
    I  do  not  believe  it  is  necessary  for  them  to  conform  to  these  require-
    ]iients  of  the  Taft-Hartley  Act  in  order  to  sit  down  with  their  em-
    ployer and  bargain.

    It  worries  me  to  think  that  we  have  50,000  unions  in  the  country
    which  have  not  yet  complied,  assuming  our  figure  of  60,000  is  correct.
    That  is  one  out  of  every  six.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  do  not  see  why  that  should  worry  you.  If  they
    bargain  and  get  along  with  their  employer  all  right  without  using
    NLRB,  I  say  (lod  speed  them  on  their  way.    It  is  a  short  cut.

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  The  position  is  established  here  that
    they  are  disqualified  from  bargaining.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  see  what  you  mean.

    secretary  Schwellenbach.  Then  it  is  going  to  mean  that  50,000
    unions

    Mr.  Hoffman.  The  only  penalty  in  the  Taft-Hartley  Act — if  I  am
    wrong  I  hope  my  colleagues  here  or  you  will  correct  me — the  only
    penalty  attached  to  that  is  that  you  cannot  use  the  act  in  your  bar-
    gaining.

    in  tliat,  I  undei'stood  you  to  say  there  were  man.y  unions  bargain-
    ing with  their  employers  without  NLRB.  If  that  is  so,  it  is  fine,
    is  it  not?

    If  they  do  not  need  the  services,  that  is  good.

    Secretary  Schavellenbach.  I  dislike  the  interpretation  which  1
    think  is  wrong  that  they  have  to  file  in  order  to  be  able  to  sit  down
    and  bargain.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Witli  the  NLRB  ?

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  Yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  But  you  concede,  as  I  understand  it,  or  rather,
    you  state  that  they  can  bargain  if  they  bargain  without  the  NLRB?

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  Yes.  I  take  the  position  that  it  is  just
    a  fact,  so  far  as  this  part  of  it  is  concerned,  that  just  the  unions
    that  do  not  qualify  imder  the  NLRB  are  in  the  same  position  as  all
    the  unions  with  prior  to  1935  when  the  Wagner  Act  was  passed.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  They  must  be  getting  along  all  right,  because  the
    mere  signing  of  an  affidavit  is  not  much  of  a  job.  If  they  are  getting
    along  without  it — without  the  NLRB — is  that  not  all  right?

    Or  do  you  want  them  all  to  come  in

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  No;  I  do  not.  That  is  what  disturbs
    me.  If  w^e  establish  the  idea  that  they  cannot  bargain,  I  do  not
    imagine  some  of  these  unions  in  work,  the  amalgamated,  which  have
    not  had  strikes  for  years  and  years,  I  do  not  imagine  they  have  ever
    used  the  NLRB.    They  have  just  created  a  relationship.

    12  INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Get  along  fine.

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  Yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  There  is  anotlier  thing  about  the  Taft-Hartley
    Act,  if  I  have  it  right.  That  is,  it  is  an  effort  to  guarantee  or  to  pro-
    tect a  man's  right  to  work.    That  is  in  the  act,  too,  is  it  not ?

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  That  is  not  in  the  part  that  we  have
    under  discussion  now.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  It  is  another  provision  of  the  act.

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  It  is  a  provision  against  the  closed
    shop.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Here  are  people,  and  according  to  the  statement,
    of  Mr.  Ayers,  here  are  woulcl-be  employees  who  want  to  work  in  the
    Labor  Department  cafeteria,  but  you  close  it.

    If  you  were  engaged  in  a  private  business,  that  would  be  a  lock-
    out, would  it  not?

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  No.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Why  not?

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  It  was  closed  after  they  went  out  on
    strike ;  it  would  not  be  a  lock-out.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  It  would  not  be  a  lock-out  because  it  was  after  they
    went  out?

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  No.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  In  any  event,  closing  it  deprives  them  of  the  oppor-
    tunity to  work,  does  it  not?

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  Yes;  surely.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  How  do  you,  as  a  public  official,  justify  the  Fed-
    eral Government's  depriving  individuals  who  want  to  work  of  the
    opportunity  to  work?

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  I  think  my  position  is  perfectly  de-
    fensible. I  certainly  cannot  operate  the  Department  of  Labor  and
    get  into  a  jurisdictional  dispute  between  two  unions  in  my  own  estab-
    lishment.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  said  that  you  just  could  not  have  picket  lines
    down  there.

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  That  is  another  way.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Are  there  picket  lines  around  the  White  House,  off
    and  on  ?  Just  why  cannot  the  Labor  Department  be  picketed  ?  You
    concede  that  a  man  has  a  right  to  picket  if  he  wants  to,  do  you  not?

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  Yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Surely.

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  The  Supreme  Court  is  the  only  other
    place  in  town  where  the  cafeteria  was  closed.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  What  is  the  distinction  there  between,  for  example,
    the  Labor  Department  and  the  AVliite  House,  or  the  Labor  Department
    and  the  Treasury  Department?

    Did  you  loiow  that  down  here  in  front  of  the  Navy  or  around  the
    Interior  Building  this  morning,  or  now  there  are  some  300  pickets  ?

    Wliy  should  you,  in  the  Labor  Department,  be  exempt  from  picket-
    ing if  the  other  departments  have  them  marching  around  there?

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  I  can  see  a  very  logical  distinction.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  What  is  it?    Let  us  have  it.    I  am  curious,  sir.

    Secretar}^  Schwellenbach.  You  cannot  run  a  Department  of  Labor
    and  get  involved  in  a  jurisdictional  dispute  between  two  labor  unions.

    INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI   STRIKE  13

    Mr.  HoFTMAN.  So  the  Department  of  Labor  says  to  the  picket,  "You
    cannot  picket,"  and  to  the  employees,  "You  cannot  work.  We  will
    close  it  up."

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  Yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  If  industry  did  that,  what  would  happen  ?  Do  you
    have  any  idea  ?

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  Industries  do  a  lot  of  times.

    Mr.  Smith.  Then  I  get  your  testimony  to  be  this :

    That  there  is  one  place  in  the  United  States  that  a  man  cannot  picket,
    and  that  is  the  Labor  Department.

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  In  a  jurisdictional  dispute;  yes.

    Mr.  Smith.  If  it  is  a  jurisdictional  dispute?

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  Yes.

    Mr.  Smith.  If  they  come  down  and  start  picketing,  what  are  you
    going  to  do  about  it  ?

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  I  cannot  stop  them  from  picketing  if
    somebody  wants  to.

    Mr.  Smith.  Then  they  have  broken  your  inviolate  rule,  have  they,
    if  they  come  down  and  picket?

    It  is  just  wishful  thinking  on  your  part  that  they  must  not  picket
    the  establishment,  because  j-ou  are  inviolate,  and  it  is  the  only  place  in
    the  United  States  that  you  cannot  carry  a  sign  and  say  they  are  unfair.

    They  can  do  it  at  the  White  House.  They  can  do  it  at  the  Capitol
    or  any  other  place.

    The  press  carried  a  note  that  you  were  going  to  enter  into  this  dis-
    cussion and  see  if  you  could  not  get  it  settled ;  is  that  a  true  statement?

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  The  statement  was,  as  I  remember  it —
    it  was  in  the  Washington  Post,  you  mean,  this  morning?

    INIr.  Smith.  Yes.

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  That  I  was  considering  the  proposition
    of  intervening,  and  I  was  visited  yesterday  by  six  Negro  ministers  of
    the  community.  I  explained  the  situation  in  which  I  found  myself;
    that  under  the  Taft-Hartley  Act  the  power  to  mediate  and  conciliate
    disputes  was  taken  out  of  the  Department  of  Labor  and  put  into  the
    Federal  Mediation  and  Conciliation  Service.  The  function  was  taken
    away  from  the  Department  of  Labor.

    There  is  nothing  in  the  act  that  says  that  I  am  prohibited  from
    attempting  to  conciliate,  but  it  certainly  was  the  intent  of  Congress
    that  I  do  not  attempt  to  conciliate.

    I  do  not  think  there  is  any  doubt  about  that,  and  I  did  not  see  how  I
    could  go  in  and  invite  the  parties  in  and  get  them  around  a  table  and
    start  the  conversation  going  and  try  to  get  them  to  settle.

    While  there  is  not  an  express  prohibition  against  it,  I  think  the
    Congress  pretty  well  told  me  in  the  Taft-Hartley  Act  that  they  did
    not  want  the  Labor  Department  conciliating  labor  disputes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  did  not  tell  you.  We  just  told  the  Labor  De-
    partment.   There  was  nothing  in  the  bill  personal  about  it.

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  No.    I  know  that.

    Mr.  Smith.  Your  theory  is  that  you  think  that  in  order  to  protect
    your  department,  you  said  close  it  up,  even  though  there  were  a  lot  of
    people  who  wanted  to  go  back  to  work  down  there  and  earn  their  daily
    bread.

    14  INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE

    In  order  to  be  inviolate,  I  think  it  is  all  r\g\\t  to  keep  them  out  of
    employment,  just  for  that  reason,  that  the  Labor  Department  must
    be  up  on  a  pedestal  and  it  cannot  take  part.

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  Well,  I  do  not  quite  go  along  ^vith  the
    last  part  of  your  statement,  when  you  say  the  Labor  Department  must
    be  up  on  a  pedesal.

    I  have  never  considered  I  was  up  on  any  pedestal.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  might  be  on  a  spot.

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  I  have  been  on  the  spot  for  21/0  years,
    now,  ti-ying  ni}^  best

    Mr.  Hoffman.  It  seems,  to  my  mind,  that  that  is  the  conclusion  that
    would  be  drawn.  You  say  to  these  people  down  there  who  want  to
    work,  "You  cannot  work  here."

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  I  will  say  that  I  have  not  received  a
    single  letter  or  telegram  from  anybody  who  wants  to  work  down  there,
    asking  me  to  reopen  the  cafeteria.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Have  you  received  any  messages  from  people  who
    wanted  to  eat  in  the  cafeteria,  about  having  it  opened  ?

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  No.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  So  everybody  is  satisfied  without  a  cafeteria.  If
    that  is  so,  we  might  just  forego  that  cafeteria  down  there.

    You  think  they  would  get  hungry  later  on  ?

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  I  am  hopeful  that  some  way  this  matter
    could  be  adjusted.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  think  that  the  Taft-Hartley  Act  does  not
    apply  to  services  lendered  (lovernment  agencies  or  in  Government
    buildings ;  put  it  that  way.  I  guess  it  does  not  apply  to  Governuient
    agencies.    But  what  about  Government  buildings?

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  I  am  giving  you  partially  hearsay,  but
    I  understood  that  always  the  GSI  took  the  position  that  it  was  not
    subject  to  the  Wagner  xVct,  and  could  not  be  forced  to  go  before  it —
    before  the  NLRB.

    One  time  before  I  came — this  is  hearsay,  told  me  by  one  of  the  men
    in  the  Department — during  the  war,  the}^  got  into  a  squabble  about
    representation  of  the  union,  and  because  war  was  on  the  Government
    Services,  Inc.,  still  reserving  its  rights  to  object  to  the  jurisdiction,
    agreed  that  balloting  machinery  of  the  NLRB  could  be  used  for  the
    purpose  of  the  election,  but  that  outside  of  that,  up  until  this  year,  they
    have  always  taken  the  position  that  they,  were  a  quasi-governmental
    agency  and  therefore  did  not  need  to  go  before  and  could  not  be  hauled
    before  the  NLRB.  It  is  a  little  difficult  to  know  just  what  this  corpo-
    ration is.

    Their  board  of  directors,  I  understand,  are  appointed  by  the  heads
    of  certain  departments.  They  are  Government  employees.  The  Gov-
    ernment furnishes  the  rooms,  the  tables,  and  so  forth.

    They  are  supposed,  after  6  percent  of  their  investment  is  set  aside,
    to  the  corporation,  to  split  the  profit  after  that  point  with  the  Govern-
    ment.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  recall  in  the  First  World  War  there  were  certain
    companies  that  furnished  some  of  the  camps  with  services.

    Would  you  say,  if  there  was  a  jurisdictional  dispute  or  labor  dis-
    pute there,  that  the  War  Department,  for  example,  would  be  justified
    in  just  closing  down  that  service  ?

    INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI   STRIKE  15

    Secretary  Schwellexkach.  Xo.  I  have  not  asked  any  other  depart-
    ment to  close  down.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Just  the  Labor  Department.

    Secretary  Schwellexbach.  Yes.

    Mr.  Hc^FFMAN.  All  rijxht.    Mr.  Fisher.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Mr.  Secretary,  with  reference  to  the  Labor  Department,
    of  course  the  dispute  there,  jurisdictional  or  otherwise,  is  not  between
    the  union  and  the  L-.ibor  Department,  but  between  the  union  and  an
    independent  organization  known  as  Government  Services,  Inc. ;  is  that
    not  correct  ?

    Secretary  Schwellenbacii.  Plus — I  do  not  know  to  what  extent  the
    local,  I  think  it  is  called  the  Bartenders  and  Eestaurant  Workers
    Union,  the  A.  F.  of  L.  union — and  I  do  not  know  to  what  extent  they
    have  done  anything  except  that  they  have  sent  me  some  telegrams  and
    letters.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Anyhow,  the  whole  problem  involved  in  the  dispute  is
    not  between  any  relationship  with  the  Labor  Department  by  the  union,
    but  rather,  the  relationship  with  the  GSI;  is  that  not  correct?

    So,  the  strike  is  against  the  GSI,  not  against  the  Government;  is  that
    not  correct  ?

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  As  I  said  a  minute  ago,  it  is  rather
    difficult  to  determine  just  what  this  corporation  is.

    I  am  told  that  they  have  always  in  the  past  claimed  that  they  were
    a  qua  si-Government  agency.

    Sir.  Fisher.  T^^^  Labor  Department  itself  has  no  contract  with  the
    union ;  has  it?  With  reference  to  operation  and  the  work  that  is  done
    in  the  cafeterias?

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  No.

    Mr.  Fisher.  So  the  strike  there  would  not  be  against  the  Labor
    Department,  but  rather,  against  the  organization  that  operates  the
    cafeteria.    Is  that  not  correct  ?

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  Yes;  that  is  correct.

    Mr.  Fisher.  So  if  there  is  picketing,  it  would  not  be  against  the
    Labor  Department ;  it  would  be  against  the  operators  of  the  cafeterias,
    would  it  not?

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  That  is  true.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Suppose,  for  example,  that  some  of  the  old  employees
    who  want  to  work  in  the  cafeteria  at  the  Labor  Department  should
    picket  the  building  with  a  sign  saying,  "We  want  to  go  back  to  work.
    The  Labor  Department  will  not  let  us  work."

    What  would  you  do  in  a  case  like  that  if  you  had  a  picket  line  of
    that  kind  formed?

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  I  would  simply  go  to  the  head  of  the
    governmental  organization  to  which  it  belonged,  and  tell  him  to  take
    their  pickets  away  from  there.

    Mr.  Fisher.  I  am  referring,  of  course,  to  employees  who  have  been
    working  there  and  who  want  to  go  back  to  work.

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  You  may  think  this  is  entirely  irrele-
    vant to  this  issue.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  What  is  that  ?

    Secretary  Schavellenbach.  You  may  think  what  I  am  going  to  say
    is  entirely  irrelevant  to  this  issue.

    Mr.  Hoffman,  We  are  glad  to  have  any  opinion  you  have,  relevant
    or  not.

    15  INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI    STRIKE

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  I  can  see  Communist  papers  in  France
    and  Italy  carrying  pictures  of  pickets  around  the  Labor  Department
    and  wielding  a  great  amount  of  influence  in  the  arguments  that  they
    are  having  over  there,  saying,  "This  is  the  way  the  United  States
    treats  its  workers.  Even  in  the  Labor  Department,  which  is  supposed
    to  represent  all  the  workers  in  the  country,  it  has  a  picket  line  around
    it."

    Mr.  FisHEK.  Mr.  Secretary,  just  a  little  more  on  the  point  I  asked
    you  there,  and  I  will  not  pursue  it  further.

    You  say  that  you  ordered  this  closed  because  you  did  not  want  to
    involve  the  Department  in  a  jurisdictional  dispute,  and  I  understand
    your  reason  very  well.

    You  would  not  want  a  picket  line  outside  the  Labor  Department,
    and  in  order  to  prevent  that,  you  felt  it  wise  to  order  the  cafeteria
    closed  when  the  dispute  arose.

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  To  request — I  did  not  order  it.

    Mr.  FiSHEE.  Request,  I  mean.

    Secretary  Schavellenbach.  I  wrote  a  letter  to  General  Fleming.

    Mr.  Fisher.  It  was  in  the  form  of  a  request.  If  you  could  order
    the  pickets  taken  away  if  they  picketed  the  place,  by  the  same  token
    if  the  thing  was  opened  and  they  picketed,  could  you  not  order  them
    taken  away  for  the  same  reason,  and  with  the  same  authority  ?

    They  would  be  picketing  because  it  was  operating,  just  as  they  would
    be  picketing  because  it  was  not  operating.

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  No  ;  I  could  not.

    Mr.  Fisher.  So  far  as  you  know,  the  Conciliation  Service  has  not
    assumed  any  jurisdiction  over  this  dispute;  is  that  correct?

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  No.  I  understand — I  talked  to  Mr.
    Colvin,  and  I  understand  they  did  some  work  on  it  several  weeks  ago.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  They  cannot,  can  they,  Mr.  Fisher,  because  these
    fellows  have  not  signed  the  affidavit,  they  have  no  jurisdiction  in  the
    Conciliation  Service,  have  they  ?

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  I  do  not  so  read  the  law  as  saying  that
    the  Conciliation  Service  cannot  offer  its  services.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Pardon  me.    You  see,  what  I  mean

    ISIr.  Fisher.  There  is  a  distinction,  of  course,  with  references  to  con-
    ciliation and  mediation,  and  I  presume  you  know  that  in  this  case  the
    union  refused  to  comply  with  the  law  lay  filing  anti-Communist  affi-
    davits.

    Those  who  do  conform  come  within  the  wording  of  the  law;  is  that
    not  correct  ?

    Do  you  make  a  distinction  in  dealing  with  unions  between  those
    who  do  and  those  who  do  not  conform  with  the  law  on  the  anti-Com-
    munist affidavits?

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  No;  I  do  not  think  so.  The  problems
    that  we  have  now  are  not  labor  disputes,  that  involve  the  question  of
    NLRB  at  all.  I  do  not  ask  some  union.  I  do  not  know  which  ones
    have  qualified  or  not.  I  do  not  ask  some  union  if  they  want  to  get
    material,  printed  pamphlets  by  the  BLS,  of  some  kind.  I  do  not  ask
    him  if  they  have  complied.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  If  the  other  Government  agencies  followed  that
    sort  of  policy  which  you  have  established  down  there,  it  would  be
    pretty  tough,  because  every  time  new  unions  wanted  to  get  collection
    of  dues  from  the  same  group,  everybody  would  be  out  of  a  job.

    IXVESTIGATION    OF   GSI   STRIKE  17

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  The  other  Government  Departments
    are  not  in  the  position  that  we  are  in.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  They  are  not  in  the  same  position  as  the  Labor  De-
    partment ?

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  Yes.

    INIr.  Hoffman.  Then  maybe  we  had  better  make  an  exception.

    Would  you  suargest  we  except  the  Labor  Department  or  all  of  the
    employees  from  the  Taft-Hartley  Act,  or  somethincr  of  that  kind  ?

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  No  ;  I  would  not  do  that.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  know  very  well,  do  you  not,  Mr.  Schwellenbach,
    that  the  labor  unions  themselves  have  strikes  and  they  have  their  own
    offices  picketed ;  not  very  often,  but  sometimes.

    That  is  true ;  is  it  not?

    Secretary  Schwellenbactt.  I  had  a  fine  picket  line  when  I  spoke
    at  the  Commonwealth  Club  in  San  Francisco  last  spring.  They  would
    not  let  anybody  in,  and  I  walked  through  it.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  you  were  Secretary  of  Labor,  too.

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  It  was  organized  by  Comraunists.  I
    testified,  I  think,  before  this  committee  just  prior  to  that  time  that  I
    thought  the  Communist  Party  ought  to  be  outlawed.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  walked  through  the  picket  line?

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  It  was  not  any  union  picket  line.  That
    was  just  a  Commie  picket  line.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Down  here,  there  is  no  use  in  a  fellow  going  through,
    because  after  he  gets  through  there  is  nothing  to  work  at,  because  you
    have  closed  it  and  taken  away  his  job.

    Suppose  someone  of  the  group  who  wanted  to  work  did  go  down  and
    picket  your  place  of  business,  which  was  the  question  Mr.  Fisher  was
    asking  ?

    You  said  you  would  call  his  organization,  but  suppose  he  did  not
    belong  to  an  organization;  just  a  group  of  them.  What  would  you
    do  about  it.     You  would  have  to  take  the  picketing,  would  you  not  ?

    Secretary  Sch-\at2Llenbach.  Yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  think  that  is  all.

    We  surely  want  to  thank  you  for  coming  up  on  such  short  notice.

    Mr.  Cross.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  supplement  a  couple  of  points  in
    the  Secretary's  statement  upon  which  he  stated  he  was  not  entirely
    familiar  ?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Yes.

    Mr.  Cross.  Within  recent  years  there  have  been  several  decisions
    or  rulings  that  GSI  is  a  private,  charitable  corporation.  So  we  under-
    stand that  to  be  the  status  of  the  organization.

    The  other  point:  As  far  back  as  1938,  we  have  relied  upon  the
    labor  boards  elections  to  determine  who  should  be  the  bargaining  rep-
    resentative for  our  employees.

    For  the  former  union,  the  former  CIO  union,  was  certified  by  the
    regional  director  of  the  National  Labor  Relations  Board  in  1936.
    In  that,  I  knew  those  had  not  been  brought  to  your  attention.

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  I  said  that  part  of  my  testimony  was
    hearsay.  I  understood  that  when  you  had  that  election  I  thought  it
    was  during  the  wartime — it  was  in  1938  ?

    Mr.  Cross.  That  is  right.

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  You  reserved  your  right  to  the  juris-
    diction.

    18  INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI    STRIKE

    Mr.  Cross.  That  is  right,  but  we  complied  with  the  ruling  of  the
    Board  and  since  that  time  we  have  received  these  rather  definite
    rulings  on  the  status  of  the  organization.

    Those  are  the  points  that  I  thought  you  were  stating  you  were  not
    familiar  with  entirely.

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  I  said  that  portion  of  it  was  hearsay.

    Mr.  Fisher.  In  other  words,  you  recognize  the  jurisdiction  of
    NLRB  over  the  GSI?

    Mr.  Cross.  That  is  correct ;  sir.  There  have  been  statements  in  the
    press  that  we  did  not  but  those  were  not  correct  statements.  We  pre-
    viously recognized  that.

    We  did  in  this  situation  and  we  presented  this  to  NLRB.  They
    ruled  that  this  union  was  ineligible  to  represent  the  organization.

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  Would  you  mind  if  I  listened  to  this?

    Mr.  HoFEMAN.  We  would  be  glad  to  have  you.  or  to  make  any  sug-
    gestions you  want  to  make.

    Mr.  Cross.  It  is  with  reference  to  the  failure  to  file  the  noncom-
    munistic  affidavits  and  the  financial  statements.  The  regional  director,
    Mr.  Ross  N.  Madden,  in  a  letter  addressed  to  our  corporation,  under
    date  of  December  31, 1947,  says  :

    Its-
    meaning  the  union —

    failure  to  meet  these  requirements  renders  it  (above  organization)  ineligible  for
    certification  as  a  bargaining  representative  of  any  unit  of  your  employers,  and
    likewise  ineligible  to  invoke  any  of  the  processes  of  this  Board  in  the  protection
    of  any  of  their  members.

    In  view  of  this,  no  election  which  might  be  held  would  be  determinative  of
    any  rights  as  certificated  by  the  organization  named.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Are  you  ready  to  bargain  with  the  union  properly
    certificated  ?

    Mr,  Cross.  Yes ;  we  always  have  been.

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  May  I  ask  you  this  question  ?  As  I  say,
    it  worries  me :

    Do  you  contend  that  that  bars  you  from  negotiating  with  them  ?

    Mr.  Cross.  This  is  a  difficult  legal  point,  and  I  think  there  is  still
    going  to  have  to  be  some  consideration  given  to  this.

    By  the  way,  so  far  as  I  know  we  have  no  controversy  with  your  De-
    partment over  the  situation.  As  we  see  it,  we  certainly  agree  with  the
    Secretary's  statement  that  prior  to  the  time  that  the  question  of  com-
    plying by  filing  these  affidavits  arises,  there  is  no  question  that  any
    employer  could  sit  down  and  bargain  with  the  union,  whether  or  not
    they  complied.

    In  this  circumstance,  and  this  is  somewhat  historical  now,  we  had
    two  thoiights  in  mind.  First,  there  was  some  question  at  to  whether
    or  not  this  union  would  comply.  Considerable  hope.  I  might  say  that
    they  would.  There  certainly  had  been  some  question  raised  as  to  the
    character  of  this  union  operating  in  Government  buildings.  It  is  true
    that  the  trustees  of  the  organization  took  the  position  that  because  we
    operate  in  Government  buildings,  because  there  was  a  loyaltj"  program
    among  Government  employees  then  in  progress,  we  should  take  the
    position  that  whatever  union  we  bargained  with  should  file  the  affi-
    davits.

    So,  we  requested  the  affidavits.

    INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI    STRIKE  19

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Let  me  interrupt  you  there.  Right  at  that  point,  if
    the  Federal  Works  Agency,  represented  here  by  Mr.  Johnstone,  had
    desired,  they  could  have  kicked  you  out  if  you  put  people  in  who  were
    disloyal :  could  they  not?

    ]Mr.  Cross.  Well,  there  has  been  some  criticism  on  the  point.  The
    situation  had  never  reached  that  stage,  frankly.

    Mr.  HoFFMAX.  All  right.    Go  ahead.    Pardon  me.

    Mr.  Cross.  Now

    Secretary  Schwellexbach.  I  can  see  the  position  that  you  take;
    any  employer  has  a  right  to  bargain  or  not  to  bargain.

    if  you  have  a  certificated  union,  it  is  an  unfair  labor  practice  for
    you  not  to  bargain.  I  do  not  think  you  need  to  take  the  position  that
    this  paragraph  in  this  letter  says  to  you  that  you  cannot.

    Mr.  Cross.  Frankly,  here  is  what  worries  us :

    Once  having  taken  that  position,  then  rumors  began  to  reach  us
    that  our  employees,  at  least,  some  of  them,  did  not  intend  to  get  us
    in  the  position  which  the  union  leaders  took.

    Then  we  called  for  an  election  by  the  National  Labor  Relations
    Board,  at  which  time  we  received  the  letter.  The  difficult  question
    that  I  think  is  posed,  and  again,  perhaps  this  is  more  hindsight  than
    foresight,  but  as  the  status  of  the  matters  stands  today,  it  seems  en-
    tirel}?"  probable  to  me  that  an  employer  crosses  a  legal  Rubicon  once
    they  present  the  matter  to  the  National  Labor  Relations  Board.

    I  will  admit,  as  the  Secretary  has  suggested,  that  had  we  never  have
    raised  this  question,  there  would  have  beeen  no  doubt  as  to  our  ability
    to  sit  down  and  bargain.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  are  right.

    Mr.  Cross.  Then  with  this  union.  That  is  right.  Because  we  were
    operating  in  Federal  buildings  and  because  of  the  loyalty  campaign,
    the  trustees  felt  we  should  raise  the  question.

    We  raised  the  question.  We  submitted  the  matter  to  the  National
    Labor  Relations  Board  for  an  election.  The  NLRB  advises  us  that
    this  union  is  ineligible  to  bargain  with  us.  It  seems  to  me  at  that
    stage  of  the  game  you  met  a  legal  Rubicon.

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  That  paragraph  does  not  say  that;  I
    am  sorry.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Read  it  in  the  record.

    Mr.  Cross.  Well

    Sscretary  Schwellenbach.  You  are  thinking  about  your  dispute
    for  the  moment,  and  I  am  thinking  about  50,000  others.

    Its  failure —

    that  is,  the  union's  failure —

    to  meet  these  reqiiii'ements —

    that  is,  file  the  affidavit —

    renders  the  ahove  organization  ineligible  for  certifieation  as  a  bargaining  repre-
    sentative of  any  nnit  of  your  eniployers  and  likewise  ineligible  to  invoke  any
    of  the  processes  of  this  Board  in  the  protection  of  any  of  their  members.

    In  view  of  this,  no  election  which  might  be  held  would  be  determinative  of  any
    rights  asserted  by  the  organization  named.

    I  construe  that — General  Grant  sent  me  a  copy  of  it — to  mean  that
    an  employer,  if  he  wants  to,  can  bargain  or,  if  he  has  reasonable
    ground  to  believe  that  the  imion  is  no  longer  representative  of  the
    employees,  ask  for  an  election.

    20  INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI   STRIKE

    But  I  do  not  believe  that  it  means  that  they  cannot.  Frankly,  I
    would  have  to  disagree  with  you  that  you  cross  some  Eubicon  because
    you  ask  it.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  As  I  understood  the  witness,  he  does  not  disagree
    with  you  on  that.  He  says  having  once  crossed  this  line  here  and
    sought  the  advice  of  the  Government.

    What  do  you  say  about  this  proposition?  Do  you  think  that  an
    organization,  which  is  operating  in  a  Government  building  or  with  the
    Government,  should  not  endeavor  to  comply  with  the  National  Labor
    Relations  Board  or  the  act?

    Secretary  Schavellenbach.  Yes;  I  certainly  do.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  just  what  this  organization  is  doing ;  is  it  not?

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  That  is  what  we  have  been  telling  them,
    too.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  The  organization  here  is  asking  the  union  to  comply
    with  the  provisions  of  the  Taft-Hartley  Act.  There  is  nothing  wrong
    about  that.

    The  union  sits  back  and  says  "we  don't  want  any  of  that."  Inasmuch
    as  this  organization  is  operating  in  Government  buildings,  having,  I
    should  think,  some  loyalty  to  go  along  with  Goverimient  policy  which
    calls  for  these  affidavits,  I  do  not  see  how  the  corporation  here  can
    take  any  other  position  than  it  has  taken.

    Then  you  come  along  and  close  their  place  of  business.

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  I  have  presented  all  of  the  reasons  that
    I  can  think  of  to  justify  my  position.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  All  right.

    Secretary  Schwellenbach.  I  am  very  glad  that  you  take  a  broader
    view  of  it  than  just  simply  say  that  since  the  union  has  not  qualified,
    that  that  is  the  sole  reason  why  you  cannot  bargain  with  them.

    Mr.  Cross.  That  did  not  seem  to  be  the  sole  reason  which  started  this
    controversy.  I  did  not  mean  to  engage  in  an  argument  with  the
    Secretary.    I  simply  wanted  to  cite  those  two  points.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  It  is  very  helpful.

    Do  you  have  some  questions  you  want  to  ask,  Mr.  Smith  ?

    Mr.  Smith.  No.     I  would  like  to  get  the  head  of  the  union.

    Mr.  HoFFiMAN.  He  is  here.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Did  you  want  to  question  Mr.  Cross  ?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  No.     You  can  question  him.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Mr.  Cross,  except  for  the  request  from  General  Fleming
    and  except  for  the  request  from  Marshal  Waggaman,  those  two  cafe-
    terias would  be  open  and  operating ;  is  that  correct  ?

    Mr.  Cross.  That  is  my  understanding.

    Mr.  Ayers.  That  is  true ;  that  is  right,  sir.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Did  you  have  contracts  with  both  unions,  the  CIO  and
    theA.  F.  of  L.?

    Mr.  Ayers.  We  have  only  one  contract  with  the  A.  F.  of  L.,  and  that
    is  the  butchers'  union,  about  IG  employees.  We  have  no  contract  with
    the  cafeteria  workers,  with  the  A.  F.  of  L.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Are  you  familiar  with  the  jurisdictional  dispute  that
    has  been  referred  to  here  ?

    Mr.  Ayers.  To  this  extent;  that  is,  when  the  strike  took  place  we
    were  notified  by  the  A.  F.  of  L.,  I  think,  that  there  were  a  number  of
    articles  published  in  the  papers  that  we  were  interested  in  organizing
    the  employees.

    INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI    STRIKE  21

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Strictly  speaking,  there  is  not  any  jurisdictional
    dispute,  is  there  ?

    What  the  xV.  F.  of  L  is  doing,  is  trying  to  do  as  the  CIO  stated,  is.
    to  raid  the  membership  of  the  other  union.

    That  is  the  way  the  CIO  would  put  it.  The  A.  F.  of  L.  probably
    says  the  CIO  union  here  is  not  any  good,  and  they  want  to  give  the
    employees  a  good  union.

    Mr. "Fisher.  Do  you  know  if  the  A.  F.  of  L.  union  has  complied  with
    the  law  ?

    Mr,  Aters.  In  their  announcements  that  I  have  seen  they  have  made
    the  statement  that  they  hive  signed.

    Mr.  Fisher.  In  other  words,  they  have  signed  the  affidavits  that
    none  of  their  officers  are  members  of  the  Communist  Party,  and  so
    forth?

    Mr.  Aters.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  Fisher.  But  the  CIO  union,  the  one  that  went  on  strike  refuses
    to  make  affidavits;  that  is,  their  officers  refuse  to  make  affidavits  that
    they  are  not  members  of  the  Communist  Party.

    Mr.  Aters.  That  is  right.

    ^Ir.  Fisher.  There  is  quite  a  bit  of  evidence  to  the  effect  that  the
    CIO  union  is  a  Communist-dominated  union;  is  there  not?  Or  do
    you  want  to  express  an  opinion  on  that?

    Mr.  Aters.  We  have  some  material  along  that  line  w^hich  we  will
    be  glad

    Mr.  Fisher.  What  you  want  to  do  is  to  do  business  with  a  union
    that  is  willing  to  conform  with  the  laws  of  this  land,  and  you  prefer
    to  do  business  with  a  union  that  does  not  have  Communists  for  officers ;
    is  that  correct  ?

    Mr.  Aters.  That  is  right.

    Our  trustees,  in  making  this  decision,  felt  that  they  were  morally
    bound  to  take  this  step  because  of  the  loyalty  check  on  the  Govern-
    ment workers  in  the  Government  buildings,  sir.

    We  operate  solely  on  Government  property,  and  their  employees
    come  into  the  buildings  where  they  are  having  a  loyalty  check.  It
    was  for  that  reason  that  thej'  made  this  request  of  the  union.

    ISIr.  Fisher.  I  commend  you  for  abiding  by  the  request.

    That  is  all,  Mr.  Chairman.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  The  employees  who  work  in  these  places  have  to
    take  the  loyalty  test ;  do  they  not — the  Federal  employees  ?

    Mr.  Aters.  Yes.

    Mr.  HoffmajST.  And  you  wanted  the  workers  who  served  them  to
    take  a  like  test  or,  at  least,  to  comply  with  the  Federal  law?

    Mr.  Aters.  We  wanted  to  know  that  the  union  representing  these
    employees  complied ;  yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  were  afraid  if  you  had  people,  who  were  Com-
    munists, in  your  employ,  they  might  feed  some  of  that  doctrine,  as
    well  as  the  food,  to  the  Federal  workers  ?

    Mr.  Aters.  We  felt  we  were  complymg  with  the  law  of  the  land
    when  we  were  doing  it.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Is  Mr.  Chapman  here  ?

    Do  you  solemnly  swear  that  the  testimony  you  are  about  to  give
    shall  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  so  help
    you,  God?

    Mr.  Chapman.  I  do.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Mr.  Smith,  will  you  take  the  floor?

    22  INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE

    TESTIMONY  OF  HON.  OSCAR  L.  CHAPMAN,  UNDER  SECRETARY  OE

    THE  INTERIOR

    Mr.  Chapman.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  say  I  tried  to  get  in  touch  with
    the  Secretary  before  I  left,  and  I  was  unable  to  reach  him.

    He  had  not  arrived  from  his  other  conference  back  to  the  office.

    Mr.  Smith.  What  is  your  position  ?

    Mr.  Chapman.  Under  Secretary  of  the  Interior.

    Mr.  Smith.  How  long  have  you  occupied  that  position?

    Mr.  Chapman.  A  year  ago  last  April,  as  Under  Secretary.

    Mr.  Smith.  Before  that  time,  what  was  your  occupation  ?

    Mr.  Chapman.  Assistant  Secretary.

    Mr.  Smith.  Before  that  time?

    Mr.  Chapman.  I  was  in  the  law  practice  in  the  city  of  Denver.

    Mr.  Smith.  When  did  you  leave  Denver?

    Mr.  Chapman.  1933.

    Mr.  Smith.  Do  you  know  Earl  Browcler  ?

    Mr.  Chapman.  No;  I  don't.

    Mr.  Smith.  What  do  you  know  about  this  dispute  that  w^e  are  dis-
    cussing here  this  afternoon  ?

    Mr.  Chapman.  I  don't  know  anything  about  the  merits  of  the  dis-
    pute between  the  employees,  the  union,  and  the  GSI  organization  at  all.

    Mr.  Smith.  Is  your  cafeteria  operating  down  in  your  building?

    Mr.  Chapman.  Yes ;  it  is.

    Mr.  Smith.  Did  you  have  anything  to  do  wdth  their  getting  to  close
    the  cafeteria  in  the  Labor  Department  ?

    Mr.  Chapman.  No ;  I  did  not.

    Mr.  Smith.  Have  you  had  any  discussions  with  anybody  relative  to
    the  merits  of  this  matter  ?

    Mr.  Chapman.  You  are  speaking  of  the  merits  of  the  controversy
    when  the  GSI  and  the  union  fell  apart?

    Mr.  Smith.  Yes.

    Mr.  Chapman.  No  ;  I  have  not.

    Mr.  Smith.  Have  you  had  it  with  any  party?

    Mr.  Chapman.  No.

    Mr.  Smith.  You  have  had  no  conference?

    Mr.  Chapman.  Not  as  to  the  merits  of  the  controversy.

    Mr.  Smith.  What  have  you  had  a  discussion  about  ?

    Mr.  Chapman.  I  have  had  several  discussions  regarding  the  i)olicy
    involved  as  to  whether  we  should  or  should  not  liave  the  c:ifeteria
    closed  in  our  Department,  with  a  hope  that  we  might  avoid  difficulties
    that  we  were  afraid  would  arise  out  of  a  strike  around  and  in  our
    building.

    We  were  trying  to  find  some  way  to  avoid  it.  Following  the  policy
    established  in  the  previous  strike  in  which  we  asked  that  it  be  closecl,
    and  it  was,  we  saved  ourselves  considerable  difficulty,  I  think,  in  that
    strike.

    Mr.  Smith.  What  do  you  mean  by  difficulty  ?

    Mr.  Chapman.  Such  incidents  as  happened  in  the  last  couple  of
    days,  having  difficulties  with  the  pickets  around  the  building  and  in-
    volving the  policies  of  the  police  of  our  Department.

    Mr.  Smith.  You  are  trying  to  protect

    Mr.  Chapman.  I  think  we  have  as  fine  a  group  of  police  officers  as
    there  is  anywhere  in  the  country  in  the  Metropolitan  Police,  the  Park

    INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI    STRIKE  23

    Police.  I  did  not  want  tli3  situation  to  arise,  if  I  could  avoid  it,  that
    would  involve  them  in  having  to  do  anything  with  pickets  around  the
    buildings.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Will  you  yield  right  there  ?

    You  are  not  one  of  those  who  complained  about  the  police  escorting
    workers  or  would-be  workers  through  the  lines,  then  ^

    Mr.  Chapman.  No.  I  have  not  complained  to  anybody  about  it.
    We  played  quiet.  We  made  the  request  that  the  cafeteria  be  closed — ■
    the  Secretary  and  I.

    Mr.  Smith.  You  made  that  request  to  whom?

    Mr.  Chapman.  To  General  Fleming.

    Mr.  Smith.  You  do  not  have  the  poAver  that  the  Secretary  of  Labor
    has  down  at  the  Interior  Department  that  you  can  close  your  buildiug  ?

    Mr.  Chapman.  No  ;  we  do  not  have  the  authority  to  close  the  cafe-
    teria ourselves.

    That  jurisdiction  is  with  Oeneral  Fleming's  office.

    Mr.  v^mith.  But  your  opinion  was  that  your  cafeteria  should  have
    been  closed?

    M-.  Chap3ian.  We  feel  that  if  the  cafeteria  had  been  closed  we
    would  have  saved  a  lot  of  difficulties  that  are  now  arising  out  of  the
    strike  itself.

    Mr.  Smith.  That  should  also  apply  to  all  these  other  42  cafeterias?

    Mr.  Chapman.  We  did  not  attempt  to  try  to  reach  «that  far  into
    thinking  for  the  other  fellows'  organization.  We  were  thinking  about
    our  own  people  and  trying  to  save  difficulties  for  our  own  adminis-
    trative set-up  there,  and  our  own  people  as  much  as  we  could.

    JNIr.  Smith.  You  did  not  think  about  the  people  who  wanted  to  work
    down  there?

    Mr.  Chapman.  Yes ;  I  did.

    Mr.  Smith.  When  you  get  those  two  policies  before  you  to  balance,
    you  tipped  the  balance  over  here  and  said  it  would  be  better  if  they
    did  not  operate  to  open  it  because  it  might  save  you  some  embarrass-
    ment down  there?

    Mr.  Chapman.  Usually,  like  the  last  time,  there  are  usually  so
    many  accusations  that  our  employees  are  participating  in  the  strike
    itself  and  taking  part.

    Those  accusations  usually  are  made  by  both  sides  as  a  rule.  Seeing
    this  developing,  we  wanted  to  avoid  that  situation  as  we  had  before,
    without  becoming  involved  in  it,  if  possible.

    ]Mr.  Hoffman.  How  many  people  do  you  feed  in  the  Interior  De-
    partment Cafeteria  ?

    Mr.  Chapman.  I  don't  know,  about

    Mr.  Ayers.  2,400.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Where  do  those  2,400  eat  now?

    Mr.  Chapman.  The  cafeteria  is  open.

    Mr.  Hof-FMAN.  You  did  not  close  it;  Fleming  would  not  do  it?

    jVIr,  Chapman.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  started  this  closing  idea,  did  you  not?

    Mr.  Chapman.  No;  we  did  not  start  it.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Who  did  down  there?

    ]\ir.  Chapman.  You  mean  in  our  department  ?

    JNIr.  Hoffman.  Yes.

    ]Mr.  Chapman.  The  Secretary  himself  discussed  it  the  clay  after
    the  strike  was  called.

    72913 — 48 3

    24  INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI   STRIKE

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Did  you  not  call  it  to  his  attention  ?

    Mr.  Chapman.  It  was  called  to  my  attention  by  some  of  the  em-
    ployees of  the  Department.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Then  you  called  to  the  Secretary's  attention  this
    situation  ?

    Mr.  Chapman.  Yes ;  that  is  right.

    Mr.  Smith.  Have  you  ever  been  a  member  of  the  American  League
    Against  War  and  Fascism?

    Mr.  Chapman.  No.

    Mr.  Smith.  Have  you  ever  been  a  member  of  the  American  League
    for  Peace  and  Democracy?

    Mr.  Chapman.  No.

    Mr.  Smith.  Did  you  ever  sponsor  the  American  Council  for  Amer-
    ican-Soviet Friendship  ?

    Mr.  Chapman.  Yes,  my  name  was  used  as  a  sponsor.

    Mr.  Smith.  Did  you  sponsor  a  Soviet  Russian  Day  dinner  on  the
    twenty-fifth  celebration  of  the  Red  Army  ?

    Mr.  Chapman.  I  don't  recall,  Congressman,  that  I  did.

    Mr.  Smith.  Have  you  been  a  member  of  the  Society  of  Soviet
    Russia  Day,  and  were  you  one  of  the  speakers  to  welcome  Soviet  fliers  ?

    Mr.  Chapman.  No.

    Mr.  Smith.  Anybody  who  says  that  you  did  is  telling  an  untruth?

    Mr.  Chapman.  Yes.  If  anyone  said  I  made  a  speech  welcoming  the
    Soviet  fliers  is  mistaken  or  an  untruth,  whichever  it  may  be.

    Mr.  Smith.  You  have  not  been  affiliated  in  any  way,  form,  or
    manner  with  that  organization  ?

    Mr.  Chapman.  Would  you  repeat  that  organization  again?

    Mr.  Smith.  Tell  me  what  ones,  if  I  have  not  read  right,  tell  me
    what  you  did.

    Mr.  Chapman.  I  didn't  know  whether  you  repeated  the  same  name
    you  had  a  moment  ago  when  you  spoke  of  the  Council  for  Soviet-
    American  Friendship.  I  didn't  know  whether  that  was  the  same  name
    you  repeated.

    Mr.  Smith.  If  the  Daily  Worker  on  June  30,  1937,  carried  a  story
    to  that  effect,  that  you  were  one  of  the  speakers  to  welcome  Soviet
    fliers,  they  would  be  telling  an  untruth,  is  that  so  ?

    Mr.  Chapman.  They  would.

    Mr.  Smith.  Did  you  attend  the  Southern  Conference  for  Human
    Welfare  in  Washington  last  spring  ?

    Mr.  Chapman.  I  don't  recall  whether  I  attended  one  last  spring
    or  not.    I  have  attended  one  conference.

    Mr.  Smith.  Then  I  will  ask  you  directly.

    Mr.  Chapman.  Let  me

    Mr.  Smith.  Did  you  on  April  7,  1947,  at  the  Statler  Hotel,  attend
    a  conference  of  the  Southern  Conference  for  Human  Welfare?

    Mr.  Chapman.  No,  Congressman.  I  was  the  chairman  of  the  com-
    mittee that  organized  that  dinner  for  Justice  Black  as  an  honorary
    dinner  for  him.  and  it  was  sponsored  by  the  Southern  Conference
    for  Human  Welfare,  along  with  other  citizens,  I  was  chairman  of
    that  dinner,  but  unfortunate^  I  was  ill  that  evening  and  did  not
    get  to  attend.

    Mr.  Smith.  Did  you  sponsor  a  meeting  on  March  5,'  1940,  at  the
    National  Press  Club  in  Washington,  D.  C,  at  which  Maury  Maverick

    INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE  25

    spoke  on  Politics  and  Liberty,  and  that  you  acted  as  chairman  of  that
    meeting  ?

    Mr.  Chapman.  I  don't  recall  whether  my  name  was  used  as  sponsor
    of  that  meeting,  but  I  did  not  act  as  chairman.

    ]Mr.  Hoffman.  Were  you  there?

    Mr.  Chapman.  No ;  I  was  not.

    Mr.  Smith.  I  will  ask  you  again,  whether  or  not  you  had  a  part  in
    the  call  of  the  Council  for  American-Soviet  Friendship  November  6
    to  8, 1943,  and  that  you  were  one  of  the  sponsors  of  that  organization?

    Mr.  Chapman.  If  that  is  the  same  organization  to  which  you  re-
    ferred previously,  my  name  is  on  as  a  sponsor  of  the  organization.  It
    was  used  as  sponsor  for  their  meetings,  generally,  if  that  is  the  same
    organization  as  the  Council  for  Soviet-American  Friendship.

    Mr.  Smith.  The  Southern  Conference  that  you  said  you  were  sick
    and  did  not  attend,  are  you  familiar  with  the  purpose  of  that  organ-
    ization i

    Mr.  Chapman.  In  a  general  way  I  think  I  am.

    Mr.  Smith.  I  will  ask  you  whether  or  not  it  does  not  show  unswerv-
    ing loyalty  to  the  basic  principles  of  American-Soviet  foreign  policy?

    Mr.  Chapman.  I  had  never  so  interpreted  it  that  way.

    Mr.  Smith.  Has  it  ever  attacked  in  any  way  any  communistic  doc-
    trine or  said  anything  about  the  present  attitude  of  the  Russian
    Government  ?

    Mr.  Chapman.  I  don't  recall  whetlier  it  has  or  not.

    Mr.  Smith.  Has  it  not  consistently  displayed  anti-American  and
    pro-Soviet  bias,  despite  professions  in  glittering  generalities  of  its
    love  for  America  ?

    Mr.  Chapman.  Are  you  speaking  of  the  Southern  Conference?

    Mr.  Smith.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  Chapman.  Not  to  my  knowledge.

    Mr.  Smith.  That  is  all.

    Mr.  Chapman.  I  may  say  I  am  not  a  member  of  that,  and  I  am  not
    a  member,  my  name  is  not  a  sponsor  of  the  Council  for  Soviet-Amer-
    ican Friendship.  I  withdrew  my  name  from  sponsorship  of  the
    Soviet- American  Friendship  more  than  a  year  ago  because  of  the  fact
    that  I  was  unable  to  keep  up  some  of  the  programs  that  were  being
    sponsored.  I  so  wrote  them  a  letter  and  withdrew  over  a  year  ago.
    For  that  reason

    Mr.  Hoffman.  How  long  were  you  a  member  ?

    Mr.  Chapman.  Probably  a  couple  of  years.  I  don't  remember  the
    exact  time,  Congressman.    My  name  was  used  as  a  sponsor.

    Mr.  Smith.  They  used  your  name  knowingly  ?

    Mr.  Chapman.  Oh,  yes.  I  gave  consent  to  use  it  at  first,  but  as  the
    program  began  to  unfold  and  they  were  having  meetings  and  spon-
    soring programs  that  I  was  unable  to  keep  up  with,  I  felt  that  an
    official  in  my  position  should  not  be  using  his  name  for  the  sponsorship
    of  things  he  could  not  keep  up  with  definitely.

    Mr.  Fisher.  What  do  you  mean  "keep  up  with"?

    Mr.  Chapman.  I  didn't  have  the  time  to  follow  the  program.  As  an
    example,  they  put  on  a  program  in  New  York  City,  with  considerable
    publicity,  and  speakers,  advocating  a  program  of  different  kinds.  I
    just  didn't  have  the  time  to  follow  the  program  itself.  I  just  did  not
    wish  to  have  my  name  connected  with  it  in  any  way.

    26  INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE

    Mr.  Fisher.  Was  there  any  specific  thino;  they  advocated  that  caused
    you  to  withdraw  or  just  the  fear  they  might  advocate  something  you
    did  not  know  about?

    Mr.  Chapman.  There  were  several  programs  that  had  been  spon-
    sored that  were  of  some  controversial  nature.  I  concede  the  right  of
    a  different  opinion  on  those  things,  and  I  just  didn't  feel  in  my  posi-
    tion that  I  ought  to  allow  my  name  to  be  used  for  the  sponsorship  of
    that  kind  of  program.

    Mr.  Fisher.  The  reason  was  not  any  specific  action  or  anything  they
    advocated  that  caused  you  to  withdraw  ?

    Mr.  Chapman.  Except  that  I  was  not  certain — I  didn't  know
    whether  I  agreed  with  some  of  it  or  not.  Some  of  it  I  didn't  quite
    agree  with  which  was  probably  because  I  didn't  understand  all  about
    it.  Because  of  the  fact  that  I  didn't  have  opportunity  to  study  all
    about  it  I  didn't  want  to  sponsor  it  under  those  circumstances.

    Mr.  Fisher.  The  withdrawal,  then,  was  not  predicated  on  any  spe-
    cific thing  that  you  could  point  to  that  you  disagreed  with  ?

    Mr.  Chap3ian.  No;  it  was  the  general  attitude  of  things  that  I
    saw  that  I  felt  I  didn't  know  enough  about  myself  to  say  that  I  agreed
    vs^ith  that  kind  of  program.  Rather  than  take  time  from  any  energies
    that  I  needed  for  other  things,  I  withdrew  from  it.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  In  August  of  1938,  or  any  time  prior  thereto,  did  the
    letterhead  of  the  American  League  Against  War  and  Fascism  carry
    your  name?

    Mr.  Chapman.  I  don't  recall.  Congressman,  whether  it  did  or  not.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  know  of  the  organization  ?

    Mr.  Chapman.  Yes,  I  think  I  am  acquainted  with  what  it  is.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Were  you  a  member  of  it  ?

    Mr.  Chapman.  To  my  knowledge,  I  never  was  a  member  of  it.  I
    think  I  was  on  their  mailing  list.  Congressman.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Did  not  their  letterhead  carry  your  name,  Oscar
    Chapman,  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Interior?

    Mr.  Chapman.  If  it  did,  I  am  not  familiar  with  it.  It  may  have.
    I  don't  recall.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  If  it  was,  it  was  without  your  knowledge  and  consent  ?

    Mr.  Chapman.  If  they  carried  it  it  was  without  my  consent,  be-
    cause I  don't  recall  giving

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  without  your  knowledge?

    Mr.  Chapman.  I  don't  remember  ever  seeing  it.  I  have  never  at-
    tended a  meeting  of  those  organizations  of  any  kind  at  any  place  to
    my  knowledge  at  all.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  say  you  were  never  a  member  of  the  American
    League  Against  War  and  Fascism?

    Mr.  Chapman.  No  ;  not  to  my  knowledge.  Congressman.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  organization  was  one  of  those  cited  as  a  Com-
    munist front  by  Biddle?

    Mr.  Chapman.  Yes ;  I  think  it  was.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  did  live  at  the  Kennedy- Warren,  3133  Con-
    necticut Avenue,  Washington?

    Mr.  Chapman.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  you  say  you  were  not — or  were  you — a  member
    of  the  American  League  for  Peace  and  Democracy  at  that  time?

    INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE  27

    Mr.  Chapman.  To  my  knowledge,  T  never  have  been  a  member.  If
    I  was,  I  don't  recall  ever  signing  any  blank  or  anything.  I  have  never
    attended  a  meeting.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Have  you  ever  heard  before  that  you  were  listed  as
    one  of  their  members  ?

    Ml-.  Chapman.  Yes.  I  thiidv  the  Dies  committee  had  my  name
    among  them.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Did  you  ever  make  any  inquiry  to  ascertain?

    Mr.  Chapman.  I  did.    I  tried  to  find  out.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  What  was  the  result  ?

    Mr.  Chapman.  1  could  not  find  out  where  there  was  any  record  or
    anything  indicating  I  ever  belonged.     I  could  not  find  it.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Of  course,  jou  understand  in  asking  you  these  ques-
    tions, there  is  no  intimation  carried  that  the  answer  is  one  way  or
    the  other.

    Mr.  (HiiAPMAN,  It  is  perfectly  all  right.  Congressman.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Many  are  accused  of  manj'  things,  and  sometimes
    there  is  a  foundation  and  sometimes  there  is  absolutely  none.

    Mr.  Chapman.  The  FBI  made  a  very  careful  check-up  after  that,  of
    which  I  have  no  resentment  whatever,  I  was  glad  they  did.  That
    report  was  filed.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  There  are  manj^  organizations  that  people  belong  to
    that  at  the  time  they  joined •

    Mr.  Chapman.  That  is  right.

    ]Mr.  Hoffman.  Were  supposecj  to  be  something  different  from  what
    thej^  afterward  turned  out  to  be.  You  don't  know  of  any  organization
    that  might  be  called  a  leftist  organization  or  a  front  organization  for
    the  Communist  Party  to  which  you  ever  belonged  or  were  ever  affiliated
    with  in  any  way  ?

    Mr.  Chapmax.  No  ;  not  at  all.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  think  that  is  all.    That  ought  to  clear  the  record.

    Mr.  Chapman.  That  is  all  right.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  all.

    Thank  you,  Mr.  Chapman.

    Mr.  Chapman.  Thank  you.

    Is  Mr.  Oliver  T.  Palmer  here  ?     He  was  coming  up.

    Is  the  district  officer  of  the  Police  Department  here  who  saw  the
    incident  where  Willie  Jasper  Thompson  was  involved?  If  you  will
    come  forward,  all  three.

    TESTIMONY  OF  H.  F.  MOWRY.  SERGEANT,  METROPOLITAN  POLICE;
    HORACE  S.  CHILDRESS,  CORPORAL,  METROPOLITAN  POLICE;  AND
    EUGENE  A.  GROSS,  PARK  POLICE

    Mr.  HoFFMAx.  Willie  Jasper  Thompson  has  sued  you  gentlemen  for
    a  certain  sum.    How  many  of  you?

    Mr.  MowRY.  We  three  and  one  other.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Four  of  you.

    Mr.  MowRY.  For  $36,000  total.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Te\J  us,  whichever  one  of  3^  on  was  there  at  the  begin-
    ning of  this,  what  happened  there  and  where  it  was.

    Mr.  MowRY.  It  was  about  5 :  30  a.  m.,  on  Thursday,  January  15,
    and  the  happening  occurred  in  front  of  the  Eighteenth  Street  en-

    28  INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE

    trance  to  the  Navy  Department  Building  on  Constitution  Avenue.
    At  that  time  there  were  probably  25  pickets  in  the  line,  and  we  were
    in  that  neighborhood  because  of  complaints  that  the  persons  going
    to  work  were  being  molested  and  stoned.  I  was  riding  in  a  police
    car  with  Corporal  Childress  and  Captain  Wallrodt,  who  is  not
    here  today.

    We  made  a  circle  around  the  C  Street  entrance  to  the  new  Interior
    Building  where  the  street  cars  unload.  At  that  time  there  were
    10  colored  people  got  off  the  streetcar  and  headed  toward  the  Navy
    Department.

    We  fell  in  behind  them  and  followed  them  down  to  see  how  they
    made  out  in  crossing  the  picket  line.  They  crossed  Constitution
    Avenue  and 'as  they  started  across  we  stopped  at  the  north  curb  of
    Constitution  Avenue,  still  on  Eighteenth  Street,  and  watched  them
    continue  across  Constitution  Avenue.

    The  picket  line  was  so  long  that  unless  they  made  a  detour  around
    them,  they  would  have  to  go  through  the  line.  There  was  no  other
    way  to  get  to  the  entrance  unless  they  walked  a  considerable  dis-
    tance around  the  line.    They  went  through  the  line.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Did  anj^onc  have  to  push  the  pickets  to  get  through?

    Mr.  MowRY.  There  was  considerable  jostling.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  How  close  were  the  pickets  walking  to  each  other?

    Mr.  MowRY.  It  was  a  bitterly  cold  morning.  I  think  the  tempera-
    ture was  around  15°.  They  were  not  marching,  they  were  trotting.
    They  were  very  close  together.  It  was  impossible  to  go  between
    them  without  touching  either  one  or  the  other.  It  would  be  impos-
    sible. My  attention  was  attracted  to  a  man,  I  later  learned  his  name
    was  Ensley,  as  he  went  through  the  line  this  big  fellow  who  was  in
    the  picket  line,  who  was  the  biggest  one  by  far  of  any  in  the  line,
    reached  back  with  his  foot  and  kicked  him  in  the  shin.  Then  there
    was  a  litle  scuffle  there.  He  had  this  boy  Ensley  on  the  ground,  on
    the  sidewalk.  He  jumped  right  up  on  him  with  both  foot  and
    started  stomping  him  with  his  heels.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  What  do  you  mean  ?

    Mr.  MowEY.  Ensley  was  lying  on  the  sidewalk  and  he  jumped  on
    him,  around  his  shoulders,  and  stomped  him  on  the  head  -with  his
    heel.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Was  Ensley  face  down  or  face  up?

    Mr.  MowRY.  He  was  sort  of  on  his  side.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  know  how  tall  this  gentleman  who  jumped
    on  Ensley  was?

    Mr.  MowRY.  I  would  say  he  was  a  good  6  feet  2  or  3.  He  is  a  big
    boy.

    Mr,  Hoffman.  Did  you  have  him  over  at  the  Department  and  get
    his  weight  and  height  and  all?

    Mr.  MowRY.  They  have,  but  I  don't  know.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  How  large  was  Ensley?

    Mr.  MowRY.  Ensley  is  a  fairly  tall  man,  but  he  is  of  slight  build.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  do  not  know  his  weight,  either?

    Mr.  MowRY.  I  would  say  he  is  about  175.  Probably  not  that  much,
    probably  5  feet  10  or  11,  but  this  boy  Thompson  slid  off  him  once.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Is  that  Willie  Thompson  ?

    INIr.  MowRY.  Yes.

    INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI   STRIKE  29

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Is  he  a  colored  gentleman,  too  ?

    Mr.  MowRY.  Willie  Jasper  Thompson.  He  slid  off  and  jumped
    back  on  him  and  started  stomping  again.  Of  course  this  took  only
    a  very

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Did  you  see  this?

    Mr.  MowRY.  Oh,  yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  mean  he  jumped  on  him  with  his  feet'^

    Mr.  Mo  WRY.  With  his  feet,  with  his  shoes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  All  right.

    Mr.  MowRY.  Of  course,  this  took  only  a  very  short  time.  During
    the  time  it  was  going  on,  we  were  making  our  way  across  Constitu-
    tion Avenue.  I  jumped  out  of  the  car.  He  apparently  saw  us  com-
    ing because  he  jumped  off  this  man  Ensley  and  ran  back  and  got  in
    the  picket  line  and  started  moving  with  the  pickets  again.  I  took
    him  out  of  the  picket  line.  He  had  never  gotten  out  of  my  view.
    He  didn't  want  to  go  along,  but  he  finally  did  with  a  lot  of  able
    assistance.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  mean  you  had  assistance  ?

    Mr.  MowRY.  Yes.    I  had  Corporal  Childress  here.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Did  he  resist  you  ?     Did  you  tell  him  to  come  along  ?

    Mr.  MowRY.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  assault  and  battery  was  committed  in  your
    presence  ?

    Mr.  MowRY.  Yes,  sir.  The  picket  line  stopped  picketing  at  that
    time.  They  gathered  around  us  and  were  grabbing  at  me  and  one
    of  them  grabbed  the  corporal  here  and  flung  him  on  the  ground.  I
    didn't  see  that.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Just  tell  what  you  saw.

    Mr.  Mo  WRY.  I  know  there  was  one  on  my  back.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  While  you  were  engaged  with  Willie?

    Mr.  MoAVRY.  With  Willie  Thompson.    Then  the  captain  was  here.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Captain  who?

    Mr.  MowRY.  Captain  Wallrodt.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  He  is  not  here  today  ?

    Mr.  MowRY.  He  got  a  hold  of  one  of  Thompson's  arms  and  I  be-
    lieve a  Park  policeman  by  the  name  of  Edmonds  got  him  by  the  other
    arm.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Is  he  an  officer,  too  ?

    Mr.  MoAVRY.  Yes,  sir;  a  Park  policeman.  We  got  him  under  con-
    trol, too,  and  by  that  time  I  got  rid  of  the  guy  who  was  riding  my  back.
    I  don't  know  who  he  is  yet.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  He  was  not  arrested  ?

    Mr.  MowRY.  I  couldn't  see  who  he  was.  About  that  time  I  saw
    Corporal  Childress  on  the  ground  and  this  other  boy  taking  a  kick
    at  him.

    Mr. -Hoffman.  Tell  us  more  in  detail.

    Mr.  Mo  WRY.  He  was  getting  up  off  the  sidewalk  and  this  boy  was
    kicking  at  him.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Did  he  kick  him  ?

    Mr.  MoAVRY.  I  don't  think  he  ever  hit  him  with  his  feet,  but  he
    wanted  to.  About  that  time.  Gene  Gross,  here,  came  on  and  got  hold
    of  the  boy.

    30  INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI    STRIKE

    During  the  time  we  were  making  and  maintaining  an  arrest  of
    Tliompson,  someone  took  this  boy  Ensley  into  the  Navy  Department
    clinic.  I  don't  know  who  did.  I  inquired  of  the  building  guard  where
    he  was,  and  he  told  me  and  I  took  this  boy  Thompson  into  the  clinic
    where  he  identified  him  as  the  one  who  had  assaulted  him.  He  wasn't
    real  sure  what  had  happened  because  he  had  been  knocked  uncon-
    scious. After  he  had  been  identified  I  took  him  to  the  precinct  and
    booked  him  and  charged  him  with  assault  with  a  dangerous  weapon.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  What  was  the  dangerous  weapon?

    Mr.  MowRY.  His  feet.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  What?

    Mr.  MoAVRY.  His  shoes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  His  shoes?

    Mr.  MowRY.  Yes,  sir.  He  was  held  for  action  of  the  grand  jury
    before  Judge  Neilson  that  very  morning  under  $1,000  bond  and  the
    case  has  been  presented  to  the  grand  jury  that  same  day.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  The  reason  you  are  up  here  is  because  there  have
    been  complaints  made  to  the  effect  that  the  police  were  escorting  pickets
    through  the  line  and  using  brutality  and  the  usual  complaints,  that
    you  were  just  knocking  the  pickets  around.    That  is  why  you  are  here?

    Mr.  MoAVRY.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Go  ahead  with  your  story.

    Mr.  Childress.  I  was  with  Sergeant  Mowry,  here.  I  was  in  the
    back  seat.  He  was  first  out  of  the  car.  He  got  over  to  Willie  Thomp-
    son. Thompson  was  struggling,  and  I  was  helping  with  him  when
    Augustus  Dickens  got  me  around  the  head  and  twisted  me  around  and
    I  lost  balance.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  How  did  you  get  twisted  ?    Just  tell  us.

    Mr.  Childress.  He  ran  up  behind  and  got  his  arm  around  my  neck
    and  twisted  it.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  illustrated  there  with  your  forearm  across  the
    front  along  your  adams  apple.    Is  that  the  way  it  was  ?

    Mr.  Childress.  Yes.  He  just  twisted  me  around  and  I  lost  my
    balance  and  fell.  While  I  was  on  the  ground  he  attempted  to  kick  me
    in  the  face.

    INIr.  Hoffman.  Did  you  see  him  kicking  ?

    Mr.  Childress.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Were  you  able  to  dodge  ?

    Mr.  Childress.  I  was  able  to  get  back  out  of  the  way.  He  didn't
    kick  me.  Officer  Gross  ran  up  and  placed  him  under  arrest.  Officer
    Gross  used  his  baton  on  him.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  'Did  you  see  Thompson  when  he  was  assaulting
    Ensley  ?

    Mr.  Childress.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  All  right,  Mr.  Gross.

    Mr.  Gross.  As  the  officers  testified  here,  they  were  in  this  skirmish,
    this  altercation.    As  I  came  upon  the  scene,  Augustus  Dickens

    Mr.  Hoffman.  When  d^d  you  first  see  it  ?  How  did  you  know  .tluere
    was  trouble?

    Mr.  Gross.  I  observed  the  officers  as  they  made  a  right  turn  into
    Constitution  Avenue.    I  was  in  a  Park  Police  cruiser  just  north  of

    INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI    STRIKE  31

    Constitution  Avenue  on  tlio  vrest  side  of  Eighteentli  Street  facing
    south.  That  is  wlien  tlieir  car  passed.  They  made  a  rio;ht  turn.  Sud-
    denly they  made  a  left  turn  u])  toward  the  pickets.  I  realized  then
    there  was  something  wrong.  They  dashed  out  at  the  curb  when  they
    reached  the  curb  and  proceeded  to— naturally  I  jumped  out  of  the  car
    and  ran  across  Constitution  Avenue  and  saw  this  fellow  ^vith  Childress
    here.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  did  see  him  ?

    Mr.  Gross.  I  saw  this  fellow  grab  Childress  around  the  neck.  In
    the  meantime,  he  was  going  backward  withlhis  officer  going  down  with
    him.  By  the  time  I  got  there  I  lunged  at  this  man  Dickens  and  knocked
    him  backwards  and  that  liroke  his  hold  on  this  num.  He  went  down
    on  the  walk  and  at  the  same  time  he  tried  to  kick  him.  Just  then  some-
    one let  me  have  it  from  behind.  I  don't  know  who  that  was,  either.
    That  is  when  I  looked  back  to  see  who  had  hold  of  me  or  hit  me,  and
    I  looked  again  and  saw  this  fellow  come  toward  me,  the  one  I  pushed
    off  him.  I  had  my  baton  in  my  left  hand,  someone  came  toward  me
    from  the  rear  and  I  let  him  have  it.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  One  was  coming  toward  you  and  another  had  you
    from  behind  ^

    Mr.  Gross.  That  is  right.  I  hit  him  along  the  left  side  of  the  face
    there  and  cut  his  eye.

    Mv.  Hoffman.  Then  he  stopped  ?

    Mr.  Gross.  He  stopped.

    ]\Ir.  Hoffman.  Did  you  take  him  in,  too?

    Mv.  Gross.  Yes.  Order  was  restored  immediately  there.  We  took
    Dickens  up  to  Emergency  Hospital  where  he  was  treated  for  a  cut
    there.

    jNIr.  Hoffman.  So  before  you  struck  that  man  he  had  the  other
    officer  down  on  the  ground  and  was  kicking  at  him  ?

    JNIr.  Gross.  Yes ;  he  had  him  down.

    ]Mr.  HoFFiNiAN.  You  stay  out  of  all  labor  disputes  down  there,  unless
    there  is  some  assault  and  battery  or  something  of  that  kind?

    Mr.  Gross.  We  don't  take  sides  in  either  case  in  enforcing  the  law
    as  far  as  that  goes.  In  this  particular  instance  we  were  cautioned  to
    be  extremely  cautious  and  not  to  take  sides  in  anything.

    Mv.  Hoffman.  And  you  do  not,  as  I  understand?

    Mr.  Gjioss.  We  do  not  in  any  case.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  think  that  is  all,  then.

    Is  Mr.  Palmer  here  yet  ?

    (No  response.)

    Mr.  Mowry.  May  we  be  excused  ?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Yes,  that  is  all.

    I  do  not  believe  we  will  need  the  testimony  of  any  of  the  other
    officers.

    There  is  an  A.  F.  of  L.  man  here.  Is  there  anything  you  want  to
    say  about  this  ?

    Mr.  Sands.  I  would  like  to  have  considerable  to  say  if  I  be  per-
    mitted, although  the  hour  is  late.

    Mr.  Hoff3ian.  Do  you  have  anything  to  say  which  has  anything  to
    do  with  the  question  of  the  effectiveness  of  the  Taft-Hartley  Act?

    32  INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE

    TESTIMONY  OF  CHARLES  E.  SANDS,  INTERNATIONAL  REPRESENTA-
    TIVE, HOTEL  AND  RESTAURANT  EMPLOYEES'  INTERNATIONAL
    ALLIANCE  AND  BARTENDERS'  INTERNATIONAL  LEAGUE  OF
    AMERICA,  WASHINGTON,  D.  C.

    Mr.  Sands.  Yes.  My  name  is  Charles  E.  Sands.  I  am  the  interna-
    tional representative  of  the  Hotel  and  Restaurant  Employees'  and
    Bartenders'  Union,  affiliated  with  the  American  Federation  of  Labor
    and  the  Railway  Labor  Executives  Association.

    I  want  to  say  at  the  outset  that  our  international  union,  our  bar-
    gaining agents  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  in  all  positions  which  come
    under  the  Taft-Hartley  Act,  have  signed  the  necessary  affidavits.  I,
    myself,  sometimes  bargain  for  unions  and  I  have  signed  the  necessary
    affidavits.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  have  no  objection  to  those  provisions  of  the
    Taft-Hartley  law  which  require  the  filing  of  the  financial  statements
    and  the  affidavits  of  loyalty  and  those  things  ?

    Mr.  Sands.  In  our  55  years  of  existence  we  have  always  been.  Off
    the  record,  I  think  that  is  the  only  good  thing  in  the  Taft-Hartley
    law.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Fortunately  for  the  country,  that  opinion  is  not  law.

    Mr.  Smith.  Do  you  object  to  the  communistic  doctrine?

    Mr.  Sands.  Do  I  object  to  it  ?

    Mr.  Smith.  To  signing  the  communistic  affidavit?

    Mr.  Sands.  Do  I  object  to  it  ?

    Mr.  Smith.  You  said  the  only  good  point  in  the  Taft-Hartley  law
    was  the  financial  statement.

    Mr.  Sands.  Oh,  well,  that,  too.  A  member  is  entitled  to  know  where
    the  money  comes  from.

    Mr.  Smith.  What  about  the  communistic  affidavit  ?

    Mr.  Sands.  I  am  in  favor  of  that.

    Mr.  Smith.  That  is  two  things.

    Mr.  Sands.  Yes;  two  things.     You  hooked  them  up  together.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  What  about  the  right  of  the  union  officials  to  free
    speech  ?     You  are  in  favor  of  that,  too  ?

    Mr.  Sands.  Yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  There  are  three.  You  look  that  act  over  and  you
    will  find  a  lot  of  things  to  approve.

    Mr.  Sands.  I  am  in  favor  of  anything  having  the  right  of  free  speech.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Go  ahead.     That  is  what  we  are  giving  you  here.

    Mr.  Sands.  Even  Communists,  if  they  admit  they  are  Communists.

    We  are  in  this  picture  because  of  the  fact  that  a  number  of  these
    people  employed  in  Government  services^ —

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  will  ask  you  one  more.  You  are  in  favor  of  union
    membership  having  the  right  to  vote  before  they  go  on  strike  ?

    Mr.  Sands.  Positively.

    ]Mr.  Hoffman.  There  are  four  things.

    Mr.  Sands.  We  always  have  a  secret  ballot  before  we  have  a  strike.

    We  got  into  this  picture  because  a  number  of  these  workers,  of
    course,  some  of  the  people  change  from  the  restaurants  and  hotels
    which  have  contracts  with  us  and  sometimes  they  work  in  Government
    cajEeterias  and  sometimes  they  belong  to  two  unions.  Some  of  these
    people  called  on  us  and  didn't  like  the  leadership.     I  think  it  was

    INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI    STRIKE  33

    early  in  November  that  we  issued  a  statement  of  our  position  that  we
    would  sign  the  necessary  papers  under  the  Taft-Hartley  Act.  We
    called  on  the  membership  of  that  union  either  to  force  their  leaders
    to  sign  it  or  to  oust  them  and  to  get  some  that  would.  If  they  wanted
    leadership  in  the  union  and  came  to  us,  we  would  give  them  leadership.

    That  position  was  made  known  to  the  Washington  Central  Labor
    Union  on  December  1.  That  position  was  made  known  to  all  the
    employees  in  the  Government  cafeterias,  because  they  were  circularized
    through  other  A.  F.  of  L.  unions,  other  sources,  and  so  that  Mr,  Palmer
    would  absolute^  know  our  position,.!  mailed  him  one.  Mr.  Palmer
    is  the  business  agent  of  471.  We  have  been  fairly  successful  in
    organizing  these  people.

    Mr.  HoFFMAisr.  You  mean  the  employees  who  are  now  working
    in  the  cafeteria  ?

    Mr.  Sands.  The  people  now  employed.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  are  making  progress?

    Mr.  Sands.  Yes;  that  is  right.  So  much  so  that  we  have  served
    notice  on  the  welfare  department  of  the  Agriculture  that  we  would
    resent  their  giving  a  contract  to  the  CIO  who  had  not  signed  the
    affidavits  the  same  as  we  have.

    Our  position  is  clear.  It  is  a  position  we  are  not  ashamed  of.  I
    don't  look  on  this  as  a  strike.  I  can  tell  you  frankly  that  if  these
    people  were  on  the  street  on  a  question  of  hours  or  wages,  I  wouldn't
    be  in  the  picture.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  to  say  you  would  not  try  to  raid  the  CIO  if
    it  was  a  question  of  wages  ?

    Mr.  Sands.  No  ;  not  if  they  were  getting  proper  leadership.  I  can
    cite  the  case  of  the  O'Donnell  Restaurant  where  the  CIO  beat  us  on
    the  ballot  and  they  were  on  strike  for  12  weeks.  Not  a  word  came
    from  me  or  any  of  our  officials.  It  was  a  bread-and-butter  proposi-
    tion, and  we  don't  interfere.  Although  we  don't  like  them  and
    don't  like  their  methods,  we  don't  interfere  with  any  union  that  is  on
    the  street  on  a  bread-and-butter  proposition,  but  on  a  political  issue ;
    yes.

    As  regards  the  Secretary  of  Labor,  I  don't  know  where  he  obtained
    his  information  that  it  was  a  jurisdictional  strike

    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  all  realize,  and  I  know  he  did,  he  did  not  mean
    that  it  was  a  jurisdictional  strike  in  the  sense  that  we  ordinarilyv
    use  that  term.

    Mr.  Sands.  But,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  returned  from  Florida  on  the
    fifth  of  January.  These  people  who  claim  they  don't  work  without
    a  contract  worked  from  December  31  through  January  5  and  are  now
    working  in  the  Agriculture  Department  without  a  contract.  The  only
    official  knowledge  that  the  Secretary  of  Labor  could  have  had  on  our
    position  is  when  we  wired  him  about  a  week  ago  or  maybe  8  days  ago,
    asking  him  to  open  the  Labor  Department  cafeteria  because  our  mem-
    bers wanted  to  go  to  work.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Have  you  a  majority  of  the  employees  ?

    Mr.  Sands.  Of  Government  Services  ?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  No  ;  who  work  in  the  Labor  Department  cafeteria.

    Mr.  Sands.  I  would  not  make  that  statement ;  no.  But  I  know  that
    we  have_ people  who  are  very  desirous  of  going  to  work.  As  a  matter
    of  fact,  in  one  of  my  telegrams  to  the  Secretary  of  Labor,  I  mentioned

    34  INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI    STRIKE

    the  fact  that  he  could  not  remain  neutral  and  perhaps  these  people
    would  picket  with  signs  that  they  belonged  to  us  or  they  wanted  to  go
    to  work  in  there.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Your  position,  then,  is  that  your  A.  F.  of  L.  mem-
    bers are  being  locked  out  ?

    Mr.  Sands.  Some  of  them.  I  want  the  Labor  Department  cafeteria
    to  open  so  that  anybody,  whether  they  belong  to  the  union  or  not,  can
    go  in  there  and  go  to  work.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Y  ou  are  not  asking  for  a  closed  shop  ?

    Mr.  Sands.  No,  we  couldn't  under  the  Taft-Hartley  Act.  We  are
    satisfied  that  when  we  get  down  to  bargaining  to  go  through  the
    NLKB  channels  on  the  question  of  union  shop.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  What  about  the  cafeteria?  Before  you  can  bar-
    gain do  you  have  to  have  a  majority  of  the  employees  in  all  of  these
    cafeterias  or  can  you  take  them  one  by  one  ?

    Mr,  Sands.  The  Labor  Department  up  to  date  has  ruled  that  they
    go  to  the  unit  and  cannot  be  separated.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  What  percentage  of  the  employees  of  the  GSI  have
    you?

    Mr.  Sands.  What  percentage  do  we  have?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Of  the  people  working  in  there?

    Mr.  Sands.  We  have  a  substantial  number  of  members.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  cannot  tell  me  the  percentage  ?

    Mr.  Sands.  No  ;  I  could  not  at  this  time.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  When  are  you  going  to  get  around  to  organizing
    the  rest  of  them,  or  get  them  signed  up  so  you  can  bargain?

    Mr.  Sands.  It  is  a  very  tedious  and  hard  proposition  because  these
    people  are  inside  and  some  of  them  are  so  confused  and  it  is  a  hard
    matter  for  them  to  be  contacted  by  us.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  They  are  working  now  without  belonging  to  any
    union,  some  of  them  ?

    Mr.  Sands.  That  is  right.  When  I  first  made  my  contact  with  the
    Secretary  of  Labor  through  Mr.  Kusick,  I  guess,  who  is  the  A.  F,  of  L.
    assistant,  we  were  prepared,  if  necessary,  to  picket  the  Labor  De-
    partment and  we  were  asked  by  a  very  prominent  member  of  the
    A.  F.  of  L.  to  defer  for  a  few  days.  We  are  very  desirous  that  the
    Labor  Department  cafeteria  be  opened,  and  we  are  seriously  con-
    sidering taking  the  means  to  inform  the  public  with  the  proper
    placards  why  it  is  closed.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Yes;  but  the  Secretary  of  Labor  does  not  want  you
    to  picket  his  place.

    Mr.  Sands.  We  will  picket  whether  the  Secretary  of  Labor  says
    so  or  not.  We  will  exercise  our  rights  within  the  law  the  same  as  we
    have  always  done  in  the  District.  And  the  only  ones  that  can  take
    our  pickets  off  would  be  the  police,  and  we  would  temporarily  abide
    by  their  decision  until  it  was  thrashed  out.  We  have  never  had  any
    trouble  with  any  picket  lines.'

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  guess  that  gives  us  the  idea.

    Mr.  Smith.  When  you  say  you  would  picket,  you  know  the  Sec-
    retary said  he  did  not  want  the  Communists  over  in  Europe  to  know
    there  were  any  picket  lines.

    Mr.^  Sands.  It  is  rather  funny  that  the  Secretary  of  Labor  takes
    such  jurisdiction  when  these  people  tried  to  reach  the  President  of

    INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI   STRIKE  35

    the  United  States  to  intervene  and  apparently  were  unsuccessful.  I
    think  the  Secretary  of  Labor  and  the  President  ought  to  get  to-
    gether to  find  out  who  is  who.  We  are  not  raiding  anybody.  We  are
    not  raiding  the  union.  Our  fight  apparently  is  with  the  Communist
    Party.  I  suppose  you  gentlemen  are  familiar  with  this  record  of
    January  12  in  the  Congressional  Eecord,  four  pages.  There  isn't
    any  question.

    ^Ir.  Hoffman.  You  mean  the  statement  that  Mr.  Busbey,  of  Illi-
    nois, put  in  ?

    Mr.  Sands.  That  is  right.  Mr.  Busbey,  and  plenty  of  other  people
    make  the  same  statement,  too.  This,  in  my  opinion,  is  not  a  strike.
    Negotiations  were  broken  off,  as  I  understand  it,  because  these  people
    refused  to  sign  the  non-Communist  affidavits.  I  have  signed  them,
    and  we  are  in  the  business  of  organizing  catering  industry  employees.
    We  are  55  years  old,  and  we  have  been  well  established  in  the  District
    for  more  than  25  years,  and  we  are  willing  to  stand  on  our  reputa-
    tion in  the  District.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  think  that  is  all  today,  unless  there  is  something
    more.    Have  you  finished  ?

    Mr.  Sands.  I  am  finished.    If  there  are  any  questions

    Mr.  Hoffman.  No ;  I  have  none.

    We  were  glad  to  have  you  come  in.

    Mr.  Sands.  I  wasn't  invited,  but  I  came.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Anyone  is  privileged  to  come  any  time  they  want  to.

    (Whereupon  at  4:  35  p.  m.,  the  committee  adjourned  subject  to  the
    call  of  the  Chair.)

    inyestftATIon  of  gsi  stkike

    MOND^AY,   JANUARY   26,    1948

    House  of  Representatives,
    Special  Subcommittee  of  the
    Committee  on  Education  and  Labor,

    Washington,  D.  0.
    The  subcommittee  met,  pursuant  to  call,  at  10  a.  m.,  in  the  commit-
    lee  room  of  the  House  Committee  on  Education  and  Labor,  Hon.  Clare
    E.  Hoffman  (chairman  of  the  subcommittee)  presiding.
    JVIr.  Hoffman.  We  will  come  to  order.
    Will  you  identify  yourself,  please.

    TESTIMONY  OF  WILLIAM  S.  TYSON,  SOLICITOR,  DEPARTMENT  OF

    LABOR

    Mr.  Tyson.  My  name  is  William  S.  Tyson,  Solicitor,  Labor  De-
    ]>artment.

    I  live  in  Bethesda.

    I  have  been  Solicitor  of  the  Department  since  February  17,  1946.
    My  duties  there  for  the  Department  are  as  legal  adviser  to  the  Secre-
    tar}^  and  the  bureaus  of  the  Department.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  In  the  press  I  have  noticed  that  the  Secretary  of
    Labor  asked  you  for  an  opinion.  Will  you  tell  us  about  that  and  also
    give  us  a  copy  of  the  opinion  ?

    Mr.  Tyson.  Yes,  sir.  I  think  it  was  last  Wednesday.  If  I  am  not
    mistaken,  the  Secretary  called  me  and  asked  me  would  I  give  him  a
    legal  opinion.  He  said  that  he  had  been  up  here  and  testified  up  here,
    and  he  had  made  a  statement  that  there  was  nothing  to  prohibit  the
    GSI  from  bargaining  with  the  union  even  though  they  had  not  filed
    the  affidavits  and  the  financial  data.  He  asked  me  to  give  him  a  legal
    opinion  on  that  question  and  also  on  the  question  of  the  failure  to
    bargain  where  there  was  no  certification  by  the  NLRB.  With  a  ma-
    jority union.

    In  consequence,  I  wrote  him  a  legal  opinion,  and  I  have  a  copy  of
    it  here.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  May  we  have  that  ?  .

    You  have  handed  up  an  opinion  dated  January  23?  Consisting  of
    five  and  a  quarter  pages  of  single-spaced  typewritten  matter,  which
    we  will  insert  in  the  record.

    (The  opinion  referred  to  is  as  follows :)

    January  23,  1948.
    Memorandum.
    To :  The  Secretary.

    From  :  William  S.  Tyson,  Solicitor  of  Labor.  ,

    Subject:  Collective-bargaining  status  of  an  employer  with  respect  to  a  union

    ■which  has  not  complied  with  the  affidavit  and  financial  statement  requirements

    of  the  Labor-Management  Relations  Act,  1947.

    You  have  requested  my  opinion  concerning  the  collective-bargaining  status  of
    an  employer  with  respect  to  a  union  which  has  not  filed  the  affidavits  and  or-

    37

    38  INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI    STRIKE

    ganizational  and  financial  statements  required  by  section  9  (f)  and  (h)  of  the
    National  Labor  Relations  Act,  as  amended  by  the  Labor-Management  Relations
    Act,  1947,  and  which,  as  a  result,  is  not  regarded  by  the  General  Counsel  of  the
    National  Labor  Relations  Board  as  eligible  for  certification  as  a  recognized  col-
    lective-bargaining representative  for  liis  employees  for  purposes  of  that  act.  The
    union  in  question  has  over  a  period  of  years  represented  the  employees  of  the
    employer  and  has  entered  into  collective-bargaining  agreements  with  the  employer
    during  such  period.  You  say  that  in  a  letter  to  you  under  date  of  December  31,
    1947,  the  employer  has  stated  :

    "I  want  you  to  know  that  this  circumstance  is  not  due  to  any  ordinary  dispute
    over  wages  or  working  conditions  but  has  been  precipitated  by  the  unions  refusal
    to  qualify  under  the  National  Labor  Relations  Act,  as  amended,  to  represent  our
    employees."

    NATIONAL  POLICY  WITH  RESPECT  TO  COLLECTIVE  BARGAINING

    The  national  policy  with  respect  to  the  right  of  employees  to  form  unions  and
    ,  engage  in  collective  bargaining  with  employers  has  been  upheld  in  decisions  of
    both  the  State  and  Federal  courts  from  the  time  of  the  decision  written  in  1842
    by  Chief  Justice  Shaw  of  the  Massachusetts  Supreme  Court  in  Commonwealth  v.
    Rimt,  4  Mete.  Ill  (see  also  American  Steel  Foundries  v.  Tri-City  Central  Trades
    Conncil,  257  U.  S.  184.  (1921)  ;  Texas  d  N.  0.  R.  Co.  v.  Brotlxerliood  of  Rij.  &  S.  S.
    Clerks,  281  U.  S.  548  (1930)  and  has  been  given  specific  statutory  recognition  by
    Congress  in  the  Norris-LaGuardia  Act,  the  Wagner  Act,  and  the  Labor-Manage-
    ment Relations  Act,  1947.

    The  United  States  Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of  American  Steel  Foundries  v.
    Tri-City  Central  Trades  Council,  supra,  pointed  out:

    "  *  *  *  Labor  unions  are  recognized  by  the  Clayton  Act  as  legal  when  insti-
    tuted for  mutual  help  and  lawfully  carrying  out  their  legitimate  objects.  They
    have  long  been  thus  recognized  by  the  courts.  They  were  organized  out  of  the
    necessities  of  tlie  situation.  *  *  *  Union  was  essential  to  give  laborers  an
    opportunity  to  deal  on  equality  with  their  employer.  They  united  to  exert
    influence  upon  him  and  to  leave  him  in  a  body  in  order  b.v  this  inconvenience  to
    induce  him  to  make  better  terms  with  tliem.  They  were  withholding  their  labor  of
    economic  value  to  make  him  pay  what  they  thought  it  was  worth.  The  right  to
    combine  for  such  a  lawful  purpose  has  in  many  years  not  been  denied  by  any
    court     *     *     *.

    A  long  line  of  subsequent  decisions  prior  to  the  enactment  of  the  Wagner  Act
    confirms  this  statement.  Nothing  in  the  court  decisions  or  in  Federal  statutes
    prior  to  the  Wagner  Act  ever  prohibited  an  employer  from  voluntarily  bargaining
    with  and  entering  into  a  collective  agreement  with  a  union  of  his  employees.

    In  enacting  the  Norris-LaGuardia  and  National  Labor  Relations  Acts,  Congress
    established  the  national  labor  policy  to  which  I  have  referred  on  a  statutory
    basis  and  provided  procedures  and  remedies  to  implement  the  judicially  recog-
    nized right  of  employees  to  organize  freely  and  to  bargain  collectively  without
    interference,  restraint,  or  coercion  on  the  part  of  their  employer.  Section  2  of
    the  Norris-LaGuardia  Act  specifically  recognizes  that  such  activities  of  employees
    are  essential  under  our  economic  system  to  establish  equality  in  bargaining
    strength  between  employers  and  employees.  The  National  Labor  Relations  Act
    contained  in  its  policy  declaration  a  similar  assertion  and  in  sections  7,  8  (1),
    8  (5),  and  9  (a)  I'equired  an  employer  to  bargain  collectively  with  a  union  freely
    chosen  as  their  representative  by  a  majority  of  his  employees  and  made  it  an
    unfair  labor  practice  for  the  employer  to  interfere  with,  coerce,  or  restrain  his
    employees  in  the  selection  of  such  representative  or  to  refuse  to  bargain  with
    such  representative.

    The  declaration  of  congressional  policy  in  the  National  Labor  Relations  Act,
    although  modified  in  some  respects  by  the  Labor-Management  Relations  Act,  con-
    tinues to  support  the  national  policy  expressed  in  the  court  decisions  and  statutes
    to  which  reference  has  heretofore  been  made  of  protecting  the  rights  of  employees
    to  self-organization  and  to  promote  their  legitimate  interests  through  collective
    bargaining.     Section  1  of  the  amended  act  continues  to  provide:

    "It  is  hereby  declared  to  be  the  policy  of  the  United  States  to  eliminate  the
    causes  of  certain  substantial  obstructions  to  the  free  flow  of  conunerce  and  to  miti-
    ,  gate  and  eliminate  these  obstructions  when  they  have  occurred  by  encouraging  the
    practice  and  procedure  of  collective  bargaining  and  by  protecting  the  exercise  by

    INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI    STRIKE  39

    workers  of  full  freedom  of  association,  self-organization,  and  designation  of  rep-
    resentatives of  their  own  choosing,  for  the  purpose  of  negotiating  the  terms  and
    conditions  of  their  employment  or  other  mutual  aid  or  protection."

    Section  201  of  the  Labor-Management  Relations  Act,  1!J47,  contains  similar
    declarations  concerning  the  policy  of  the  United  States  of  aiding  and  encouraging
    employers  and  the  representatives  of  their  employees  to  reach  and  maintain  agree-
    ments concering  wages,  hours,  and  working  conditions  and  to  make  all  reasonable
    effort  to  settle  differences  by  mutual  agreement  reached  through  conferences
    and  collective  bargaining.  Under  section  204  of  the  act  it  is  made  a  duty  for
    employers  and  employees  to  "(1)  exert  every  reasonable  effort  to  make  and  main-
    tain agreements  concerning  rates  of  pay,  hours,  and  working  conditions."  The
    purpose  of  the  Congress  in  including  these  provisions  in  the  act  is  clearly  set
    forth  in  the  conference  report  on  H.  R.  3020  which  states  in  connection  with
    section  204  as  follows  :

    "Section  204  of  the  Senate  amendment  stated  that  it  should  be  the  duty  of  em-
    ployers and  employees,  and  their  representatives,  to  exert  every  reasonable  eirort
    to  settle  their  differences  by  collective  bargaining,  and,  if  this  should  fail,  to
    utilize  the  assistance  of  the  Mediation  Service.  This  provision  is  also  included
    in  section  204  of  the  conference  agreement,  but  there  has  been  omitted  therefrom
    language  which  apeared  in  the  Senate  amendment  which  indicated  that  the  parties
    were  under  a  duty  to  submit  grievance  disputes  to  arbitration."

    See  also  Senate  Report  105,  Eightieth  Congress,  first  session,  page  2 ;  House
    Report  245,  Eightieth  Congress,  first  session,  page  5.

    REMEDIES    AND   PROCEDLTRES   IMPLEMENTING    NATIONAL   POLICY    UNDER    THE    NATIONAL

    LABOR   RELATIONS    ACT

    The  National  Labor  Relations  Act,  as  originally  enacted,  defined  substantive
    rights  of  employees  and  obligations  of  employers  necessary  to  implement  the
    national  policy  in  support  of  free  collective  bargaining  and  provided  for  pro-
    cedures and  remedies  to  enforce  such  rights.  Sections  7  and  8  (1)  guaranteed
    to  employees  the  rights  of  self-organization  and  collective  bargaining.     Section

    8  (5)  of  the  act  made  it  an  unfair  labor  practice  for  an  employer  to  refuse  to
    bargain  collectively  with  the  representative  of  his  employees  sub.iect  to  section

    9  (a).  These  provisions  are  retained  in  sections  7,  8  (a)  (1),  8  (a)  (5),  and
    y  (a)  of  the  act,  as  amended  by  the  Labor-Management  Relations  Act.  1047.

    The  provisions  of  the  National  Labor  Relations  Act  and  the  Labor-Manage
    nient  Relations  Act,  1947,  are  designed  to  eliminate  certain  obstacles  to  collective
    bargaining  which  result  when  employers  refuse  to  recognize  the  specified  rights
    of  euiployees  or  the  obligations  imposed  upon  employers.  They  have  no  applica-
    tion, of  course,  to  situations  where  collective  bargaining  proceeds  through  the
    voluntary  cooperation  of  unions  and  employei's  looking  toward  agreements  govern-
    ing wages,  hours,  and  other  terms  and  conditions  of  employment.  It  is  well
    known  that  some  unions  have  hardly,  if  ever,  resorted  to  the  use  of  the  Board's
    in-ocedure  in  order  to  compel  collective  bargaining  on  the  part  of  their  employers,
    and  that  in  the  case  of  many  other  unions  resort  to  the  Board's  procedure  for
    protection  against  unfair  labor  practices  by  employers  has  been  infrequent. .

    EFFECT  OF  SECTION    9     (F)    AND    (H)    OF   THE   NATIONAL   LABOR   RELATIONS   ACT,   AS
    AMENDED,   ON   RIGHT  OF  EMPLOYER  TO  BARGAIN   WITH   A   UNION

    Section  9  (f)  and  (h)  of  the  National  Labor  Relations  Act,  as  amended  by  the
    Labor-Management  Relations  Act,  does,  it  is  true,  impose  a  barrier  to  restore  by
    unions  to  the  procedures  of  the  Board  for  relief  from  imfair  labor  practices  by
    employers,  including  those  defined  in  sections  8  (a)  (1)  and  8  (a)  (5).  It
    operates  to  preclude  the  Board  from  issuing  a  complaint  based  on  a  charge  of
    unfair  labor  practice  made  b.v  a  labor  organization  unless  the  labor  organization
    and  any  national  or  international  labor  organization  of  which  it  is  an  aflfiliate
    or  constitute  unit  files  the  required  non-Communist  affidavits  and  organizational
    and  financial  statements.  The  effect  of  this  provision,  however,  clearly  can
    opei'ate  only  with  respect  to  a  union  which  desires  to  use  the  procedures  of
    the  Board  to  protect  itself  against  unfair  labor  practices  by  an  employer.  It
    has  no  application  to  a  union  which  voluntarily  determines  that  it  does  not  need
    or  desire  to  use  the  Board's  machinery.  There  is  nothing  in  section  9  (f)  or
    (h)  which  interferes  with  the  right  of  unions  to  continue  traditional  and  legiti-
    mate trade-union  activities  without  resort  to  the  procedures  and  remedies
    provided  in  the  National  Labor  Relations  Act,  as  amended,  if  they  choose  to
    72913—48 4

    40  INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI   STRIKE

    proceed  in  this  fashion.  Similarly,  there  is  nothing  in  the  act  which  prevents
    an  employer,  if  he  so  desires,  from  bargaining  with  an  otherwise  qualified
    union,  since  the  filing  of  affidavits  and  organizational  and  financial  data  is  a
    condition  precedent  to  report  by  unions  to  the  Board  and  not  to  the  practice  of
    free  collective  bargaining  by  unions  and  employers.  N.  L.  R.  B.  v.  Wliittcnhurg
    et  al.,  13  Labor  Cases  64,211.

    Whether,  under  the  theory  of  Texas  a-  N.  O.  R.  Co.  v.  Brotherhood  of  Ry.  d
    S.  8.  Clerks.  281  U.  S.  548  (1930)  (holding  that,  despite  the  absence  of  a  penalty
    for  such  interference,  the  Railway  Labor  Act  imposed  a  duty  upon  railway
    employers  and  employees,  enforceable  under  the  general  equity  powers  of  the
    Federal  courts,  not  to  interfere  with  each  other's  rights  freely  to  designate
    collective-bargaining  representatives),  there  is  a  duty  upon  an  employer,
    enforceable  by  equity  proceedings  in  the  Federal  courts,  to  refrain  from  refusing
    to  bargain  with  a  union  representing  a  ma.1ority  of  his  employees,  notwithstand-
    ing its  inability  to  obtain  relief  from  the  National  Labor  Relations  B :)ard  be-
    cause it  has  not  filed  the  requisite  affidavits  or  organizational  and  tinancial
    statements,  is  a  matter  on  which  I  do  not  express  any  opinion  in  this,  memo-
    randum. In  this  connection,  however,  the  fact  that  the  National  Labor  Rela-
    tions Act,  as  amended,  no  longer  provides  that  relief  from  unfair  labor  practices
    as  defined  in  the  act  shall  be  obtained  exclusively  through  the  procedures  of
    the  National  Labor  Relations  Board  (sec.  10  (a))  and  that  unions  are  authoi'-
    ized  by  section  301  (b)  of  the  Labor-Management  Relations  Act  to  bring  suits
    in  the  Federal  courts  on  behalf  of  the  employees  whom  they  represent  may  be
    regarded  by  the  courts  as  having  considerable  significance.  See,  for  example,
    Textile  Workers  Union  of  America  v.  Amazon  Cotton  Mill  Co.,  December  29,
    1947,  U.  S.  D.  C,  M.D.  N.  C.  (14  Labor  Cases  72-475).

    EFFECT  OF  DISMISSAL  OF  EEPKESENTATTON  PETITION  BY  EMPLOYER  ON  RIGHT  OF
    EMPLOYER   TO  BARGAIN    WITH   A   UNION

    I  have  also  considered  the  question  whether  dismissal  by  the  Board  of  a  petition
    by  an  employer  for  representation  proceedings  under  section  9  (c)  of  the  National
    Labor  Relations  Act,  as  amended,  in  regard  to  an  uncertified  union  which  has
    not  filed  affidavits  and  organizational  and  financial  data  as  required  by  section
    9  (f )  and  (h)  of  the  act  bars  the  employer  from  bargaining  with  the  union.

    It  was  an  established  principle  under  the  National  Labor  Relations  Act  that
    an  employer's  obligation  to  bargain  with  a  union  representing  a  majority  of  his
    employees  did  not,  in  the  absence  of  other  disqualifying  factors,  depend  on  cer-
    tification of  the  union  by  the  National  Labor  R3lations  Board  as  the  recognized
    representative  of  the  employees,  and  employers  who  refused  to  bargain  with  such
    a  union  were  held  to  violate  the  act.  N.  L.  R.  B.  v.  Remington-Rand,  Inc.,  94
    F.  (2d)  862  (C.  C.  A.  2),  (cert.  den.  304  U.  S.  576)  ;  N.  L.  R.  B.  v.  Dahlstrom
    Metallic  Door  Co.,  112  F.  (2d)  756  (C.  C.  A.  6).  The  Labor-Management  Rela-
    tions Act,  1947,  has  not  altered  or  modified  this  obligation.  This  conclusion
    is  supported  by  the  declaration  of  policy  contained  in  tlie  act,  by  the  legislative
    history  of  the  act,  and  by  the  language  of  the  substantive  provisions  of  the  act.

    Furthermore,  as  you  know,  two  petitions  of  Remington  Rand,  Inc.,  for  repre-
    sentation elections  under  section  9  (d)  of  the  National  Labor  Relations  Act,
    as  amended,  nave  been  dismissed  by  Regional  Directors  of  the  Board  under  cir-
    cumstances similar  to  those  described  in  the  preceding  paragraph  on  the  ground
    that  the  certified  union  representing  its  employees,  the  United  Electrical,  Radio
    and  Machine  Workers  of  America,  would  not  be  eligible  for  a  place  on  an  election
    ballot  because  it  had  not  filed  the  affidavits  and  organizational  and  financial
    data  required  by  section  9  (f)  and  (h)  of  the  National  Labor  Relations  Act,
    as  amended.  The  Board  itself  has  not  yet  passed  upon  the  question  here  under
    consideration.  The  General  Counsel  of  the  Board  in  a  letter  dated  December
    18, 1947,  has  stated,  however,  that  "  *  *  *  *  the  act  does  not  prevent  Remington
    Rand  from  entering  into  any  contract  they  may  desire  to  with  the  UE  *  *  *"
    (Labor  Law  Reports  CCH  No.  378,  Dec.  23,  1947,  pp.  2  and  3).  Nothing  in  the
    National  Labor  Relations  Act  before  it  was  amended  by  the  Labor-Management
    Relations  Act,  1947,  restricted  the  right  of  employers  voluntarily  to  bargain
    and  contract  with  a  union  with  respect  to  wages,  hours,  and  other  terms  and
    conditions  of  emplo.vment  of  those  whom  the  union  legally  represents.  The
    Labor-Management  Relations  Act  does  not  affect  this  right  in  any  way  except
    with  respect  to  those  sub.iects  of  collective  bargaining  which  are  specifically  lim-
    ited or  prohibited  by  the  act.     Those  specific  limitations  and  prohibitions  do

    INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE  41

    not  appear  to  be  involved  in  the  situation  on  which  you  have  requested  my
    opinion.

    I  conclude  that  dismissal  of  a  petition  for  a  representation  election  filed  by  an
    employer  does  not  bar  the  employer  from  continuing  to  bargain  with  a  union
    of  his  employees.

    CONCLUSION

    It  is  my  opinion  on  the  questions  concerning  which  you  have  requested  my
    views  that —

    1.  The  national  policy  is  to  encourage  free  and  voluntary  collective  bargaining
    between  employers  and  employees.

    2.  Tl>e  National  Labor  Kelations  Act,  as  amended  by  the  Labor-Management
    Relations  Act,  1947,  does  not  prohibit  employers  from  bargaining  collectively
    with  unions  representing  a  majority  of  their  employees  even  though  the  union
    has  not  filed  the  affidavits  and  organizational  and  financial  statements  provided
    for  in  section  9(f)  and  (h)  of  the  act ;  and

    3.  The  inability  of  a  union  to  secure  Board  certification  because  it  has  not
    filed  the  affidavits  and  organizational  and  financial  statements  provided  for  in
    section  9  (f)  and  (h)  of  the  act  does  not  disqualify  the  union  from  acting  as
    the  bargaining  representative  of  the  employees,  and  does  not,  therefore,  bar
    the  employer  from  bargaining  with  the  union.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Now,  as  to  the  first  part  of  that  opinion,  he  asked
    you  as  to  your  opinion  on  the  right  of  GSI  to  bargain  with  this  union.
    That  is  aSout  what  it  was.    You  say  :

    You  have  requested  my  opinion  concerning  the  collective  bargaining  status
    of  an  employer  with  respect  to  a  union  which  has  not  filed  the  affidavits  and
    organizational  and  financial  statements  required  by  section  9  (f)  and  (h)
    of  tlie  National  Labor  Relations  Act,  as  amended —

    and  so  on.

    Mr.  Tyson.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  How  long  did  it  take  you  to  learn  that  any  employer
    could  bargain  with  any  employee  if  he  desired?

    Mr.  Tyson.  I  had  always  thought  that.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  There  never  was  any  question  in  your  mind  at  any
    time  about  that,  was  there?

    Mr.  Tyson.  Just  from  my  own  thinking  about  the  bargaining,  it
    was  that  you  bargained  freely.  The  question  that  he  asked  though
    was  to  look  into  the  law  and  see  if  there  was  anything  that  would
    prohibit  them  from  that,  and  that  is  what  we  did.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  As  a  fundamental  propisition,  the  law  would  not
    be  constitutional,  would  it,  that  prevented  two  individuals  doing
    business  iwth  each  other?

    Mr.  Tyson.  Well,  I  do  not  know  about  being  constitutional,  but  I
    do  not  think  that  that  is  the  law,  and  I  did  not  think  so.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Where  did  you  study  law  first?

    Mr.  Tyson.  The  University  of  North  Carolina.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  How  long  ago  was  that  ?

    Mr.  Tyson.  I  finished  there  in  1926.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Did  vou  find  any  authority  anywhere  that  even
    hinted  at  the  thought  tliat  any  employer  could  not  bargain  with  his
    employees  if  he  wanted  to?

    Mr.  Tyson.  No.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Then  what  is  there  in  this  opinion  about  that?

    Mr.  Tyson.  The  opinion  goes  on  to  state  what  we  thought  was  the
    national  policy,  and  which  you  just  said  is  the  national  policy,  and
    it  goes  on  to  that,  and  then  finally  gets  to  the  question  of  the  cer-
    tification. Well,  an  employer  has  to  bargain  with  the  union  that  has
    been  certified  if  it  is  a  majority  union.

    42  INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI    STRIKE

    Mr.  HoFFMA]^.  And  yon  reached  the  conchision  that  unless  the  union
    complies  with  the  provisions  of  the  Taft-Hartley  Act,  the  employer
    cannot  be  compelled  to  bargain,  did  yon  not?

    Mr.  Tyson.  I  did  not  reach  any  conclusion  on  the  duty;  in  other
    words,  as  I  said  in  that  opinion,  I  did  not  reach  any  conclusion  on
    the  duty,  and  1  did  not  pass  on  the  duty.  I  merely  said  that  there
    was  nothing-  to  piohibit  them  from  bargaining.

    Mr.  Hoffman .  In  the  Taft-Hartley  Act?

    Mr.  Tyson.  That  is  right.    There  was  no  prohibition.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Did  you  ever  hear  anyone  say,  or  did  you  ever  read
    anything  that  indicated  there  was  anything  of  that  kind  in  the  act?

    Mr.  Tyson.  No;  but  if  you  will  notice  the  quotation  in  the  first
    paragraph  of  this  opinion,  the  Secretary  says  that  in  the  letter  which
    he  received  from  the  GSI  on  December  31.     They  say  as  follows :

    I  want  you  to  know  that  this  circumstance  is  not  due  to  any  ordinary  dispute
    over  wages  or  working  conditions  but  has  been  precipitated  by  the  union's  refusal
    to  qualify  under  the  National  Labor  Relations  Act,  as  amended,  to  represent
    our  employees.

    He  construed  that  to  mean,  I  think,  that  their  refusal  to  qualify  is
    what  precipitated  the  dispute,  as  he  said  in  that  particular  paragraph
    in  the  letter. '

    ]Mr.  Hoffman.  Well,  GSI  is  justified  in  refusing  to  bargain  under
    the  Taft-Hartley  Act  because  of  the  failure  of  the  union  to  comply,
    is  it  not?

    Mr.  Tyson.  Under  the  National  Labor  Relations  Act.  as  I  under-
    stand it,  they  cannot  get  before  the  Board.  The  procedural  require-
    ments are  that  they  have  to  file  these  things  before  complaint  can
    be  issued.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Is  it  your  contention  that  an  employer  should  bar-
    gain with  a  union  whose  officers  have  been  charged  with  being  Com-
    munists and  who  refuse  to  comply  with  the  law  stating  that  they
    are  not?

    Mr.  Tyson.  I  have  no  statement  to  make  on  the  policy  at  all.  Mr.
    Hotfman.     I  was  not  asked  about  that.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Who  in  the  Department  could  state  that?  •

    Mr.  Tyson.  Well,  the  Secretary  is  the  one  that  determines  policy.
    I  merely  said  there  is  nothing  to  prohibit  them  from  bargaining.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Did  you  not  understand  it  was  the  purpose  of  Con-
    gress in  passing  that  law  to  squeeze  the  Communists  out  of  labor
    organizations  ?

    Mr.  Tyson.  If  they  wanted  to  get  before  the  National  Labor  Rela-
    tions Board,  I  certainly  did  understand  that,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Did  you  not  understand  that  it  was  the  policy  of
    Congress  to  squeeze  the  Communists  out  of  labor  unions  whether  they
    wanted  to  get  before  the  Board  or  whether  they  did  not?

    Mr.  Tyson.  I  do  not  know  that  I  understood  that  the}^  were  doing
    anything  except  fixing  the  requirement,  a  procedural  requirement,
    which  was  necessary  for  a  union  to  fill  before  they  could  have  a  com-
    plaint issued  for  an  unfair-labor  practice.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Then  I  take  it  the  substance  of  your  latter  state-
    ment is  that  you  have  no  idea  why  Congress  wrote  that  provision
    requiring  the  officers  of  unions  to  file  an  affidavit  that  they  were  not
    Communists.

    INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE  43

    Mr.  Tyson.  I  do.     I  have  an  idea.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  What  was  in  your  mind  ?

    Mr.  Tyson.  They  wanted  to  get  Communists  out  of  the  unions
    before  they  could  get  the  remedies  which  the  National  Labor  Rehitions
    Act  provides.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  What  would  you  say  to  the  proposition  that  Con-
    gress Avanted  to  get  Communists  out  of  unions,  period  ?

    Mr.  Tyson.  That  was  one  of  the  objectives  in  the  bill,  I  think,  to
    I^ievent  them  from  getting  the  remedies  imder  the  Wagner  Act.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  know;  you  have  said  that;  but  speaking  generally,
    it  was  the  purpose  of  Congress  to  squeeze  the  Communists  out  of  labor
    unions,  and  that  was  one  of  the  methods  we  used  to  get  them  out.

    Mr.  Tyson.  Well,  I  cainiot  say  what  the  purpose  of  Congress  was,
    I  think  that  that  was  one  of  the  methods;  I  agree  with  that.

    Mr.  Fisher.  As  I  understand  it,  the  import  of  your  opinion  was
    that  the  Taft-Hartley  Act  does  not  in  and  of  itself  prohibit  manage-
    ment from  bargaining  with  a  labor  union  that  has  not  complied  with
    the  non-Connnunist  aflidavit.

    Mr.  Tyson.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  Fisher.  You  will  not  say,  and  you  have  not  said,  that  it  is  the
    dutt  of  any  management  to  bargain  with  a  labor  organization  that
    has  not  complied  with  the  law?

    Mr.  Tyson.  I  did  not,  and  I  specifically  said  that  in  the  opinion.

    Mr.  Fisher.  That  is  all.

    Mr.  Smith.  Who  else  was  present  when  you  talked  to  the  Secre-
    tary?

    Mr.  Tyson.  Nobody.

    Mr.  Smith.  Did  he  ask  you  verbally  fbr  this  opinion,  or  did  he  write
    you  a  letter?

    Mr.  Tyson.  He  asked  me  verbally  for  it.  He  had  been  down  and
    testified  down  liere  and  said  that  he  had  made  this  statement,  and  he
    said  that  he  made  it  off  the  cuff,  and  he  thought  that  he  ought  to  have
    some  legal  opinon  to  back  it  up,  if  it  was  accurate,  and  if  it  was  not
    accurate,  he  ought  to  correct  it.

    Mr.  Smith.  That  is  all.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  all.     Thank  you.

    We  will  ask  Mr.  Denham  to  come  forward.  Will  you  identify  your-
    self, please?

    TESTIMONY  OF  ROBERT  N.  DENHAM,  GENERAL  COUNSEL,
    NATIONAL  LABOR  RELATIONS  BOARD

    Mr.  Denham.  My  name  is  R.  N.  Denham.  I  am  general  counsel
    of  the  National  Labor  Relations  Board,  and  I  have  been  acting  in  that
    capacity  since  August  22,  1947.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  you  have  with  you  two'  of  your  associates  ?

    Mr.  Denham.  I  have  with  me  my  associate  general  counsel,  in  charge
    of  my  legal  division,  Mr.  David  Findling,  and  one  of  the  members
    of  our  staff  who  stands  rather  high  on  the  staff.  Mr.  Mozart  Ratner,
    who  has  incidentally  been  in  charge  of  the  preparation  of  the  neces-
    sary briefs  in  the  litigation  that  is  now  pending  in  the  local  courts,
    in  a  case  brought  by  the  National  Maritime  Union  involving  the  con-
    stitutionality of  sections  9  (f),  (g),  and  (h)  of  the  Labor-Manage-
    ment Relations  Act  of  1947.

    44  INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI    STRIKE

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Well,  until  some  court  declares  that  particular  pro-
    vision invalid,  if  it  does,  you,  I  assume,  conceive  it  to  be  your  duty
    to  comply  with  the  provisions  of  the  law.

    Mr.  Denham.  Yes.  I  think  we  have  no  authority  and  no  ground
    for  raising  the  question  of  constitutionality  of  the  law  as  it  is  written
    and  presented  to  us  by  Congress.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  With  reference  to  the  purpose  of  that  provision,  will
    you  give  us  your  views  as  to  why  that  appears  in  the  law  ?

    Mr.  Denham.  Well,  there  is  in  my  opinion  no  question  but  that  it
    had  only  one  purpose,  and  that  was  to  exercise  the  maximum  amount
    of  pressure  that  was  available  for  the  elimination  of  the  Communist
    influence  from  the  labor  activities  of  the  United  States  and  the  labor
    movement  in  the  United  States,  and  the  most  effective,  apparently,  was
    to  deny  to  those  organizations  wdiich  had  Communist  leadership  or
    Communists  in  positions  of  policy-making  authority,  to  deny  to  those
    organizations  the  benefits  of  the  act.  They  are  very  substantial  and
    go  a  long  way  to  protect  the  rights  of  labor  organizations,  as  they
    have  been  recognized  in  the  act  and  as  they  have  been  recognized  under
    the  Wagner  Act  for  the  past  12  years.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Will  you  tell  us  what  you  have  to  substantiate  that
    opinion  ?

    Mr.  Denham.  Well,  the  legislative  history  is  filled  with  it.  It  runs
    through  the  legislative  history.  It  runs  through  the  statements  of
    other  officials.  I  may  say  that  I  had  before  me  a  copy  of  the  brief
    which  was  just  recently  filed  in  the  National  Maritime  Commission
    in  which  we  go  somewhat  at  length  into  the  purpose  of  the  non-Com-
    munist affidavit  provision  that  is  found  in  section  9  (h)  of  the  act.

    If  you  desire  to  utilize  that,  you  will  find  probably  a  much  more
    explicit  exposition  of  our  point  of  view  to  this  subject.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Does  that  give  somewhat  of  a  history  of  the  legisla-
    tion or  a  particular  provision  of  it?

    Mr.  Denjiam.  To  some  extent,  yes.  If  you  would  like  to  have  me
    read  it,  it  is  rather  extended,  the  parts  that  pertain  to  this,  I  shall
    be  glad  to  do  so.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  If  you  wish  to  use  any  part  of  it,  or  call  attention  to
    any  particular  part  as  evidence  of  the  soundness  of  your  conclusions,
    we  will  be  very  happy  to  have  that.

    Mr.  Denham.  Well,  it  is  our  point  of  view  that  in  adding  section
    9  (h)  to  the  act.  Congress  determined  that  the  extension  of  the  benefits
    of  the  act  to  labor  organizations  whose  officers  were  Communists  or
    who  were  supporters  of  Communist-dominated  organizations,  simply
    would  not  serve  to  promote  the  policies  of  the  act  and  might  endanger
    the  national  security  interest.  We  feel  that  Congress  believed  that
    the  Communists  and  their  supporters  do  not  view  labor  unions  pri-
    marily as  instrumentalities  for  the  improvement  of  the  economic
    conditions  of  employees,  but  rather  as  weapons  which  they  store  up  in
    their  arsenal  to  have  available  in  the  struggle  to  achieve  political  ends.

    We  feel  that  Congress  further  believed  that  the  Comnmnists  and
    their  supporters,  when  they  attained  position  of  power  and  leadership
    in  a  labor  union,  Avould  not  be  expected  to  practice  collective  bargaining
    as  a  method  of  friendly  adjustment  of  employer-employee  disputes,
    but  rather  would  utilize  that  power  as  a  vehicle  for  promoting  strife
    between  the  employer  and  the  employees.  That,  I  think,  was  one  of
    the  early  factors.

    INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI    STRIKE  45

    We  also  feel  that  it  was  one  of  the  ideas  and  intents  of  this  act  based
    upon  the  theory  that  the  Communists  and  their  supporters,  if  they  were
    in  control  of  labor  organizations,  would  be  in  a  position  to  promote
    strikes,  and  would  be  disruptive  of  interstate  commerce  and,  as  I  have
    said,  not  for  the  purpose  of  improving  the  economic  lot  of  their
    members.

    They  also  feel  that  Congress  believed  that  officers  of  labor  organ-
    izations who  were  Communists  or  who  support  communism,  might  in
    periods  of  national  emergency  utilize  their  power  within  those  organ-
    izations to  call  and  promote  strikes  that  were  contrary  to  the  interests
    of  our  Government.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Let  me  interrupt  you  there.  We  have  noticed  in  the
    press  and  over  on  the  floor  so  many  times  statements  about  a  cold  war
    with  Kussia.  Then  we  have  been  told,  too,  that  the  Communist  Party
    here  in  this  country  gets  its  orders  from  the  Communist  organiz:ition
    in  Russia.  Now,  in  your  judgment,  if  we  are  going  to  disregard  those
    provisions  of  the  Taft-Hartley  Act  and  let  unions  which  have  Com-
    munist officers  and  who  refuse  to  deny,  for  example,  the  charge  that
    they  are  Communists,  I  would  like  your  opinion  about  that — where
    are  we  getting?     Are  we  not  letting  the  Communists  right  in  on  us?

    Mr.  Denham.  Well,  of  course,  it  is  the  feeling  of  those  of  us  who
    have  the  job  of  administering  the  Taft-Hartley  Act,  and  we  believe
    that  it  was  a  feeling  that  was  pretty  general  in  Congress,  that  if  those
    interests  representing  communism  got  into  control,  that  they  would  be
    more  inclined  to  act  in  behalf  of  the  interests  of  Soviet  Russia  than
    they  would  in  behalf  of  the  interests  of  the  United  States.

    We  have  observed,  and  I  think  it  is  common  knowledge,  that  in
    other  countries  where  communism  has  gotten  a  strong  hold,  it  has  pri-
    marily done  so  through  the  labor  movement.  That  is  the  soft  spot  in
    the  economy  of  any  nation  which  seems  to  provide  the  most  powerful
    weapon  for  embarrassing  or  destroying  the  economy  of  the  nation,
    interrupting  its  productivity.

    We  feel  quite  certain  that  that  was  one  of  the  objectives  of  this  pro-
    vision in  the  act,  in  that  it  provided  to  those  labor  organizaions  which
    could  and  would  subscribe  to  the  proposition  that  they  had  no  hesi-
    tancy about  declaring  their  opposition,  and  their  lack  of  sympathy
    with  communism,  all  of  the  benefits  that  the  Taft-Hartley  Act  offers
    to  labor  organizations,  and  all  of  the  protection  that  it  offers  to  them.
    It  offers  them  much  protection.  It  guarantees  that  the  right  to  bar-
    gain with  their  employers  will  be  insisted  upon  and  enforced.  It  guar-
    antees that  they  will  not  be  discriminated  against.  It  guarantees  that
    they  will  be  allowed  freely  to  choose  their  own  bargaining  representa-
    tives, and  it  guarantees  that  if  they  should  be  interfered  with,  that
    they  may  come  to  the  Board  and  have  the  processes  of  the  Government
    invoked  to  see  that  those  rights  are  accorded.

    Congress  lias  merely  denied  to  those  organizations  which  are  willing
    to  submit  to  Communist  leadership  that  protection,  and  it  seems  to
    me  that  that  is  the  privilege  that  Congress  has  and  it  is  the  duty.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  think  it  is  a  necessary  provision?

    Mr.  Denham.  I  think  it  is  an  absolutely  necessary  provision  in  the
    economy  of  this  Nation  today.

    Mr,  Hoffman.  Well,  if  the  Government  is  to  exert  pressure  upon
    employers  to  bargain  with  organizations  which  have  not  complied

    46  INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE

    with  that  provision,  whose  officers  will  not  deny  that  they  are  Com-
    munists, do  you  care  to  express  an  opinion  of  what  becomes  of  the
    Taft-Hartley  Act?

    Mr.  Denham.  If  I  may  be  excused  from  expressing  an  opinion  on
    that,  Mr.  Hoffman,  I  would  prefer  to  do  so.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  guess  everyone  knows  about  that.  I  just  thought
    that  having  had  the  experience  that  you  have  you  might  have  an
    opinion  that  would  be  worth  more  than  the  opinion  of  other  indi-
    viduals.

    Mr.  Denham.  We  have  observed  that  there  have  been  many  instances
    that  have  not  come  to  the  attention  of  the  public,  where  labor  organiza-
    tions have  done  a  good  job  of  house  cleaning  since  the  Taft-Hartley
    Act  has  come  into  existence,  and  I  am  very  glad  to  say  that  there  are
    many  of  the  labor  organizations  throughout  the  country  that  have
    assured  me  of  their  desire  to  clean  house  if  we  find  anything  in  their
    houses  that  looked  as  if  they  have  Communists  in  them.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  find  them  cooperative,  do  you  not?

    Mr.  Denham.  Very  cooperative.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  There  are  only  a  few  here  and  there  that  are  not
    doing  so?

    Mr.  Denham.  Well,  there  are  a  feAV  outstanding  labor  organiza-
    tions that  have  refused  to  comply  with  the  law.  Some  of  them  because
    they  cannot  and  some  of  them  because,  as  a  matter  of  principle,  they
    do  not  want  to.  And  after  we  have  taken  those  few  out  of  the  picture,
    there  are  very  fe\v  left.  I  should  say  that  in  number  there  are  prob-
    ably not  greatly  more  than  5  percent  of  the  labor  organizations  that
    are  not  getting  lined  up,  if  they  have  not  already  put  themselves  in
    qualihcation,  we  anticipate  when  we  get  through,  we  will  probably
    not  have  over  5  percent  of  the  labor  organizations.  That  does  not
    mean  5  percent  of  the  membership,  because  some  of  them  are  very
    large.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  interrupted  you;  will  you  please  continue  your
    statement.

    Mr.  Denham.  I  was  paraphrasing  from  this  brief  that  I  have  before
    me.  In  its  report  recommending  enactment  of  a  predecessor  provision
    to  section  9  (h) ,  the  House  Committee  on  Education  and  Labor  stated,
    and  I  quote :

    Coninumists  use  their  influence  in  unions  not  to  benefit  workers,  but  promote
    dissension  and  turmoil.

    Congressman  Hartley,  manager  of  the  bill  in  the  House,  urged  that
    the  benefits  of  the  act  should  be  limited  to  labor  organizations  whose
    leaders  were  devoted  to  honest  trade  unionism  and  not  class  warfare
    and  turmoil.  Numerous  Congressmen  during  the  course  of  the  debate
    indicated  their  belief  that  in  periods  of  national  emergency  Communist
    leaders  of  trade  unions  might  promote  strikes  for  the  purpose  of
    undermining  the  ability  of  the  Government  to  effectuate  its  policies.

    Representative  Karsten  pointed  out :

    Weaper  who  are  continually  accusing  Congress-
    men of  a  lot  of  stuff.  They  have  to  carry  that  load  around,  too.  Did
    you  ever  think  of  that  ?

    Mr.  Bernstein.  I  think  that  you  boys  are  able  to  defend  yourselves.

    I  would  like  to  be  on  that  side  of  the  table.

    Mr.  Smith.  But  it  is  not  a  question  of  loyalty.  The  question  is,
    Are  you  a  Communist?    That  is  the  question  that  is  up  now.

    Mr.  Bernstein.  That  is  where  you  and  I  disagree.

    Mr.  Smith.  You  think  that  I  have  no  right  as  an  individual  em-
    ployer, or  the  Government  has  no  right  to  ask  that  of  you  if  you  want
    employment.

    INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE  83

    Mr.  Bernsteix.  I  did  not  say  that  at  all,  sir.  I  say  that  your  Gov-
    ernment has  got  a  perfect  right  to  ask  anybody  if  they  are  subversive
    and  if  somebody  is  subvei"sive  and  he  gets  a  hearing  on  it,  and  a  fair
    hearing,  and  a  fair  determination,  that  is  a  lot  of  other  things.

    Mr.  Smith.  You  think  the  Government  has  got  to  give  a  hearing
    on  a  man  that  wants  a  job  with  the  Government ;  is  that  right?

    Mr.  Berxsteix.  Oh.  certainly.  I  think  the  right  of  public  employ-
    ment is  a  citizenship  right.

    Mr.  Smith.  And  he  has  a  right,  if  he  says,  "I  will  not  answer  that
    question  without  a  hearing"?

    Mr.  Berxsteix.  It  is  not  a  case  of  the  private  employee.  Every
    citizen  has  a  right  to  work  for  his  Government.  If  there  is  something
    wrong  with  him,  let  him  know  what  it  is.

    Mr.  Smith.  Your  position,  as  I  get  it,  is  simply  this :  That  if  yoit
    go  and  try  to  get  a  job  with  the  Government,  and  when  you  get  down
    to  that  question,  "Are  you  a  member  of  the  Communist  Party?'',  then
    you  think  that  you  have  to  have  a  hearing  on  that;  is  that  right?

    Mr.  Berxsteix.  Certainly.    I  think  that  is  fair.

    Mr.  Smith.  Bernstein,  when  you  were  in  the  service,  and  over  in
    the  Pacific  theater,  did  you  attend  any  meetings  over  there  that  had
    to  do  with  getting  the  soldiers  home  sooner  than  they  were?

    Mr.  Berxsteix.  No,  sir.

    Mr.  SsriTH.  Did  you  hear  any  discussion  of  any  of  those  questions
    over  there  ?

    Mr.  Berxsteix.  No,  sir.

    Mr.  Smith.  You  never  attended  any  meetings  ?
    ■  Mr.  Berxsteix.  No,  sir.

    ]Mr.  Smith.  You  are  reasonably  familiar,  I  suppose,  with  the
    policies  of  the  UPW.  CIO,  are  you  not?

    Mr.  Berxsteix.  Yes ;  I  think  that  that  is  right.

    ]Mr.  Smith.  You  generally  know  wdiat  that  is  ?

    Mr.  Berxsteix^.  I  know  generally.

    Mr.  Smith.  But  it  is  in  trade  unions  only.  If  the  UPW  ever  made
    a  statement  about  Communists  and  Russia  and  things  of  that  sort,
    you  would  not  know  anything  about  that?

    Mr.  Berxsteix.  I  would  not  say  that.

    Mr.  S:mith.  When  you  come  to  that  part  of  the  committee  report,
    or  anything  that  has  to  do  with  it,  you  just  throw  that  out  of  the
    window;  is  that  right?

    Mr.  Berxsteix.  No;  that  is  not  accurate,  at  all.

    Mr.  Smith.  But  you  do  not  read  it.

    Mr.  Berxsteix\  That  is  not  right.  I  said  that  I  was  familiar  with
    the  union's  policies.

    Mr.  Smith.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  it  was?

    Mr.  Berxsteix^.  I  don't  make  them,  I  want  to  get  that  across.

    Mr.  Smith.  I  will  ask  you  if  you  know  anything  about  this  UPW-
    CIO  policy  with  reference  to  getting  the  soldiers  home  from  over-
    seas, if  they  ever  took  any  official  action  as  a  union?

    Mr.  Berxsteix.  I  can't  remember.  I  know  it  was  no  burning  issue
    when  I  came  back.

    Now,  if  it  happened  while  I  was  overseas,  it  might  be  a  different
    matter.

    84  INVESTIGATIOlSr   OF   GSI   STKIKE

    Mr.  Smith.  When  did  you  get  back?

    Mr.  Bernstein.  I  got  back  in  November  of  1945.

    Mr.  Smith.  You  came  back  to  San  Francisco  or  some  Pacific  coast
    port,  and  you  were  discharged,  and  you  came  back  here  and  you
    took  your  job  back.

    Mr.  Bernstein.  I  did  not  work  for  the  union  before  that  time.

    Mr.  Smith.  "V^^iere  were  you  in  April  of  1946?  Where  were  you
    working  ?

    Mr.  Bernstein.  I  was  working,  I  was  just  starting  for  the  union.

    Mr.  Smith.  Do  you  know  anything  about  any  policies  that  were
    formulated  over  at  Atlantic  City  at  the  UPW-CIO  convention?

    Mr.  Bernstein.  I  know  there  was  a  convention,  the  highest  body
    in  the  union.

    Mr.  Smith.  But  you  do  not  know  anything  about

    Mr.  Bernstein.  There  were  delegates  from  all  over  the  country
    who  formulated  some  policy.

    Mr.  Smith.  You  do  not  know  anything  about  what  the  policy
    was?

    Mr.  Bernstein.  I  know  there  was  a  convention,  and  I  know  it  was
    a  democratic  convention,  and  the  delegates  voted  on  its  policies  just
    like  any  other  trade-union  does.

    Mr.  Smith.  Do  you  know  that  they  adopted  a  resolution  over  at
    this  convention  in  Atlantic  City  in  April  of  1946,  in  which  they
    charged  that  the  demobilization  of  American  troops  is  being  de-
    liberately delayed  by  powerful  influence  with  imperialistic  ambitions
    which  are  trying  to  drive  a  wedge  between  the  United  States  and  the
    people  of  the  United  Nations  ?

    Did  you  know  anything  about  that  ?

    Mr.  Bernstein.  I  have  a  general  recollection ;  yes.  I  have  a  general
    recollection  of  the  Auto  Workers  passing  a  similar  resolution.  I  have
    a  general  recollection  of  most  trade  unions  passing  resolutions.

    Mr.  Smith.  Do  you  know  that  resolution  also  said  that  they  were
    trying  to — England  and  America  were  trying  to  isolate  the  Soviet
    Union  ?

    Mr.  Bernstein.  I  don't  have  any  clear  recollection  on  that.

    Mr.  Smith.  You  do  not  pay  any  attention  to  anything  about  the
    Soviet  Union  ?

    Mr.  Bernstein.  I  don't  know  how  many  hundreds  of  resolutions
    were  passed  at  that  convention.

    Mr.  Smith.  I  know  from  what  you  were  saying  that  you  would
    pay  no  attention  if  it  had  anything  to  do  with  Russia.

    Mr.  Bernstein.  No  ;  I  said  most  of  my  time  is  devoted  to  the  trade
    union.  I  know  something  about  the  trade  union,  and  I  am  not  a
    student  of  politics.

    Mr.  Smith.  That  is  all.

    Mr,  Hoffman.  Now,  let  us  go  back  to  this  question  that  Mr.  Smith
    raised.

    Assuming  that  you  wanted  to  hire  someone,  and  say  you  wanted  to
    hire  me  to  do  some  manual  labor.

    Do  you  think  that  you  would  have  a  right  to  ask  me  whether  I  was
    in  good  health,  woulct  you  not?

    Mr.  Bernstein.  Yes,  I  would  assume  so :  sure.

    INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE  85

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  if  you  wanted  to  hire  me  as  a  clerk  in  a  store,  if
    you  did  not  know,  you  would  want  to  ask  me  whether  I  had  ever  had  a
    criminal  record,  would  you  not?

    Mr.  Bernstein.  Yes ;  I  think  that  that  is  a  proper  thing.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  So  I  would  not  get  light-fingered  with  your  property.

    Mr.  Bernstein.  Surely.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  agree  with  me,  will  you  not,  that  if  you  do  not
    want  me,  you  do  not  have  to  hire  me  at  all  ?

    Mr.  Bernstein.  I  would  not  agree  with  you  to  this  extent,  if  the
    only  reason  I  did  not  want  you  was  that  because  of  the  fact  that  you
    were  a  white  man  or  a  Negro,  or  something  like  that ;  I  think  you  would
    have  to  hire  me — in  some  States,  at  least,  and  it  is  a  serious  constitu-
    tional question  to  my  mind  whether  you  would  not  have  to  hire  me
    throughout  the  country.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Suppose,  now,  that  I  was  a  nurse,  and  I  was  a  white
    nurse,  and  you  were  operating  a  Negro  hospital,  and  the  Negro  pa-
    tients did  not  like  a  white  nui:"se ;  do  you  think  you  would  have  to  hire
    me,  anyway  ?    That  shoe  is  on  the  other  foot  there,  I  know.

    Mr.  Bernstein.  I  think  that  they  would.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  They  would?  In  New  York  State  they  certainly
    would,  if  the  only  reason  they  were  turning  you  down  was  because  of
    the  fact  that  you  were  white.

    Do  you  not  think  if  you  did  not  like  the  way  I  cut  my  hair  or  if
    you  did  not  like  my  hair,  could  you  not  refuse  to  hire  me  just  because
    of  that?

    Mr.  Bernstein.  That  is  a  different  matter,  though.  We  are  talk-
    ing about  civil  liberties,  and  you  are  talking  about  neckties.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  not  think  the  Federal  Government  has  a
    right  to  screen  its  employees  in  a  legitimate  test,  whether  or  not  they
    are  loyal  to  this  Government?

    Mr.  Bernstein.  I  am  in  thorough  accord  with  that  view.

    ]\Ir.  Hoffman.  Here  we  get  to  this  one,  then.

    This  law,  and  I  am  talking  about  the  Taft-Hartley  Act;  and  here
    is  what  it  says,  that  there  are  certain  privileges  of  that  act  that  are
    denied  to  those  unions  whose  officers  refuse  to  make  an  affidavit  that
    they  are  not  members  of  the  Communist  Party.  Do  you  not  think
    tliat  is  a  fair  enough  question  to  ask  a  man  ?

    Mr.  Bernstein.  No  ;  I  don't  think  it  is  a  fair  enough  question.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  think  an  employer,  for  instance,  a  manufac-
    turer of  guns  that  the  Army  or  the  Navy  wants,  should  not  have  the
    right  to  ask  an  applicant  for  a  job  to  sign  an  affidavit  that  he  is  not  a
    member  of  the  Communist  Party  ?

    Mr.  Bernstein.  That  is  not  the  same  question  that  you  just  asked
    me  before.  My  views  on  this  are  pretty  simple ;  it  is  pretty  much  like
    Phil  Murray's  view  on  it.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Now,  on  that  particular  question,  do  you  think  that
    the  manufacturer  of  war  materials  should  have  the  right  to  ask  an
    applicant  for  a  job  who  is  going  to  work  in  that  factory,  whether  or
    not  he  belongs  to  the  Communist  Party  ?

    Mr.  Bernstein.  I  don't  know  enough  about  that ;  I  will  be  perfectly
    frank  with  you.  I  just  don't  know.  I  know  that  I  think  it  is  wrong,
    and  this  is  a  personal  opinion,  I  think  it  is  wrong  to  ask  any  trade
    unionist  to  sign  affidavits  of  that  kind.

    86  INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE

    Mr.  HoFFMAisr.  This  is  in  the  law,  and  I  will  quote  from  it :

    Do  you  not  think  that  an  employer  shonld  have  the  right  to  refuse. to  bargain
    with  an  inrtividual  or  an  organization,  the  offirers  of  which  refuse  to  make  an
    affidavit  that  the  individual  or  the  union  is  not  a  member  of  and  does  not  support
    any  organization  which  believes  in  or  teaches  the  overthrow  of  the  United  States
    Government  by  force?

    Mr.  Berxstein.  Let  me  explain  how  I  feel  about  it.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Just  stick  to  my  question,  now.

    Mr.  Bernstein.  I  am  against  all  affidavits  of  this  type.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  No,  no ;  now,  come  on  and  answer  the  question.  Your
    testimony  indicates  that  you  are  well  educated,  and  j^ou  know  what
    is  going  on  in  the  world.

    Mr.  Bernstein.  I  think  there  is  a  witch  hunt  going  on  against  the
    labor  unions.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  believe  an  employer  is  justified  in  refusing
    to  bargain  with  an  individual  who  will  not  say  that?

    Mr.  Bernstein.  It  is  not  an  individual;  it  is  a  union  that  he  bar-
    gains with.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  The  law  says  members.

    Mr.  Bernstein.  The  law  says  unions.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Now,  let  me  read  it  to  you.    It  saj^s  here :

    Such  party,  and  that  he  does  not  believe  in  and  is  not  a  member  of  and  supports
    any  organization  that  believes  in  or  teaclies  the  overthrow  of  the  Government.

    Mr.  Bernstein.  It  is  the  union.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Now,  let  us  be  a  little  fair  about  this.  I  am  asking
    you

    Mr.  Bernstein.  I  am  sorry,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  If  you  do  not  believe  that  an  employer  has  the  right
    under  our  system  of  government  to  refuse  to  bargain  with  an  indivi-
    dual who  will  not  say  that  he  is  not  a  member  of  an  organization  which
    advocates  the  overthrow  of  our  Government  by  force.

    Mr.  Bernstein.  The  law  of  our  land

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  do  not  want  to  answer  that  ?

    Mr.  Bernstein.  I  cannot  answer  it.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  All  right ;  if  you  cannot  answer  it,  I  will  not  press
    the  question.

    You  have  made  vour  position  clear  enough.

    I  think  that  is  all.

    Mr.  Smith.  I  have  another  question  :

    After  the  attack  on  Pearl  Harbor,  do  you  think  that  the  Federal
    Government  had  "any  right  to  ask  a  man  whether  or  not  he  was  a
    Japanese.

    Mr.  Bernstein.  I  always  think  that  the  Federal  Government  has
    a  riglit  to  ask  a  man  if  he  is  loyal  or  not,  but  if  he  accuses  him  of
    disloyalty,  he  should  get  a  fair  shake.    That  is  all  that  I  say.

    Mr.  Smith.  Do  you  think  that  he  has  a  right  to  ask  him  whether  or
    not  he  was  a  Japanese  ?

    Mr.  Bernstein.  Whether  or  not  he  was  a  Japanese  ?

    Mr.  Smith.  Yes.

    Mr.  Bernstein.  I  imagine  there  were  some  Japanese  in  the  war  that
    did  a  very  good  job.

    INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE  87

    Mr.  Smith.  Now,  let  us  not  ^et  away.

    Mr.  Bernstein.  If  he  is  an  American  citizen,  I  think  every  Ameri-
    can citizen  has  certain  rights.

    Mr.  Smith.  When  you  ask  a  man  if  he  is  an  American  citizen,  that
    is  as  far  as  the  Government  can  go.

    Mr.  Bernstein.  If  they  have  got  anything  against  him,  just  let  him
    know  it.

    Mr.  Smith.  But  to  ask  him  the  simple  question ;  answer  yes  or  no.
    You  do  not  think  that  you  can  do  that  ?

    Mr.  Bernstein.  I  think  every  American  citizen,  regardless  of  his
    color  or  his  ancestry  or  his  race,  when  he  is  accused  of  disloyalty
    should  have  a  fair  shake.

    Mr.  Smith.  He  is  not  accused  of  disloyalty,  he  is  asking  about

    Mr.  Bernstein.  I  do  not  think  Ave  should  Jbrand  a  whole  people  for
    what  some  individual  does.

    Mr.  Smith.  If  there  is  anything  in  my  question  that  brands  a  whole
    people— I  am  asking  whether  or  not  the  Federal  Government  had  a
    right  to  ask  this  man  a  question  when  he  seeks  to  be  employed
    by  the  Federal  Government:  "Are  you  a  Japanese?"

    Mr.  Bernstein.  The  Supreme  Court  held  that  he  had  such  a  right.*

    Mr.  Smith.  Did  he  have  the  right  to  ask  a  man  of  German  ancestry
    and  German  birth  whether  or  not  he  belonged  to  the  German  bund
    or  not  in  193)^?

    Mr.  Bernstein.  He  has  a  right  to  ask  if  there  is  any  evidence  against
    an  individual,  to  give  him  a  hearing  on  the  evidence.

    Mr.  Smith.  He  has  got  to  give  him  a  hearing  every  time  he  asks
    a  question?

    Mr.  Bernstein.  Every  time  you  take  an  action;  yes.  That  is  our
    way  of  doing  things;  that  is  the  way  we  do  it  throughout  our  life,
    throughout  our  whole  civilization.    We  don't  brand  people.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  This  affidavit  that  is  required  does  not  brand  any-
    one of  having  any  particular  quality  or  lack  of  quality.  What  this
    Taft-Hartley  law  requires  is  that  a  man  shall  himself  answer  the
    question  as  to  whether  he  is  a  member  of  a  party  which  advocates
    the  overthrow  of  the  Government  by  force.

    Now,  he  ought  to  know  more  about  it  then  anyone  else — you  do  not
    need  to  ask  someone  else  to  answer  the  question.  Cannot  you  answer
    one  question  fair  and  square  ?

    Mr.  Bernstein.  But  you  will  not  permit  me  to  say :  This  is  a  union
    matter,  a  union  determination,  as  to  whether  or  not  it  wants  to  use
    the  services  of  the  National  Labor  Eelations  Board,  and  that  is  all
    that  is  involved.

    The  mine  workers  can  do  it,  and  the  electrical  workers  can  do  it,  and
    the  steel  workers  can  do  it,  but  a  local  of  1,500  Negroes  can't.  That
    is  the  only  issue  that  is  involved  here.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  not  the  only  issue  involved  here.

    That  is  all.  We  are  going  to  come  back  Wednesday  morning  to
    try  to  have  these  other  officers  here,  if  we  can  get  personal  service
    on  them.

    Mr.  Rein.  Is  Mr.  Bernstein  excused  ?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  will  want  him  back,  and  we  will  let  you  know.
    You  call  up  if  you  want  to  Tuesday  afternoon.

    72913—48 7

    88  INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI    STRIKE

    We  will  try  to  accommodate  you  in  every  possible  way,  and  it  will
    save  a  lot  of  inconvenience  if  you  will  have  your  officers  come  up.

    Mr.  Rein.  Is  Miss  Pollin  excused  ?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Yes ;  that  is  right.

    (Wliereupon,  the  subcommittee  adjourned  at  3:15  p.  m.,  until
    10  a.  m.,  Wednesday,  January  28, 1948.)

    INVESTIGATION  OF  G8I  STEIKE

    WEDNESDAY,   JANUARY   28,    1948

    House  of  Representatives,
    Special  Subcommittee  of  the
    Committee  on  Education  and  Labor,

    Washington^  D.  G.
    The  subcommittee  met,  pursuant  to  adjournment,  at  10  a.  m.,  in  the
    committee  room  of  the  House  Committee  on  Education  and  Labor,
    Hon.  Clare  E.  Hoffman  (chairman  of  the  subcommittee)  presiding.
    Mr.  Hoffman.  The  committee  will  come  to  order.
    Mr.  Patterson,  will  you  identify  yourself  ?

    STATEMENT  OF  D.  G.  PATTERSON,  ASSISTANT  DIRECTOR,  REFER-
    ENCE DEPARTMENT  FOR  CIRCULATION,  CONGRESSIONAL  LI-
    BRARY, WASHINGTON,  D.  C.

    Mr.  Patterson.  My  name  is  Donald  G.  Patterson.  I  am  Assistant
    Director  of  the  Reference  Department  for  Circulation.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  vou  have  with  you  a  copy  of  the  Fraternal  Out-
    look for  June  1942?

    Mr.  Patterson.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  we  are  asking  that  you  give  us,  if  you  can  with-
    out being  inconvenienced  over  there,  photostatic  copies  of  pages  12
    and  13.

    Mr.  Patterson.  Twelve  and  thirteen,  yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  They  will  be  introduced  in  evidence.

    (The  pages  referred  to  are  herewith  inserted.)

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  know  any  of  those  individuals  who  are  shown
    in  those  photostats  ?

    Mr.  Patterson.  No,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  will  connect  them  up  later,  if  possible.  I  want
    to  thank  you.

    We  have  some  wires  from  different  organizations,  one  from  the  presi-
    dent of  the  Civil  Rights  Congress  of  New  York,  and  another  one
    from  the  NBS  branch,  UPW,  CIO,  and  the  substance  of  all  is  prac-
    tically the  same.  One  protests  the  alleged  unwarranted  action  of  the
    House  Labor  Committee  in  invading  the  UPW  national  office  today.
    The  other  one  is  similar.     It  is :

    Register  vigorous  protest  against  shockingly  iindeniocratic  tactics  of  your
    subcommittee  in  summoning  witnesses  to  hearing  on  United  Public  Workers  strike.

    I  do  not  know  whether  the  gentleman  who  sent  that  is  aware  of  why
    we  would  like  to  have  those  officials  of  the  union.  I  might  state  for
    the  record  that  47l  is  affiliated  with  the  International  UPW,  which  is
    the  same  parent  organization  of  the  union  which  in  Mimieapolis,  the

    89

    90  INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI    STRIKE

    press  states,  is  about  to  stage  a  strike  in  the  hospitals.  It  is  the  same
    international  organization  with  wliich  471  is  affiliated,  with  which
    local  255  of  the  State,  County,  and  Municipal  Workers  of  America  of
    Pittsburgh  was  affiliated  in  May  1941,  and  the  international  organiza-
    tion at  that  time  had  as  its  president,  Abram  Flaxer,  who  is  an  officer
    of  the  UPW  at  the  present  time.

    At  that  time  also  Robert  Weinstein  was  secretary-treasurer  and  field
    representative  in  Pennsylvania  District  No.  3  of  the  State,  County,
    and  Municipal  Workers.  Weinstein  is  also  an  organizational  director
    of  UPW  at  the  present  time.

    In  1941  the  records  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania  contained
    the  information  in  a  report  from  Mr.  Hines  that  Flaxer  had  been,  and
    I  quote  now —

    singled  out  on  a  number  of  occasions  as  one  of  the  leading  members  of  the  Com-
    munist Party  in  this  country.

    The  records  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania  referring  to
    Robert  Weinstein  stated,  and  I  quote :

    Robert  Weinstein  is  considered  communistic  and  attends  their  meetings.
    About  48  years  old;  born  in  Philadelphia.  Attended  high  school,  but  did  not
    complete  the  4  years.  Parents  were  born  in  Russia  and  after  coming  to  America
    became  naturalized  citizens.  W^einstein  has  resided  in  Philadelphia  all  of
    his  life ;  is  a  registered  Democratic  voter.  Has  resided  at  his  present  address  for
    the  past  4  years ;  previous  to  that  he  lived  at  310.5  West  Diamond  Street,  Phil-
    adelphia. Operates  a  garage  in  his  neighborhood.  Is  general  secretary  of  the
    Philadelphia  Union  Council  and  local  No.  46,  State.  County,  and  Municipal
    Workers  of  America.  Officers  of  the  Philadelphia  Union  Council  meet  at  819
    Bankers  Security  Building,  1315  Walnut  Street,  and  members  and  officers  of  local
    No.  46,  State,  County,  and  Municipal  Workers  of  America,  meet  at  1227  Walnut
    Street,  Philadelphia.  These  organizations  are  considered  to  be  100  percent  com-
    munistic, and  Weinstein  is  a  very  active  Communist  in  this  locality.

    The  leader  of  the  strike  in  Pittsburgh  at  that  time  and,  of  the  picket
    line,  was  one  John  W.  Filer.  He  had  been  arrested  in  January  1921,
    and  sentenced  to  the  reformatory  for  2^/2  years  for  breaking  and
    entering,  and  on  August  14, 1926,  he  was  sentenced  to  the  United  States
    Penitentiary  at  Leavenworth,  Kans.,  for  desertion  from  the  Army.  On
    the  21st  of  November  1928,  he  was  arrested  and  convicted  of  stealing
    an  automobile,  given  judiciary  clemency,  the  sentence  being  suspended.
    In  February  of  1931  he  was  charged  and  convicted  of  a  robbery  involv-
    ing $5,400.    He  was  given  a  term  of  from  5  to  10  years.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Who  is  he  ?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  He  was  a  member  at  that  time,  and  connected  with
    this  UPW.

    Mr.  Fisher.  What  is  he  doing  now  ?

    Mr.  Hoffman,  I  do  not  know  what  he  is  doing  now.  He  is  not  active
    in  this  strike,  so  far  as  I  know ;  that  is  here.

    I  put  that  in  because  of  these  wires.  For  example,  they  say  that  our
    attempt  to  subpena  Flaxer  and  Weinstein  and  Bancroft  and  Palmer,
    the  latter  two  officers  of  the  local  here,  is  un-American,  "shockingly
    undemocratic  tactics"  is  what  they  say.  There  is  something  to  what
    Mr.  Bernstein  said  when  he  was  here  to  tlie  effect  that  when  a  man  is
    accused  of  soinething,  he  ought  to  be  confronted  by  those  who  testify
    against  him,  and  inasmuch  as  many  times  some  of  the  officers  of  the
    local  union  and  the  officers  of  the  international  have  been  charged  with
    being  Communists,  or  with  affiliating  with  Communist  organizations,
    and  we  have  a  list  of  such  charges  from  the  Washington  papers  and

    lOOSE     FORMED     AMONG     NiG«0     WOUKtllS     OF     CAFI-
    THI*        LOCAL       471  "TOPS        ALL        SIMILAH        DDIVES

    IN  0«Di«  MISTOKY,"  SATS  MAX  KDACHT

    WASHIHaTOH.  D.  C  Morck  12

    Thoc  pcop

    f  ate

    gOltlft  pi

    t(-.- . . .

    Fiairrnally  jours.

    M.    MoiL\s    Weston

    AniL  24

    «

    Dear  Moian

    Enelotetl

    «    3

    moiicv

    Ol

    Icf   for  $\

    50  uhitli  coven  initiation

    (m  (or  C  more

    apphc

    IK>

    1  htjnkv

    .  .   This  make*  109  mcm-

    ben.  So  far

    HC

    rill

    en  S30AXX*

    Kotth  of  insurance.    The

    majorii^  of

    Che

    cml

    ilct.  30  ^eai*  o(  a>,x.
    Fratctnally  >oun,
    'rH')M.U  RlCMAKlMUN

    BclMCCII

    l,c«

    niiiiK

    of

    lic*c  mo

    cMci*.  a  ihtitling  «ory  de-

    wlopwi-j

    *IOt\

    ihai

    vIlO

    lUI  inspire

    IWO  hulUkl^  and  hnlgc^

    ihrout;liiMii

    I  he

    count

    >■.

    It    It  A   «

    mv  of   a    .n>.ill.   new    local

    union    it  hie

    li    adtird    c

    v«

    $jox«.

    HMILIIHO     pIOICCIIOM     10     ilt

    $.S«>  n.i..

    mum

    Kagc

    p'

    id   (oriificfi  ittclf  with   ihc

    stiengih  .III

    1  pr

    iRi-am

    o[

    1  large,  n

    aldmhed  fiaicrnal  nocieiv.

    THI  FlaST  ArPUCATION  <>»  lisneil  hv  CWU  Locil  171
    piciiilciil.  Rev  Jo^c|.ll  IV  White  (ctmcO  on  Maich  11.  Th
    ,  WathinKion  unLlv  XeRin  paper.  ga*c  ihe  inciilcnl

    THE  Catfuria  Workers  Unions  1.500  mcinbcrs
    arc  nioslly  Ncgrms.  Ihcv  stive  liiinlits  and
    dinnirs  10  gmirnnicni  i.lli,  i.iN  irul  Viii|.l..v«s
    in  Ihf  liiR  Kovt-rnnuiii  lafciiii.iv.  like  inilli..iis  •>!
    NcRrpcs  in  all  pans  o(  America,  ilie;  are  subjc.  t  1..    minimum  w.age  go  farther  by
    saving  the  mcnilK-rs  money  on  life  insurance  ami  doc-

    WHIH  HIAWATHA  iEMT  («-»«!.  tisho.  CUX'  shop  >lc  lonvention.  .\  lew
    ilass  later  .Moraii  Wesliin,  1\\0  National  .Negro  Com
    inissiun  .Secretary,  was  iiiviud  10  discuss  the  IWOs
    Victory  prugram  and  labors  role  in  the  wiir  ellori
    before  a  nieeling  of  ijo  CWl'  miinbers.  1  he  mem
    belship  became  enlllusiaslic  about  the  IWO  ami  ll"
    Exeiuli\e  Hoard  iiiianiniously  endorsed  our  program
    al  a  nieeling  on  March  fi.

    mil  iij  iliiiigs  lugan  to  happen  lliiik  and  fast.
    Wesioii  aiieiideil  anoilier  Union  nieeling  ol
    lieis  and  Ins  explanation  of  IWO  benehts  niel
    Il  enilliisiasm  that  a  volunleer  lommitlee  was
    organise  an  IWO  lodge.  .Nineteen  volumeeis
    lext  das  and  gol  down  10  ivork  on  a  Cjuola  to
    ■  reacheil  bv  .\pril  ;{o.  •

    FIsiiiR  sipiadroiis  began  writing  up  ajiplicalions  in

    iheie  sseie  10  ineiiibers:  then  there

    lunmallv.  I  i'O  members.    .\  charter

    I   for  a   new   IWO    lodge   in   llle   niidtUe  i.l

    April,    lis  number  was  l.ixlge  «SK.  so  ilie  meiiiUishii

    On  .\l
    Brolher

    t  upt

    hi"  bunch.

    befo

    the

    thai  till

    decided

    III  ihe  Inst  sear.

    Max  lledachl.  IWO  Cieiieial  Si
    re.riiiuiig  record  so  lar    lops  all  similar  drives  in  llie
    hish.iv  of  ihc  Order."

    N.  w  I. Milei^hip  was  iliscovered  among  llle  rank  and
    (lie.  headlined  by  the  line  work  of  nrolhcr  I  lionias
    Richaldson.  The  picture-son  these  pages  tell  the  slorv
    of  tour  parlici.  a  Softball  leanl.  a  Mollier  5  Day  affair
    and  a  choral  group-all  organi/ed  in  six  weeks.  .M  the
    end  of  Mav  a  new  Center  was  opened.

    Local  .|-i  shoivs  iliai  il  can  be  done.     Workers  in

    unions  are  wailing  10  add  Wf)  proleclion  to  llieii
    union  protection-waiting  for  IWO  memlH-rs  and
    liiiilders  10  bring  llu-  IWt)  10  ihe  attemion  of  the
    union  and  help  in  the  organi/.llion  ol  an  IWO  mem
    Ijirship  drive.  Local  .)T'  bas  benelilled  as  ilioiisands
    of  oilier  local  unions  can  bcnefii.  noi  only  bs  adding
    thouiandi  of  dollars  of  IWO  proieelion  10  their  union
    prolection.  but  also  bs  becoming  part  of  the  IWO'l
    nation  wide  progiain  of  fraternal  and  Victory  activi-
    lies  10  speed  the  war  effort.

    13

    9i

    P

    i]
    1(
    I
    t:
    o

    r
    a
    o

    t
    I

    si
    n

    INVESTIGATION    OF  GSI    STRIKE  91

    from  civil  service,  police  departments,  Philadelphia,  and  local  police,
    in  which  these  gentlemen  are  listed  as  being  Communists,  we  thought
    it  was  no  more  than  fair  to  ask  them  in  and  give  them  an  opportunity
    to  deny  those  charges.

    And  insofar  as  the  charges  made  that  the  members  of  the  staff  of
    the  committee  held  up  the  work  down  here  in  the  local  union  office,  the
    only  possible  foundation  for  any  charge  of  that  kind  is  that  one  of  the
    gentlemen  asked  that  they  should  not  move  the  addressograph,  which
    contained  the  slides  carrying  the  names  of  those  to  whom  literature
    was  sent  out,  and  that  delay  did  not  exceed  at  the  outside,  if  you  stretch
    it  as  fnr  as  you  can,  10  minutes.

    We  have  been  unable  so  far  to  find  anyone  in  charge  of  that  office
    who  will  acknowledge  that  they  know  anything  about  the  business  of
    the  organization,  or  where  the  files  or  records  are.

    We  have  the  officer  here,  the  United  States  marshal.

    I  said  something  about  Annie  Stein  yesterday.  I  had  a  wire  from
    her,  instead  of  a  letter,  as  I  stated  on  the  record,  that  she  was  ill,
    and  of  course  that  is  all  right  with  the  committee,  and  the  committee
    understands  the  situation.  She  may  come  later,  and  she  said  she  would.
    So  that  is  out.

    TESTIMONY  OF  HAROLD  W.  McCAULEY— Recalled

    You  were  given  subpenas  to  serve  upon  whom  ?

    Mr.  JMcCaulet.  Palmer  and  Bancroft.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Are  those  two  here?

    Mr.  McCaulet.  Yes,  sir.    That  is  right,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Tell  us  what  efforts  j'ou  have  made,  and  what  success
    you  have  had.

    ]Mr.  McCauley.  On  several  and  numerous  occasions  I  have  visited
    the  address  of  the  local  at  1015  M  Street  WW.,  where  on  the  second
    floor,  in  answer  to  inquiries,  I  have  always  been  directed  to  a  certain
    desk  in  the  middle  of  the  room  where  a  person,  I  can  only  assume  to
    be  a  receptionist,  answers  questions.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Was  there  anj'one  else  in  the  room  except  this  one
    person  ?

    Mr.  McCauley.  All  of  the  floors,  the  place  is  crowded  with  the
    stiikei's  coming  and  going.  Each  room  would  have  6,  10,  or  18
    people.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Strikers,  pickets?

    Mr.  McCauley.  Apparently  so,  just  persons  in  the  union.  And
    each  time  when  I  would  speak  with  this  person,  I  would  be  informed
    that  either,  as  the  case  may  be,  whether  it  were  Mr.  Palmer  or  Mr.
    Bancroft,  that  either  one  of  them  had  not  appeared  at  work  that  da}' .
    If  the}^  had  appeared,  they  had  gone  out  before  the  lady  answering
    the  questions  had  arrived;  that  she  did  not  know  where  they  were.
    She  did  not  laiow  when  they  would  come  back,  or  if  they  would  come
    back.

    Upon  further  inquiiy  she  looked  in  the  telephone  book  and
    attempted  to  get  an  address  for  me,  which  she  did  not  succeed  in
    doing.  She  went  to  another  room,  ostensibly  to  make  inquiries,  and
    I  still  had  no  information.  And  the  fact  of  that  simply  has  been
    repeated  numerous  and  several  times  when  I  would  go  up  there.  Each
    time  no  one  that  I  spoke  to  knew  anything.

    92  INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE

    Ml".  Hoffman.  Was  tliere  not  anyone  up  there  in  that  room,  you
    say  the  picket  people  are  coming  and  going,  with  whom  they  transact
    business  ?

    Mr.  McCauley.  There  are  people  at  various  desks,  behind  various
    typewriters,  and  these  people  are  coming  and  going  rapidly,  and
    they  seem  to  talk  to  the  various  people.  And  the  only  one  when  T
    would  go  there,  I  would  be  referred  to  this  room,  central  room,  and
    the  answer  has  always  been  that  they  just  did  not  know.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Did  you  try  to  make  service  at  the  residence  ?

    Mr.  McCahley.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  HoFp^MAN.  And  what  did  you  find  there  at  the  residence  ?

    Mr.  McCatjley.  At  the  residence  of  Mr.  Palmer,  the  place  has  con-
    tinually been  in  darkness,  the  door  is  closed,  and  there  is  never  any
    response.  Inquiry  among  the  neighbors  elicited  that  the  people
    seldom  come  in.

    At  the  home  of  Mr.  Bancroft,  the  door  is  open  about  2  inches  on  a
    chain.  After  an  inquiry  through  the  door  who  is  calling,  I  was  then
    informed  that  he  was  down  at  the  union  office.     That  was  10  o'clock.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Down  where  ?

    Mr.  McCauley.  At  the  union  office.     That  was  10  o'clock  last  night.

    In  order  to  verify  the  information,  I  went  to  the  union  office.  It
    was  all  closed  and  dark.

    Last  night  I  was  informed  that  there  was  to  be  a  union  meeting  at
    the  Garnett  Junior  High  School  at  Tenth  and  U  Streets  NW.  I  went
    there  a  few  minutes  before  meeting  time,  was  met  at  the  door  by  a
    group  of  three  individuals  who,  after  I  had  shown  them  my  credentials,
    informed  me  that  neither  of  the  parties  I  was  seeking  were  there,  would
    be  there,  or  were  expected.

    After  that  I  made  two  more  attempts.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Why  did  you  not  go  in  and  look  ?

    Mr.  McCauley.  I  did,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  went  in  and  looked  ?

    Mr.  McCauley.  That  is  right.     I  was  inside  of  the  hall.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  How  is  that?

    Mr.  McCauley.  I  was  inside  of  the  hall.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  know  Palmer  and  Bancroft  ?

    Mr,  McCauley.  No ;  I  do  not,  sir.     I  have  never  seen  them.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Have  you  not  anyone  in  the  United  States  marshal I's
    office  that  knows  these  gentlemen?  You  might  meet  them  right  out
    here  in  the  hall  and  not  know  it.

    Mr.  McCauley.  That  is  right.  We  might  be  there  and  some  one
    would  inform  us  that  Mr.  Bancroft  or  Mr.  Palmer  was  not  there,  and
    he  might  be  on  the  premises.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Yes;  and  somebody  might  tell  you  that  this  gentle-
    man is  Palmer  and  you  serve  him,  and  you  find  out  you  had  wrong
    service.

    Mr.  McCauley.  That  is  right.

    ISIr.  Hoffman.  I  Avoiuler  if  you  cannot  find  in  the  Police  Depart-
    ment somebody  who  knows  those  two  gentlemen.  They  must  be
    rather  well  known.  How  would  it  be  if  you  asked  Mr.  Schwellen-
    bach?  I  understand  from  the  press  that  he  is  to  have  a  conference
    with  them.  Why  not  ask  if  you  can  be  present  at  that  conference,
    and  if  they  come  to  negotiate  with  him,  then  you  could  serve  the
    subpena.

    INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE  93

    Mr.  McCaulet.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  All  ri^lit.     Go  ahead.

    IMr.  McCauley.  So  the  answer  has  been  no  one  knows  anything.
    We  have  not  been  able  to  get  any  information.

    Mr.  HoFFMAx.  Ask  Mr.  Schwellenbach  to  ask  these  gentlemen  to
    bargain  with  you  about  the  service  of  the  siibpena,  do  you  not  see?

    Mr.  McCauley.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  HoFFMAX.  All  riirht.     Go  ahead.

    Mr.  McCauley.  That  is  all,  sir.

    ]Mr.  HoFFMAx.  I  am  not  trying  to  tell  you  how  to  do  your  duty.
    Those  thoughts  occurred  to  me.

    Mr.  McCauley.  We  have  access  to  the  files  of  the  police  depart-
    ment, but  we  had  not  as  yet  done  that.

    Mr.  HoFFMAx.  My  suggestion  would  be  that  you  send  out  some-
    body who  knows  these  two  gentlemen.

    Mr.  McCauley.  We  have  been  trying  to,  and  to  find  someone  who
    does  know  them,  individually  knows  them.

    Mr.  HoFFMAx.  Well,  Mr.  Fisher,  do  you  have  any  questions?

    Mr.  Fisher.  Xo  questions.

    Mr.  HoFFMAx.  There  is  nothing  for  the  committee  to  do.  I  might
    ssij  to  the  gentlemen  of  the  press  who  are  here  that  Congress  must
    adjourn  under  the  Reorganization  Act,  I  think,  not  later  than  the
    31st  of  July  next.  Possibly  they  will  adjourn  before,  but  until  there
    is  an  adjournment,  of  course,  we  can  still  look  for  these  gentlemen,
    as  we  will.  So  that  maybe  sometime  we  will  get  a  denial  of  these
    charges  that  they  are  Communists.

    Mr.  Sands  wants  to  be  recognized.

    We  did  not  drag  you  in  with  a  subpena,  now.

    Mr.  Saxds.  No,  sir.

    TESTIMONY  OF  CHARLES  E.  SANDS— Resumed

    Mr.  HoFFMAx.  May  I  ask  you  why  you  are  appearing  here?

    Mr.  Sands.  I  am  appearing  here  to

    Mr.  HoFFMAx.  In  connection  with  this  strike,  is  it?

    Mr.  Saxds.  That  is  right.  To  give  our  explanation,  and  to  answer
    Mr.  Bernstein  on  some  of  his  testimony.

    Mr.  HoFFMAx.  Not  all  of  it,  though.

    Mr.  Sands.  Oh,  not  all  of  it.     It  would  take  me  a  week.

    I  would  like  to  insert  in  the  record  a  leaflet  issued  by  me  on  No-
    vember 15,  1947,  3,000  copies  of  which  were  distributed  to  the  em-
    ployees of  Government  Services,  Inc.,  which  stated  our  position  and
    offered  real  American  leadership  to  the  employees  then  employed  in
    Government  cafeterias.

    Mr.  Palmer  was  familiar  with  this  leaflet.  One  was  mailed  to  him.
    He  commented  on  same  in  the  public  press.

    (Text  of  the  leaflet  is  as  follows:)

    The  Taft-Hartley  law.  We  don't  like  it  and  will  use  all  honorable  means  to
    repeal  it.

    Yet  we  have  signed  for  the  protection  of  our  members  the  necessary  affidavits
    that  our  leaders  are  not  Conununists,  and  as  has  always  been  our  custom  we  have
    supplied  our  members  with  tinancial  statements.

    Members  are  entitled  to  know  where  their  money  comes  from  and  how  it  is  spent,
    That's  democracy.

    94  INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE

    For  labor  leaders  to  refuse  to  comply  with  the  law,  such  refusal  which  might
    lead  to  a  strike,  is  not  leadership.

    The  law  says  you  must  prove  representation.  There  is  only  two  ways  to  do
    this — one  by  an  election — the  other  by  a  strike.

    Which  is  the  common-sense  way  ?

    We  think  presently,  you  are  being  misled.

    Do  you  want  real  leadership,  leadership  that  is  not  afraid  to  proclaim  that
    they  ai"e  not  Communists?

    Leadership  that  can  improve  your  working  conditions,  without  a  strike.

    The  Hotel  and  Restaurant  Employees  International  Union  offers  you  such
    leadership.

    The  entire  strength  of  the  Washington  Central  Labor  Union  and  the  American
    Federation  is  yours,  if  you  want  it.

    Just  as  soon  as  we  have  your  authorization,  we  will  petition  the  National  Labor
    Relations  Board  for  collective-bargaining  rights  for  you.  And  you  will  be
    advised  of  every  step  taken.

    [Sign  this,  tear  off,  and  mail  at  once]

    I  hereby  authorize  the  Hotel  and  Restaurant  Employees  International  Union
    to  represent  me  in  collective  bargaining  with  my  employer.

    Name Address

    Place  of  employment Position

    Date

    1947  Organizing  Committee,
    Room  JfOS,  AFL  Building,  Washington  1,  D.  C.

    Mr.  Sands.  Yet,  in  the  face  of  this,  on  such  a  political  issue,  at  a
    meeting  with  only  400  present  out  of  a  membership  of  1,500  employees,
    and  without  a  secret  strike  ballot,  he  urged  these  workers  to  strike,
    stating  they  should  not  work  without  a  contract.  Yet  they  did  work
    without  a  contract  until  January  5,  and  are  now  working  without  a
    contract  at  the  Agriculture  cafeteria,  which  is  run  by  the  Welfare
    Committee  of  Employees  of  the  Agriculture  Department.

    I  desire  to  place  in  the  record  the  card  distributed  to  the  employees
    of  the  Government  cafeterias  after  this  strike.

    ( The  card  referred  to  is  as  follows : )

    They  say — you  are  strikebreakers — we  say,  nuts.  You  have  refused  to  strike
    on  a  political  issue.  The  misleadership  that  called  a  strike  to  satisfy  their  own
    ego  is  nothing  short  of  a  crime.  Why  did  they  refuse  to  sign  the  non-Communists
    aflSdavits — are  they  afraid  to,  are  they  afraid  to  tell  you  where  their  dollars
    (your  dollars)  come  from  and  go?  Sign  the  attached  card,  mail,  no  postage
    required,  we  will  then  demand  that  the  company  bargain  with  us  for  you,  we  will
    present  the  same  demands  agreed  to  by  you  all.  We  will  set  up  from  among  you
    all,  elected  by  you,  a  shop  committee  to  assist  in  bargaining.

    We  will  accept  no  settlement  until  you.  the  workers,  have  voted  to  approve.

    Our  dues  are  $1.50  per  month,  no  dues  payable  until  we  reach  a  contract.

    We  are  certified  by  National  Labor  Relations  Board  as  having  qualified  under
    Taft-Hartley  Act.

    Sign  now — mail  now — thanks.

    Under  the  National  Labor  Relations  Act  employees  have  the  right  to  choose
    their  agents  for  collective  bargaining.  If  you  will  tear  off,  sign,  mail  the  attached
    postal,  no  postage  necessary,  a  meeting  will  be  called  at  which  you  and  your  fellow
    employees  will  formulate  ways  and  means  to  improve  your  working  conditions.

    We  are  an  organization  affiliated  with  the  American  Federation  of  Labor,  Wash-
    ington Central  Labor  Union,  Maryland  and  District  Federation  of  Labor,  Railway
    Labor  Executive  Association.  We  have  8,000  members  in  the  District  working
    under  union  contracts.

    May  we  represent  you?

    I  hereby  authorize  and  designate  the  Hotel  and  Restaurant  Employees  Alliance
    and  Bartenders  Union,  A.  F.  of  L.,  to  represent  me  in  collective  bargaining  with
    my  employer.

    INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE  95

    Signature Home  address Place  of  employment

    Position Date

    Aw  iLiATED  American  Federation  of  Labor  and

    Railway  Labor  Executives  Association.
    Tear  off  and  mail  at  once  please.

    Business  Reply  Card
    First  Class  Permit  No.  4S35-R  (sec.  510,  P.  L.  &  R.)  Washington

    Room  405,  AFL  Building,  Local  No.  1

    Mr.  Sands,  In  this  card  we  brand  the  so-called  strike  as  political  and
    not  a  strike  for  wages  or  hours.

    I  desire  to  place  also  in  the  record  copy  of  a  telegram  from  President
    William  Green,  of  the  A.  F.  of  L.,  to  me  on  January  21.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Will  you  read  that,  please?

    Mr.  Sands  (reading)  :

    I  communicated  with  oflBce  of  Secretary  of  Labor  that  you  and  your  associates
    be  accorded  representation  at  any  conference  held  for  the  purposes  of  bringing
    about  settlement  of  Government  cafeteria  strike.

    WiLiJAM  Green,  President,  A.  F.  of  L.

    I  have  not  been  called  by  the  Secretary  of  Labor,  and  yet  the
    cafeteria  in  the  Labor  Department  remains  closed,  thus  denying  our
    members  and  others  gainful  employment,  causing  them  hardship  and
    placing  some  of  them  as  objects  of  charity,

    Mr.  HoFFiMAN.  Let  me  interrupt  you  there.  You  say  you  have  not
    been  called  by  the  Secretary  of  Labor  ?

    Mr,  Sands.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  Hoffman,  Have  you  asked  him  whether  you  could  be  present?

    Mr,  Sands.  Yes,

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  you  say  you  wired  him  ?

    Mr.  Sands.  Yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Have  you  got  a  copy  of  that  ?

    Mr,  Sands.  No  ;  I  have  not.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Will  you  get  it  ?

    Mr.  Sands.  Yes.    Also  I  wired  the  President  of  the  United  States.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  would  like  a  copy  of  that,  then.

    Mr,  Sands.  Yes.

    (The  telegrams  are  as  follows :)

    January  9,  1948.
    President  Harry  S.  Truman,

    The  White  House,  Washington,  D.  C:

    The  press  carries  a  story  that  Phil  Murray  has  asked  you  to  intervene  in  the
    present  controversy  affecting  the  Government  cafeterias.  I  have  always  had  a
    high  regard  for  Phil ;  I  realize  that  he  sleeps  with  strange  bedfellows,  or  perhaps
    the  Florida  sunshine  has  affected  his  better  judgment.

    This  strike  at  the  cafeterias  is  not  a  bread-and-butter  issue — it  was  not  called
    for  more  money  or  shorter  hours ;  it  was  called  because  the  officers  of  the  union
    and  their  parent  body  refused  to  file  the  necessary  non-Communist.  aflBdavits
    and  to  render  to  their  members  financial  statements.

    To  pull  l,.50O  workers  on  strike  on  such  an  issue  should  be  the  subject  of  an
    official  investigation  by  perhaps  St.  Elizabeths.

    You  were  quoted  in  your  State  of  the  Union  message  as  saying,  now  that  the
    Labor-Management  Act,  Public  Law  101,  is  the  law  of  our  country,  you  intended
    to  enforce  same.

    I  fail  to  see  how  you  can  render  service  to  our  country  or  to  the  workers  by
    intervening  in  a  strike  called  on  such  a  political  issue.

    96  INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI    STRIKE

    Wo  don't  like  the  Taft-Hartley  law ;  we  did  all  possible  to  defeat  same  and
    will  continue  to  seek  repeal  of  the  act.  Yet,  for  the  protection  of  our  10,000
    members  in  the  District,  we  have  signed  that  we  are  not  Communists,  and  in
    all  of  our  55  years  we  have  always  rendered  financial  statements  to  our  members.

    At  the  repeated  requests  of  the  employees  of  the  Government  cafeterias — some
    of  them  strikers,  some  of  whom  remained  at  work — we  have  seen  fit  to  organize
    these  workers  and  to  bargain  for  them.  Hundreds  are  signing  up  with  our  organ-
    ization, the  Hotel  and  Restaurant  Employees  and  Bartenders  International
    Union,  affiliated  with  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  and  with  the  Railway
    Labor  Executives  Association.

    We  ask  that  you  remain  neutral  and  not  use  your  high  oflice  to  mix  into  a
    jurisdictional  problem.

    We  intend  to  go-  through  the  usual  Government  channels  in  bargaining  for
    these  workers.  We  are  certified  by  the  National  Labor  Relations  Board  as
    qualified — the  only  qualified  union  of  catering-industiy  employees  in  the  District.

    Our  record  of  achievement  is  known  to  all.

    We  will  really  represent  these  and  any  other  catering-industry  employees  that
    desire  us  to  do  so.
    Respectfully,

    Chas.  E.  Sands,
    International  Representive,  Hotel  and  Restaurant  Employees  and

    bartenders  Union,  APL.

    Januaey  20,  ii»4».
    President  Harky  S.  Truman,

    The  White  House,  Washington,  D.  C:
    We  respectfully  request  that  you  direct  the  Secretary  of  Labor  that  our  or-
    ganization be   included  in  any  conferences  called  by  him  for  the  purpose  of
    settling  the  strike  in  Government  cafeterias.

    That  we  have  an  interest  was  admitted  by  the  Secretary  at  a  hearing  held
    by  the  subconunittee  of  the  House  Labor  Committee.

    He  stated  that  he  requested  the  closing  of  the  Labor  cafeteria  because  he
    understood  that  the  AFL  had  an  interest  and  that  his  Department  did  not  want
    to  become  involved  in  a  labor  jurisdictional  dispute.

    We  also  request  that  you  request  the  Secretary  of  Labor  to  reopen  the  Labor
    cafeteria  so  that  our  members  and  others  may  go  back  to  work.

    The  Secretary  admitted  to  the  subcommittee  that  he  knew  of  no  legal  right
    he  had  to  close  the  Labor  cafeteria.

    He  also  admitted  that  he  thought  that  the  Congress  did  not  intend  his  De-
    partment wanted   him  to  mediate  labor   disputes  because  in   Public  Law   101
    (Taft-Hartley)   they  set  up  an  independent  department  for  that  purpose.
    Respectfully,

    Chas.  E.  Sands.
    International  Representative,  Hotel  and  Restaurant

    Employees  and  Bartenders  Union.

    January  20,  1948,
    Hon.  Lewis  Schwedllenbach,

    Secretarif  of  Labor,  Department  of  Labor,  Washington,  D.  C:
    We  request  that  we  be  accorded  a  hearing  at  any  and  all  conferences  called  for
    the  purpose  of  settling  the  strike  at  Government  cafeterias.     We  have  a  sub-
    stantial interest.

    You  testified  at  the  subcommittee  hearing  of  the  House  Education  and  Labor
    Committee  that  the  reason  you  asked  that  the  Labor  cafeteria  be  closed  was
    that  you  understood  that  the  AFL  was  interested  and  that  you  or  your  De-
    parment  did  not  desire  to  become  involved  in  a  jurisdictional  dispute.
    Respectfully,

    Chas.  E.  Sands,
    International  Representative,  Hotel  and  Restaurant

    Employees  Alliance  and  Bartenders  Union.

    INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI    STRIKE  9Y

    January  22,  1948.
    Hon.  Lewis  B.  Schwellenbach,

    Secretary  of  Labor,  Labor  Department,  Washinffton.  D.  C:
    In  my  opinion  we  could  all  sit  around  the  peace  table  in  a  better  frame  of
    mind  were  you  to  reopen  the  Labor  Department  cafeteria.

    I  hardly  believe,  in  view  of  wliat  you  are  trying  to  do,  that  CI<>  would  picket ;
    in  fact,  you  might  extract  from  them  a  promise  not  to  do  so.

    As  a  matter  of  fact  not  more  than  25  percent  would  have  answer(Hl  a  strike
    call.

    Our  members  and  others  are  being  denied  their  right  to  work.
    Some  of  the  employees  at  Labor  cafeteria  were  not  members  of  any  union.

    Chas.  E.  Sands,
    International  Representative,  Hotel  and
    Restaurant  Employees  Aliance  and  Bartenders  Union.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Have  you  had  an  answer?

    Mr.  Sands.  No.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Did  you  have  an  answer  from  your  wire  to  Mr.
    Schwellenbach  ?

    Mr.  Sands.  No  ;  no  answer  from  anybody.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Go  ahead,  then.

    Mr.  Sands.  How  a  public  official  can  order  the  Labor  Department
    cafeteria  closed  and  kept  closed  depriving  citizens  of  work  is  really
    a  $64  question.

    Mr.  Bernstein  of  UPW  in  his  statement  before  your  committee  and
    at  his  press  conference  would  have  the  public  believe  that  the  strikers
    and  their  organization  are  denied  right  because  they  ai'e  Negroes.
    This  is  not  a  fact.  Had  their  officials  complied  with  the  law  in  our
    opinion  the  strike  would  not  have  occurred.  According  to  our  records
    there  are  more  Negroes  employed  by  Government  Services  than  before
    the  strike,  and  not  one  white  person  has  taken  the  place  of  a  striking
    Negro.    And  our  organization  would  not  permit  it  if  we  could  help  it.

    Of  the  hundreds  of  applications  our  organization  has  received  from
    present  employees,  99  percent  are  Negroes,  a  higher  percentage  of
    Negroes  than  before  the  strike.

    So  Mr.  Bernstein's  etl'orts  to  turn  this  political  issue  into  a  race
    question  and  all  its  repercussions  is  unfair,  un-American,  and  is  not
    based  on  facts.

    Of  the  membership  of  our  international  union  in  Washington,  which
    numbers  10,000,  more  than  50  percent  are  Negroes.  The  simple  truth
    is  that  Negroes  have  replaced  striking  Negroes  in  this  most  unfor-
    tunate strike  called  for  political  reasons.

    Our  international  union,  our  local  joint  executive  board,  the  bar-
    gaining agent  here,  and  I,  have  signed  the  non-Communist  affidavits.

    I  will  try  and  get  copies  of  those  telegrams  sent  to  the  President  and
    to  Mr.  Schwellenbach.

    I  might  say  that  in  our  telegram  to  Major  General  Fleming,  asking
    that  the  cafeteria  in  the  Labor  Department  be  opened,  he  answered
    that,  stating  that  something  to  the  effect  that  it  was  being  considered,
    or  something  to  that  effect.

    That  is  the  only  answer  that  we  have  had  from  any  official  of  the
    United  States  Government  or  the  President.

    I  wanted  to  put  this  in  the  record,  because  Mr.  Bernstein  at  least
    intimated  to  your  committee  and  the  press  that  this  was  a  question
    that  the  Negroes  were  being  discriminated  against,  and  the  fact  is
    that  practically  all  of  the  employees  that  are  now  working  in  Gov-
    ernment Services  are  of  the  Negro  race.

    98  INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE

    Mr.  Fisher.  What  did  you  mean  by  political  strike,  Mr.  Sands?

    Mr.  Sands.  Well,  it  was  simply  a  question,  as  I  understand  it,  the
    company  requested,  which  I  think  they  had  the  right  to  do,  affidavits,
    and  I  think  the  union  showed  very  poor  leadership  because  ultimately
    they  would  have  had  to  go  to  the  National  Labor  Relations  Board
    anyway,  if  they  wanted  the  union  shop,  they  would  have  had  to  have
    an  election.

    I  may  point  out  that  this  same  union  in  1938  used  the  services  of  the
    National  Labor  Board,  2  years  ago  they  used  the  services  of  the
    Board  in  an  election  in  the  Gateway,  Union  Station.  About  2  years
    ago  they  used  the  services  of  the  National  Labor  Relations  Board  at
    the  Airport  Restaurant.  About  6  months  ago  they  used  the  services
    of  the  National  Labor  Relations  Board  in  the  O'Donnell  Restaurant.
    And  they  have  been  continually  using  the  National  Labor  Relations
    Board  until  the  law  was  amended  to  provide  for  the  non-Communist
    affidavits.

    Well,  they  have  used  it.  In  the  O'Donnell  Restaurant  case,  they
    defeated  us  for  bargaining  rights,  and,  of  course,  they  had  a  strike
    there  of  about,  well,  I  guess  about  3  months.

    Mr.  Fisher.  It  is  your  judgment,  then,  that  instead  of  this  being  a
    good-faith  strike  for  wages  and  working  conditions,  that  it  is  a  politi-
    cal strike,  and  that  considerations  other  than  welfare  of  the  workers
    themselves  is  involved  in  it  ?

    Mr.  Sands.  Positively.  If  I  might  recite  a  little  history,  a  year
    ago  there  was  a  difference  of  opinion  between  the  company  and  the
    union  as  to  wages.  There  was  a  strike  about  7  or  8  days.  The  Con-
    ciliation Service — of  course  this  was  before  the  Taft-Hartley  law — the
    Conciliation  Service  brought  the  people  together,  the  union  and  the
    company,  an  arbitration  board  was  set  up,  and  the  arbitration  board
    came  through  with  an  award,  I  think,  of  10  cents  an  hour.

    I  am  pointing  out  that  they  used  all  of  the  services  of  the  Govern-
    ment up  until  the  time  non-Communist  affidavits  were  required,  and
    now  pin  their  faith  on  a  branch  of  the  United  States  Government,  the
    Secretary  of  Labor,  to  get  them  out  of  this  mess.

    So  they  use  anybody  that  they  can  use  without  complying  with  the
    affidavits  that  they  are  not  Communists.

    Mr.  FisTiER.  You  take  the  position  that  your  union  represents  a
    substantial  number  of  the  present  employees.

    Mr.  Sands.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Your  desire  is  that  you  be  recognized  in  connection
    with  any  negotiations?

    Mr.  Sands.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Pertaining  to  the  operation  and  employment  in  these
    restaurants.

    Mr.  Sands.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  Fisher.  And  you  take  the  position  that  as  soon  as  possible  an
    election  should  be  held  to  see  who  the  majority  of  the  employees  want
    to  represent  them.

    Mr.  Sands.  We  would  have  to  have  an  election.

    Mr.  Fisher.  That  would  be  necessary.

    Mr.  Sands.  To  have  a  union  shop.

    Mr.  Fisher.  That  is  what  you  are  asking  for,  and  that  is  the  pur-
    pose of  your  appeals  to  the  President  and  to  Mr.  Schwellenbach.

    INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI    STRIKE  99

    Mr.  Sands.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  Fisher.  And  to  this  committee,  and  to  all  others.

    Mr.  Sands.  Our  main  purpose  is  to  get  that  labor  open,  supporting
    some  of  these  people  who  want  to  go  to  work,  get  the  Labor  cafeteria
    open,  who  are  our  members  and  were  before  the  strike.  The  so-called
    strike  is  a  financial  burden  on  us,  and  already  my  information  is  that
    many  of  these  workers  who  want  to  go  to  work  there  are  objects  of
    charity  of  the  District  government,  because  they  are  deprived  of  the
    right  to  work.

    Mr.  Fisher.  You  are  very  familiar,  it  seems,  Mr.  Sands,  with  the
    history  of  the  GSI,  and  their  negotiations  with  the  unions,  including
    your  own.

    Mr.  Sands.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  Fisher.  And  based  upon  your  knowledge  of  the  history  of  this
    organization,  it  is  your  opinion  that  they  used  all  of  the  facilities  that
    the  Government  had,  or  anybody  else  had.

    Mr.  Sands.  And  are  now  using  them.

    Mr.  Fisher.  In  their  support  up  until  the  time  of  the  big  drive  which
    came  on  against  communism  in  this  country,  as  indicated  in  the  Taft-
    Hartley  bill.

    Mr.  Sands.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Then  they  promptly  quit,  and  withdrew  from  any  right
    to  call  upon  the  NLRB  for  assistance  in  connection  with  their  labor
    relations.

    Mr.  Sands.  That  is  right.  But  they  are  hanging  on  the  coattails
    of  the  Secretary  of  Labor,  trying  to  get  the  thing  adjusted.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Even  though  they  refuse  to  sign  affidavits  that  they
    are  not  members  of  the  Communist  Party.

    Mr.  Sands.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  Fisher.  That  is  all.

    Mr.  Sands.  If  I  might  inject  this,  I  do  not  see  why  this  cafeteria
    union  is  affiliated  with  the  UPW  in  the  first  place,  because  the  United
    Federal  Workers  and  Municipal  Employees  now — they  amalgamated
    at  Atlantic  City — represents  solely  governmental  employees  and  city
    employees  and  State  employees,  and  the  members  of  this  union  do
    not  work  for  the  Government,  or  any  State  or  county.  They  work
    for  an  independent  company  which  is  Government  Services,  Inc.

    I  could  go  back  into  a  little  history  of  w^ho  organized  this  union  if
    you  would  care  to  listen  to  it.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Was  this  man  Harris  who  was  murdered  down  here
    one  of  the  officers?

    Mr.  Sands.  Yes ;  he  was  business  agent.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Of  this  local  ?

    Mr.  Sands.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  471.

    Mr.  Sands.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  know  something  about  him,  do  you,  and  his
    record  ?

    Mr.  Sands.  No.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Would  you  recognize  his  picture?

    Mr.  Sands.  Yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  It  is  rather  small.  Let  Mr.  Sands  look  at  them.  We
    will  have  a  larger  one  later.     See  if  you  recognize  him  there.

    100  INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE

    Mr.  Sands.  No  ;  I  could  not.  I  would  not  want  to  say  under  oath
    that  I  do  recognize  him.

    Mr.  HoFFMAisr.  Before  you  enter  into  this  explanation  of  this  organ-
    ization of  this  union,  I  am  a  little  confused  about  this ;  I  have  been
    referring  to  this  organization,  the  parent  organization,  the  interna-
    tional, as  UPW.

    Mr.  Sands.  That  is  right.     United  Public  Workers.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  the  international  which  has  control  over
    this  471  ?

    Mv.  Sands.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  is  an  international  or  national
    union.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Whatever  we  call  it.

    Mr.  Sands.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  had  another  one  that  you  said  something  about
    they  were  affiliated  with.     I  thought  you  said  just  a  moment  ago.

    Mr.  Sands.  No  ;  I  said  I  do  not  see  why  they  need  to  be  affiliated  with
    the  United  Federal  Workers ;  they  are  not  Federal  employees.  They
    work  for  a  private  contractor  or  private  company.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Well,  now,  where  I  asked  you  about  that  picture,  if
    you  recognized  Mr.  Harris,  there  is  correspondence  on  those  pages
    between  representatives  of  local  471,  directed  to  one  Max  Bedacht.
    Do  you  know  him  ?

    Mr.  Sands.  No  ;  I  do  not.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Well,  he  was  the  official  spokesman,  it  is  stated,  of  the
    Communist  Party,  and  he  was  formerly  executive  secretary  of  the
    Communist  Party  of  the  United  States.  He  is  now  underground,  and
    his  position  is  general  secretary  of  the  International  Workers,  and
    orders  are  filled  by  Max  Mdbrim,  who  was  arrested  by  the  immigra-
    tion authorities  under  the  act  which  says  any  alien  who  is  a  member
    of  an  organization  that  advocates  the  overthrow  of  the  United  States
    by  force  and  violence  should  be  deported.  Milgrim  is  from  Russia,
    and  the  Russian  Government  refused  to  take  him  back.  What  do  you
    know  there  about  that  ?

    Mr.  Sands.  I  do  not  know  any  of  those  gentlemen,  or  I  do  not  know
    anything  about  the  correspondence.

    I  believe  it  was  in  1937  a  meeting  was  called  of  the  employees  of
    the  Government  cafeteria,  and  there  were  not  very  many  there.  An
    organizer  that  we  had  in  here  at  that  time,  by  the  name  of  Beulah
    Carter,  attended  the  meeting  with  a  Negro  member  connected  with
    our  ditiing-car  employees  by  the  name  of  Johnson,  who  now  is  em-
    ployed by  the  Government.

    This  little  meeting  was  held,  and  the  workers  were  going  to  decide
    whether  they  wanted  CIO  or  A.  F.  of  L.

    The  meeting  was  addressed  by  Jessica  Buck.  Jessica  Buck  was  the
    wife  of  Reihn,  was  married  to  him  all  during  the  time  of  the  depres-
    sion when  it  was  supposed  to  be  that  only  one  member  in  each  family
    could  be  a  Government  employee.  Jessica  Buck  was  his  wife,  and
    they  both  worked  for  the  Government.

    They  were  in  the  Washington  Central  Labor  Union,  along  with
    Eleanor  Nelson  and  Donovan  and  the  rest  of  that  crowd,  until  the
    Washington  Central  Labor  Union  kicked  them  out.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  have  spoken  about  these  people  now.  What  is
    the  significance  of  their  activities  in  this?

    INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE  101

    Mr.  Sands.  I  want  to  show  you  that  UPW  organized  these  people
    through  Jessica  Buck  and  Reihn,  who  is  one  of  the  directors  of  organ-
    ization for  the  UPW.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  The  peopk^  to  whom  you  referred,  were  they  good
    citizens  or  not?

    Mr.  Sands.  AVell,  they  were  so  good  that  the  Washington  Central
    Labor  Union  threw  them  out,  about  -lO  of  them,  inchiding  Eleanor
    Nelson.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  might  have  been  something  else.

    Mr.  Sands.  I  do  not  know  whether  they  are  good  citizens  or  not.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  know  of  your  own  knowledge  as  to  win'  they
    threw  them  out?

    jNIr.  Sands.  They  threw  them  out  because  of  their  continually  com-
    ing in  every  meeting  with  Communist  resolutions  and  packing  the
    meetings  and  trying  to  put  the  ideas  of  the  communistic  resolutions
    over.    I  know,  because  I  was  chairman  of  the  resolutions  committee.

    That  is  the  outfit  that  organized  them.  And  maybe  because  they
    were,  and  finally  Jessica  Buck,  who  was  presiding,  all  those  that  want
    A.  F,  of  L.  go  to  this  side,  they  were  timid,  they  did  not  move:  all
    those  that  want  CIO  go  to  this  side,  and  they  had  enough  stooges  in
    there  to  start  going  to  one  side.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  fell  down  on  your  job  of  organizing.

    Mr.  Sands.  That  is  right ;  we  did.  That  is  right.  That  is  right;  we
    did.    That  is  the  way  they  were  organized.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  All  right.  Well,  then,  I  gather,  and  if  I  am  not
    correct  you  may  correct  me,  your  contention  is  that  this  471  had  its
    inception  with  a  group  of  Communists  or  communistic  sympathizers.

    Mr.  Sands.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  a  pretty  grave  charge.  If  anyone  reading
    that  statement  wants  to  come  in  and  say  it  is  not  so,  this  committee  is
    wide  open  any  time.

    Mr.  Fisher.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  Sands.  The}'  have  that  right.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  all,  then.

    We  have  had  out  subpenas  for  several  people.  Is  there  anyone  who
    has  been  served  with  a  subpena  in  this  room?

    (No  response.)

    Mr.. Hoffman.  Mr.  McArthur,  tell  us  what  effort  you  made  to  serve
    the  subpena  in  New  York.

    First,  identify  yourself;  you  are  on  the  committee  staff.

    TESTIMONY  OF  FRANK  S.  McARTHUR,  STAFF  MEMBER,  HOUSE
    COMMITTEE  ON  EDUCATION  AND  LABOR,  WASHINGTON,  D.  C.

    Mr.  McArthur.  Frank  S.  McArthur.    That  is  right.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  went  to  New  York  and  enlisted  the  aid  of  the
    United  States  marshal  up  there?

    Mr.  McArthur.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  In  an  effort  to  get  service.

    Mr.  McArthur.  On  four  members  of  the  UPW.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  will  you  give  lis  their  names?

    Mr.  McArthur.  Robert  Weinstein,  Eleanor  Nelson,  Abram  Flaxer,
    and  Goldsmith;  it  is  Leonard  Goldsmith.

    102  INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE

    These  men  are  supposed  to  be  officers  of  the  national  union,  the
    international,  and  I  went  up  to  the  marshal's  office,  and  we  endeavored
    to  serve  these  subpenas  over  at  2  Lafayette  Street,  their  New  York
    office,  transferred  from  Washington.

    They  were  in  quite  a  confused  state  when  we  went  in  there,  just
    moving  in,  and  there  was  just  one  party  there.  She  told  us  her  name
    was  Ruth  Friedman.     She  is  supervisor  of  membership.

    We  asked  her  what  that  meant.  She  said  she  kept  a  list  of  the  mem-
    bers, and  so  forth  and  so  on,  of  the  international  union.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  To  make  it  short,  I  am  going  to  ask  you  for  a  con-
    clusion, which  is  contrary  to  the  usual  procedure,  but  did  you  and  the
    United  States  marshal  make  a  diligent  effort  to  obtain  service  on  the
    four  persons  you  have  named?

    Mr.  McArthuk.  We  did.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Were  you  able  to  find  any  of  them  ?

    Mr.  McArthur.  None  at  all.    We  understand  that  two

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  understand  that  two  ?

    Mr.  McArthur.  Are  out  of  the  city,  one  in  the  Middle  West  and
    the  other  on  the  Pacific  coast.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  we  will  wait  until  they  return.  But  you  could
    not  locate  the  other  two  ?

    Mr.  McArthur.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  will  adjourn  subject  to  call  by  some  member  of
    the  committee.

    (Whereupon,  at  10 :  55  a.  m.,  the  subcommittee  adjourned  subject  to
    call.)

    inyestictAtion  of  gsi  steike

    MONDAY,   FEBKUARY  2,    1948

    House  of  Eepresentattves,
    Special  Subcommittee  of  the
    Committee  on  Education  and  Labor,

    Washington,  D.  C.

    The  subcommittee  met,  pursuant  to  call,  at  10  a.  m.,  in  room  428,
    Old  House  Office  Building,  Hon.  Clare  E.  Hoffman  (chairman  of  the
    subcommittee)  presiding.

    Also  present :  Hon.  Arthur  G.  Klein,  of  New  York,  member  of  the
    House  Committee  on  Education  and  Labor.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  The  committee  will  come  to  order.

    Will  you  call  the  names  of  witnesses  subpenaed  and  those  who  are
    present  will  answer,  please.

    Mr.  Reiman.  Abram  Flaxer.

    Mr.  Witt.  Mr.  Flaxer  will  be  here  in  a  little  while.  He  has  been
    detained.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Will  you  announce  when  he  comes  ?

    Mr.  Witt.  Yes.

    Mr.  Reiman.  Oliver  T.  Palmer.

    Mr.  Palmer.  Present.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  W^ill  you  step  forward.

    Mr.  Reiman.  Victor  Daly.

    Mr.  Daly.  Present.

    Mr.  Reiman.  Identify  yourself,  please.

    (Mr.  Daly  came  forward.)

    Mr.  Reiman.  Robert  Morrison.

    Mr.  Morrison.  Here.

    Mr.  Reiman.  Ethel  Dew.

    Mrs.  Dew.  Here.

    Mr.  Reiman.  Are  you  Mrs.  Dew  ?

    Mrs.  Dew.  Yes.

    Mr.  Reiman.  Ethel  Thompson.    Ethel  Thompson.

    (No  response.)

    Mr.  Reiman.  Alfred  Bernstein.

    (No  response.)

    Mr.  Witt.  Was  Mr.  Bernstein  subpenaed,  Mr.  Chairman  ?

    Mr.  Reiinian.  He  has  not  been.

    Mr.  Witt.  I  represent  the  union.  So  far  as  I  know,  Mr.  Bernstein
    has  not  been  subpenaed.

    Mr.  Reiman.  That  is  correct.

    Charles  S.  Hill.

    Mr.  Hill.  Here.

    103
    72913 — 48 8

    104  INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI   STRIKE

    Mr.  Reimax.  Richard  Bancroft.

    Mr.  Bancroft.  Here.

    Mr.  HoFFMAx.  We  will  ask  Mr.  Flaxer,  Mr.  Bancroft,  and  Mr.
    Palmer  to  please  come  forward.

    Mr.  Witt.  I  just  reported  that  Mr.  Flaxer  has  been  detained.  He
    will  be  here  in  a  little  while.

    Mr.  HoFFMAx.  Then  we  will  have  Mr.  Palmer  and  Mr.  Bancroft.

    Will  you  both  hold  up  your  hands  and  be  sworn.

    You  do  each  solemnly  swear  that  in  the  testimony  you  will  give
    before  this  committee,  you  will  tell  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and
    nothing  but  the  truth,  so  help  you  God  ?

    Mr.  Baxcroft.  I  do.

    Mr.  Palmer.  I  do.

    Mr.  HoFFMAX.  That  is  all  now,  if  you  please.  I  wanted  to  start  with
    Mr.  Flaxer,  if  I  might.

    Mr.  Witt.  I  am  not  a  witness.  Can  you  tell  me  until  what  time  3'ou
    plan  to  sit  this  morning?

    Mr.  HoFFMAx.  We  will  have  to  recess  at  about  5  minutes  to  11,  to
    meet  at  7  o'clock  tonight.

    Mr.  Witt.  Do  you  plan  to  go  on  at  7  o'clock?  I  am  not  sure  that
    Mr.  Flaxer  can  get  here  before  11  o'clock.

    Mr.  HoFFMAx.  Mr.  Flaxer  was  subpenaed  to  be  here  at  10  o'clock.

    Mr.  Witt.  He  was  detained  on  important  business.

    Mr.  HoFFMAx.  This  business  is  important,  too,  and  you  can  see
    you  have  50  people  back  here  waiting  to  hear  Mr.  Flaxer,  so  you  will
    have  him  be  prompt  hereafter.

    Mr.  Witt.  We  will  do  our  best.  You  have  other  witnesses  here.
    I  do  not  see  the  point  of  agitating  about  Mr.  Flaxer.  I  have  told  you
    he  would  be  here.

    Mr.  HoFFMAx.  You  did  not  say  he  would  be  here,  however,  at  10
    o'clock,  and  I  am  advising  3'ou  vrhen  the  committee  serves  a  subpena
    on  these  witnesses,  the  committee  reserves  the  right  to  determine  the
    order  in  which  they  are  called.  The  committee  reserves  that  right.
    I  would  like  to  have  them  here.

    TESTIMONY    OF   J.    C.    NIEHUSS,    PERSONNEL   MANAGER,
    GOVERNMENT  SERVICES,  INC.,  WASHINGTON,  D.  C.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Were  you  sworn  the  other  day  ?

    Mr.  NiEHuss.  Yes,  sir;  I  was.

    Mr.  HoFFMAX.  In  the  press  of  yesterday  there  was  a  statement  pur-
    porting to  come  from  Clarence  Mitchell,  who  is  labor  secretaiy  of  the
    National  Association  for  the  Advancement  of  Colored  People,  and  in
    substance  that  called  upon  Maj.  Gen.  Philip  Fleming,  Federal  Works
    Administrator,  and  Cabinet  oihcers,  to  close  the  cafeterias,  and  I  quote
    now —

    in  order  that  this  may  become  a  contest  l>etween  the  company  and  the  employees,
    rather  than  the  present  conflict  which  to  all  intents  and  purposes  is  between  the
    company  and  the  colored  citizens.

    You  are  the  personnel  manager  of  GSI  ?
    Mr.  NiEHUss.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  HoFF^siAX.  I  will  ask  you  how  many  colored  employees  do  you
    have  at  the  present  time.

    INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI   STRIKE  105

    Mr.  NiEHUSS.  At  the  present  time,  sir ;  I  would  say  we  have  approx-
    imately 1,340  colored  employees.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  before  the  strike  how  many  colored  people  did
    you  have?

    Mr.  NiEHUSS.  Before  tlie  strike  we  had  a  total  of  1,552  colored
    employees,

    Mr.  Hoffman.  At  any  time  have  you  hired  any  white  person  to  take
    a  job  formerly  held  by  a  colored  person?

    Mr.  NiEHUSS.  No,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  know  of  any  racial  issue  that  is  connected
    with  this  strike  ?

    Mr.  NiEHUSS.  No,  sir.  There  certainly  would  not  be.  Government
    Services,  Inc.,  has  always  been  a  predominant  employer  of  the  colored
    race  in  Washington.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Any  questions,  Mr.  Smith?

    Mr.  Smith.  No  questions.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Any  questions,  Mr.  Fisher  ?

    Mr.  Fisher.  Not  at  present.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  may  say  for  the  benefit  of  those  who  are  present,
    that  this  situation  seems  to  be  approaching  the  same  procedure  that  we
    had  in  connection  with  the  Allis-Chalmers  strike,  which  was  before  the
    full  Labor  Committee.

    Now,  the  committee  desires  and  has  so  expressed  its  desire  after  con-
    sultation here  with  the  members,  that  Mr.  Flaxer  be  the  first  witness,
    so  we  will  adjourn  this  matter  until  Mr.  Flaxer  can  be  here,  and  we
    expect  him  here  tonight  at  7  o'clock.

    Wait  a  moment.  Maybe  we  better  put  it  over  to  this  afternoon  at
    2  o'clock,  because  it  may  be  that  we  may  be  able  to  be  excused  from
    the  House  session.

    Mr.  Witt.  I  have  just  checked  on  Mr.  Flaxer,  and  I  am  told  that  Mr.
    Flaxer  will  be  here  about  a  quarter  to  11  this  morning,  so  if  you  want
    to  hold  this  hearing  until  Mr.  Flaxer  appears  in  about  20  or  25  minutes,
    you  can  have  him.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  can  recess  until,  you  say,  a  quarter  to  11?

    Mr.  Witt.  That  is  when  we  expect  him.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  will  give  us  5  minutes  with  him  before  we  have
    to  go  to  the  House.

    Mr.  Witt.  If  you  are  determined  to  make  an  Allis-Chalmers  case
    out  of  this,  I  assume  that  5  minutes  will  be  enough.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  How  is  that?

    Mr.  AA'iTT.  I  would  like  to  know  for  the  lecord  what  you  mean  by
    youi-  reference  to  Allis-Chalmers,  Mr.  Chairman.  Will  you  state  for
    the  record

    Mr.  Hoffman.  No  ;  I  will  not  state  for  the  record

    Mr.  Witt.  What  your  reference  means  to  xlUis-Chalmers.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  do  not  think  it  is  necessary.

    Mr.  Fisher.  He  is  not  testifying.

    Mr.  Witt.  I  represent  Mr.  Flaxer  and  I  represent  the  union.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  do  not  care  whether  you  represent  the  union,  or
    whom  you  represent.  The  committee  is  under  no  obligation  to  give
    its  reasons  to  you  for  anything  that  it  does.

    Mr.  NiKHuss.  I  Mould  like  to  make  one  comment  with  respect  to
    this  racial  issue.

    106  INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE

    Now,  in  previous  negotiations,  as  well  as  this  year's  present  difficulty
    with  this  union,  they  have  always  tried  to  raise  the  point  that  it  is  a
    racial  issue,  that  Government  Services,  Inc.,  is  a  Jim  Crow  company.
    I  want  to  make  a  definite  statement  that  that  is  not  true.

    For  instance,  the  scurvy  type  of  literature  that  they  put  out  recently.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Have  you  samples  of  it,  sir?

    Mr.  NiEHUss.  I  do  not  have  one  with  me.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Will  you  bring  it  over?  You  referred  to  it  as
    scurrilous  literature.    We  would  like  to  see  for  ourselves.

    Mr.  NiEHuss.  A  statement  that  GSI  has  never  promoted  or  used
    colored  employees  in  supervisory  positions — at  the  present  time  we
    have  a  man  working  with  white  supervisors  who  is  a  colored  super-
    visor at  our  unit  in  the  Army  Air  Forces  Building,  T-7.

    In  my  own  personnel  division,  I  have  a  colored  man  working  for  me.
    We  also  have  another  colored  supervisor  at  the  FBI  cafeteria.

    That  is  just  an  example  of  the  type  of  information  that  they  try  to
    bring  forward.

    Mr,  Hoffman.  If  you  have  anything  further  to  say  in  connection
    with  this  matter,  you  may  do  so.

    Mr.  NiEHuss.  The  union  has  claimed  that  this  was  an  economic  issue,
    but  they  were  not  able  to  make  that  stick,  so  apparently  now,  they  are
    changing  thir  tactics.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  What  do  you  mean,  they  were  not  able  to  make  that
    stick?

    Mr.  NiEHUss.  Well,  it  is  apparent  to  everyone  that  this  is  not  an
    economic  issue.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Wait  a  moment.  That  is  your  conclusion  again.
    Give  us  the  facts  on  which  you  base  that,  if  you  have  them.

    Mr.  NiEHUSS.  Well,  the  union  claims  that  the  corporation  has  re-
    fused to  negotiate  on  wages.  That  has  never  been  true.  And  the  fact
    of  the  matter  is  that  our  employees  are  now  earning  one  of  the  highest
    cafeteria  wage  scales  in  the  city  of  Washington.

    The  union  signed  a  contract  for  the  same  wage  increase  at  the
    Pentagon  cafeteria  that  we  voluntarily  gave  our  employees.  So  it
    became  pretty  apparent  to  the  public  as  time  went  on  that  there  was
    no  controversy  here  over  wages,  because  the  corporation  had  always
    been  willing  to  pay  the  going  rate  in  the  city.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  As  I  understand  it,  GSI  is  willing  now,  and  has  been
    at  all  times  willing,  to  bargain  with  this  particular  union  if  its  officers
    will  sign  the  affidavits  required  by  the  Taft-Hartley  Act.

    Mr.  NiEHUSS.  We  are  willing  to  bargain  with  any  union  which  can
    be  certified  by  the  only  legally  constituted  body  to  do  so,  which  is  the
    National  Labor  Relations  Board,  that  they  are  certified  to  do  that.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Anything  else  here  ?
    (No  response.)

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Is  Ethel  Dew  here  ?

    Mrs.  Dew.  Yes,  sir;  I  am  here.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  will  just  take  a  moment  with  you.  You  were
    sworn  the  other  day  ?

    Mrs.  Dew.  This  is  my  first  time  here.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Raise  your  right  hand,  please,  and  be  sworn.

    You  do  solemnly  swear  that  in  the  testimony  you  will  give  before

    INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE  107

    this  committee,  you  will  tell  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but
    the  truth,  so  help  you  God  ?
    Mrs.  Dew.  I  do.

    TESTIMONY  OF  MRS.  ETHEL  DEW,  RECEPTIONIST,  LOCAL  471,
    UPWA,  WASHINGTON,  D.  C.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  What  is  your  position  in  connection  with  this  par-
    ticular union  ?

    Mrs.  Dew.  I  work  in  the  office.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  what  are  your  duties  there  ?

    Mrs.  Dew.  Answering  the  telephone  and  typing,  mimeographing
    leaflets.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  that  is  all  ?

    Mrs.  Dew.  Yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Have  you  any  knowledge  of  the  business  transacted
    by  the  union  ?

    Mrs.  Dew.  None.    I  just  answer  their  letters  they  give  me  to  write.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Did  you  have  the  keys  to  any  of  the  filing  cabinets?

    Mrs.  Dew.  No  ;  I  do  not.

    Mr.  Hoffman,  Am  I  correct  in  assuming  that  all  you  know  about  it
    is  that  you  just  act  as  receptionist,  and  do  some  typing?

    Mrs.  Dew.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  So  far  as  I  am  concerned,  unless  you  have  some  ques-
    tions, I  do  not  care  about  her  coming  back.  At  the  time  the  subpena
    was  issued  for  her,  we  were  unable  to  find  any  of  the  officers,  and  we
    were  just  following  down  from  the  one  who  happened  to  be  in  the
    office,  to  see  if  we  could  get  service  on  the  officers.  And  as  I  under-
    stand it,  they  have  now  been  served,  and  will  be  here.

    What  do  you  say,  Mr.  Fisher  ?

    Mr.  Fisher.  That  is  agreeable  to  me.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Then  you  may  be  excused  permanently.

    Mrs.  Dew.  Thank  you.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Victor  Daly.    Were  you  sworn  before?

    Mr.  Daly.  No.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  do  solemnly  swear  that  the  testimony  you  shall
    give  shall  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  so
    help  you  God.

    Mr.  Daly.  I  do.

    TESTIMONY  OF  VICTOR  DALY,  CHIEF  OF  PERSONNEL  AND  FISCAL
    DIVISION,  UNITED  STATES  EMPLOYMENT  SERVICE  FOR  THE  DIS-
    TRICT OF  COLUMBIA,  WASHINGTON,  D.  C.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Mr.  Daly,  will  you  identify  yourself  ?  Give  us  j^our
    official  position  with  the  Government,  and  outline  very  briefly  your
    duties.

    Mr.  Daly.  I  am  at  the  present  time  chief  of  the  F'ersonnel  and  Fis-
    cal Division  of  the  United  States  Employment  Service  for  the  District
    of  Columbia.

    My  duties  briefly  embrace  the  employment  of  new  personnel.  I
    handle  all  personnel  actions  relative  to  the  agency,  and  I  prepare,  and

    108  INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI    STRIKE

    prepare  to  defend,  budgetary  matters  that  are  necessary  for  the  opera-
    tion of  the  agency,  fiscal  matters.     That  briefly  constitutes  my  duties.

    I  have  been  employed  with  the  United  States  Employment  Service
    for  the  past  13  years.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  you  are  a  member  of  what  CIO  union  ?

    Mr.  Daly.  I  do  not  belong  to  any  union,  CIO.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Not  now  ?

    Mr.  Daly.  Never  have.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  receive  those  who  come  in  to  apply  for
    employment  ?

    Mr.  Daly.  With  the  agency ;  yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  to  say,  anyone  here  seeking  a  job,  unem-
    ployment job,  do  they  come  to  you?

    Mr.  Daly.  No,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Who  do  they  go  to  ?

    Mr.  Daly.  The  only  people  I  see  are  people  who  are  interested  in
    working  for  the  United  States  Employment  Service  of  the  Department
    ment  of  Labor.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  do  not  assign  anyone  to  jobs.

    Mr.  Daly.  No,  sir.  I  simply  act  as  the  representative  of  the  agency
    in  the  employment  of  new  people  for  the  agency  itself.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  have  you  a  list  of  the  questions  that  you  ask
    these  people  when  they  come  in  asking  for  jobs?

    Mr.  Daly.  Well,  these  people  that  are  referred  to  us,  Mr.  Chair-
    man, come  to  us  from  tlie  Civil  Service.  They  are  referred  to  us
    by  the  Civil  Service  as  qualified  applicants  for  jobs  with  the  United
    States  Employment  Service.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  you  assign  them  ?

    Mr.  Daly.  I  assign  them  if  I  find  that  they  are  worthy  of  employ-
    ment in  the  agency,  and  we  can  use  them ;  yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Assuming  that  you  have  jobs  available,  how  do  you
    determine,  with  civil-service  records  before  you,  what  position  any
    applicant  shall  be  assigned  to  ?

    Mr.  Daly.  Well,  the  whole  process  originates  with  us.  If  we  have
    a  vacancy,  for  a  typist,  we  will  so  notify  the  Civil  Service.  Then  from
    their  certified  list  of  eligibles,  they  will  forward  to  us  three  eligibles
    for  each  vacancy  that  we  have.  Then  I  examine  the  records  of  these
    three  eligibles,  which  gives  their  vital  statistics,  gives  their  work  his-
    tory and  background,  their  educational  qualifications,  and  their  ex-
    perience, and  I  send  for  those  three  people  by  telegram.

    They  come  in  and  then  they  are  questioned  by  mo  or  an  assistant
    along  those  lines.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Is  there  a  record  made  of  that,  a  stenographic  record
    made  of  your  questions  and  the  answers  ?

    Mr.  Daly.  No,  sir.  No,  sir.  We  select  the  one  that  we  feel  is  best
    suited  to  the  needs  of  the  organization,  and  so  notify  the  Civil  Service.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  you  have  no  list  of  questions  that  you  ask  tlieni?

    Mr.  Daly.  No,  sir.  '  There  is  no  stereotyped  list  of  questions  that
    we  ask  them.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Is  there  anyone  else  in  the  same  service  that  does
    the  same  thing  that  you  do  ?

    Mr.  Daly.  Not  for  the  United  States  Employment  Service  for  the
    District  of  Columbia.

    INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI    STRIKE  109

    Mr.  Hoffman.  So  that  anyone  seeking  a  job  with  that  service  in  the
    District  of  Cohimbia  is  selected  by  you  from  one  of  the  three.

    Mr.  Daly.  Yes,  sir.     Then  I  refer

    Mr.  Hoffman.  How  many  people  have  you  assigned  in  the  last  year  ?

    Mr.  Daly.  Well,  I  have  not  been  on  the  job  for  a  year.  I  have  only
    been  in  this  particular  position  since  the  fall.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  how  many  have  you  assigned?

    Mr.  Daly.  Probably  12  or  14  so  far.

    INIr.  Hoffman.  And  if  you  will,  I  would  like  to  have  you  bring  to
    the  committee  a  statement,  bring  up  your  records  showing  the  reports
    of  the  Civil  Service  as  made  to  you  on  each  of  these  jobs  for  each
    position,  together  with  your  final  determination,  and  the  name  of
    any  individual  who  assisted  you.

    ^Ir.  Daly.  Well,  that  may  not  be  as  easy  as  it  sounds,  Mv.  Chair-
    man, because  the  records  of  the  Civil  Service  are  forwarded  to  us  in
    units  of  three  for  each  vacancy.

    Mv.  Hoffman.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Daly.  Then  we  make  our  selection  and  return  those  records  to
    the  Civil  Service.     They  are  permanent  records  of  the  Civil  Service.

    INIr.  Hoffman.  If  you  will  give  us  the  number  or  the  file  number  or
    the  names,  or  whatever  is  necessary  to  identify  them,  if  you  do  not
    get  them  from  the  Civil  Service,  we  will,  provided  we  can.

    jMr.  Daly.  Well,  we  can — we  have  what  we  call

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  had  12;  you  have  assigned  12'  people  to  jobs,
    as  I  get  it,  approximately  12.

    Mr.  Daly.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  If  you  can  get  those  ready  by  7  o'clock  tonight,  we
    would  like  to  have  them,  if  you  will,  please,  so  that  we  may  examine
    them.

    Mr.  Daly.  Of  these  new  employees  that  we  have  just  taken  into  the
    service  since  my  term  ?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Since  j'our  term ;  that  is  right.

    ISIr.  Daly.  My  term  began

    Mr.  Smith.  These  new  people,  do  you  call  a  person  a  new  one  at
    the  time  he  is  entering  the  Government  service  ?

    Mr.  Daly.  Sometimes  they  come  to  us  as  transfers  from  another
    agency.

    ]\Ir.  Smith.  Well,  now,  when  you  say  these  12  to  14,  does  that  mean
    they  may  have  worked  and  been  transferred  from  another  depart-
    ment ?

    Mr.  Daly.  From  another  agency  to  the  Emploj^ment  Service  at  their
    own  request  because  they  have  taken  and  passed  civil-service  examina-
    tions that  will  qualify  them  for  a  higher  grade  in  the  service.  And
    they  are  referred  or  certified  out  to  other  agencies  by  the  Civil  Service.
    We  have  one  or  two  instances  of  that,  where  we  have  taken  former
    Grovernment  employees  from  other  agencies  who  were  working  at  a
    lower  grade,  took  an  examination  and  passed  it,  and  were  certified
    to  us  and  employed  by  us  at  a  higher  grade  than  the  one  that  they
    previously  held.  Some  of  them  are  new  people  who  just  have  come
    •  )nt  of  college  and  are  seeking  employment  for  the  first  time,  and  have
    qualified  under  the  civil  service.  Some  of  them  are  young  veterans
    who  have  no  civil-service  status,  but  come  to  us  as  clerks.

    At  the  present  time  the  Civil  Service  Commission  has  not  set  up
    its  register  of  clerks  yet,  and  consequently  they  give  to  the  agencies  the

    110  INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE

    authority  to  employ  clerks  outside  of  the  civil-service  certified  lists,
    but  with  the  proviso  that  within  the  next  6  months  those  people  will
    have  to  report  for  civil-service  examination.  If  at  that  time  they  fail
    to  pass,  then  the  ywill  be  separated  from  the  service.  That  is  only
    done  in  the  lower  grades.

    Mr.  Fisher.  How  many  people  work  for  USES  here  in  the  District  ?

    Mr.  Daly.  One  hundred  and  fifty -two.

    Mr.  Fisher.  What  percent  of  the  budget  for  that  agency  goes  to
    the  office  of  personnel,  approximately?

    Mr.  Daly.  I  can  give  you  the  amount  of  money  that  the  budget —
    that  was  appropriated  for  us  last  year,  but  in  the  personnel  office  we
    only  have  two  employees,  myself  and  an  assistant,  and  in  the  fiscal
    office  we  have  two  employees  besides  myself,  a  fiscal  clerk  and  a  pay-
    roll clerk.  And  then  we  get  our  stenographic  work  done  from  the
    clerical  pool,  which  serves  the  entire  office,  administrative  office.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Altogether?

    Mr.  Daly.  Altogether  we  have  four  people  employed  in  personnel
    and  fiscal  services  for  the  District  of  Columbia.

    Mr.  Fisher.  These  other  people,  the  hundred  and  how  many  did
    you  say  ? '

    Mr.  Daly.  One  hundred  and  fifty-two  altogether.

    Mr.  Fisher.  What  is  the  nature  of  their  work?

    Mr.  Daly.  Well,  there  are  20  in  the  administrative  office.  That
    corresponds  to  the  State  employment  offices  in  the  States.  And  the
    other  132  are  assigned  to  operations.

    Our  operations  are  divided  into  two  parts,  a  clerical  and  profes-
    sional office  on  Fifteenth  Street,  and  a  trades  and  industrial  office  at
    Fifth  Street.

    In  the  trades  and  industrial  office  we  have  approximately  80  to  85
    employees,  and  the  remainder,  something  around  40  or  more,  are  in
    the  clerical  and  professional  office.  They  are  interviewers  and  clerks
    and  counselors.  They  interview  new  applicants  for  positions  that  are
    listed  with  the  Employment  Service,  and  are  referred,  selected,  and
    referred  to  jobs  by  those  interviewers.

    Mr.  Fisher.  What  is  the  total  budget  for  the  current  year?

    Mr.  Daly.  Our  budget  this  year  was  lumped  with  the  appropria-
    tions for  the  maintenance  of  the  Employment  Service  in  the  Territory
    of  Puerto  Rico  and  the  United  States  Employment  Service  for  the
    District  of  Columbia  and  Puerto  Rico  were  given  a  joint  appropriation
    of  $578,000.  The  Secretary  of  Labor  apportions  that  money  between
    the  two  organizations.

    Mr.  Fisher.  I  assume  the  major  portion  of  it

    Mr.  Daly.  The  major  portion  of  its  comes  here,  because  the  Puerto
    Rico  agency  is  very  small.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Very  small  ?

    Mr.  Daly.  Yes,  sir.  We  estimate  that  our  budget  operates  in  the
    neighborhood  of  $450,000.

    Mr.  Fisher.  That  is  all.

    Mr.  Smith.  When  you  spoke  a  moment  ago,  the  others  were  inter-
    viewers, what  do  you  mean  by  those?

    Mr.  Daly.  An  interviewer  is  an  employee  in  the  local  employment
    office  who  registers  new  applicants  for  work,  people  that  come  in  seek-
    ing work,  veterans,  and  others.  He  registers  them,  and  records  the
    information  which  he  procures  from  them  on  a  registration  card,  an

    INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE  111

    application  card  it  might  be  called.     That  is  one  group  of  interviewers.

    Then  we  have  another  interviewer  who  deals  only  with  employers,
    who  takes  the  orders  from  employers,  as  they  call  them  in,  or  as  they
    come  to  the  office  and  leave  orders  for  job  openings.

    Mr.  Smith.  These  interviewers  that  you  are  speaking  about  now
    are  before  a  man  ever  gets  before  the  Civil  Service  Commission — that
    is  for  private  employment  you  are  talking  about  ?

    Mr.  Daly.  Yes,  sir ;  that  is  for  private  employment ;  private  em-
    ployment and  private  industry  in  ihe  District  of  Columbia;  yes  sir.
    They  list  the  job  openings  as  they  come  to  them,  some  of  the  inter-
    viewers. There  are  other  interviewers  that  make  the  selection  and
    referral.  They  match  the  man  with  the  job  opening.  They  match
    the  applicants  with  the  job  openings,  and  send  for  them,  and  when  they
    come  into  the  office,  they  refer  them  out  to  the  jobs.

    Mr.  Smith.  You  and  your  assistant  are  the  only  ones  who  interview
    and  determine  the  suitability  of  an  employee  for  j^our  own  particular
    organization  ?

    Mr.  Dalt.  That  is  right.  Now,  our  work,  of  course,  is  under  the
    supervision  of  the  director.  After  we  make  the  selection,  we  submit
    it  to  him  for  his  final  approval,  and  his  final  approval  is  the  last  word.
    We  make  the  preliminary  selections  and  the  recommendation  to  the
    director  of  the  United  States  Employment  Service  for  the  District  of
    Columbia,  who  makes  the  final  determination.

    Mr.  Smith.  That  is  all.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Let  me  get  this  straight  in  my  own  mind.  You  pass
    upon  those  who  apply  for  positions  in  what  service  ?

    Mr.  Daly.  With  the  agency,  with  United  States  Employment  Serv-
    ice for  the  District  of  Columbia.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  you  determine  the  fitness  of  those  applicants
    by  the  information  sent  to  you  by  the  Civil  Service  Commission,  and
    from  your  interview  with  them.

    Mr.  Daly.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  right.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  is  there  any  appeal  from  your  decision?

    Mr.  Daly.  No,  sir ;  there  is  no  appeal.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Then  you  said  the  Service  had  so  many  employees
    in  the  administrative  department.

    Mr,  Daly.  The  office,  yes,  sir.     Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Wliat  is  their  function  ?

    Mr.  Daly.  Well,  the  administrative  office,  sir,  consists  roughly  of
    the  staff  personnel,  the  people  who  activate  the  procedures  of  the
    agency  down  through.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Of  what  agency?

    Mr.  Daly.  Of  the  USES  for  the  District  of  Columbia,  through  the
    local  offices.

    ]\Ir.  Hoffman.  That  is  outside  of  your  organization  ?

    Mr.  Daly.  I  am  part  of  that  organization.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  But  you  do  not  have  anything  to  do

    Mr.  Daly,  With  the  operation  of  the  local  offices;  no,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  With  the  operation  of  it.

    Mr.  Daly.  No,  sir;  that  is  done  by  staff  personnel  at  the  adminis-
    trative office.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  agency  gets  a  list  of  such  employers  as  desire
    to  use  its  services  of  jobs  that  are  open,  does  it  not  ?

    Mr,  Daly.  I  do  not  quite  follow  you,  sir.

    112  INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI    STRIKE

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Read  the  question.

    (The  chairman's  question  was  read  by  the  reporter.)

    Mr.  Daly.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  To  what  particular  division  of  USES  do  those  ap-
    plications go?

    Mr.  Daly.  They  go  to  the  division  known  as  employer  relations.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  How  many  individuals  are  employed  there?

    Mr.  Daly.  Well,  as  I  said  before,  Mr.  Chairman,  we  have  two  offices
    and  each  office  has  its  own  division  of  employer  relations,  because  the
    types  of  jobs  that  come  into  that  office  differ  one  from  the  other.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  mean  to  say  if  I  make  an  application  for  a  job
    as  a  stonemason,  that  goes  one  place?

    Mr.  Daly.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  If  I  make  an  application  for  a  job  as  a  chemist,  that
    goes  some  place  else  ?

    Mr.  Daly.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  classify  them  according  to  their  jobs

    Mr.  Daly.  To  those  two  major  classifications,  trades  and  industrial
    work,  at  Fifth  and  C  Streets,  and  clerical  and  professional  work  at
    1022  Fifteenth  Street.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  In  trades,  you  have  how  many  ?

    Mr.  Daly.  In  trades,  we  have  approximately  85  employees.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  in  clerical?

    ]\Ir.  Daly.  In  clerical  we  have  approximately  40.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  is  the  procedure  in  the  two  approximately  the
    same?

    Mr.  Daly.  The  procedures  are  the  same ;  yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  They  get  no — for  instance,  I  apply  for  a  job  there.
    You  get  no  record  from  any  civil  service.

    Mr.  Daly.  No,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Because  there  may  be  none.

    Mr.  Daly.  There  may  be  none.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  How  did  you  determine  and  who  determines  my
    fitness,  for  a  job  as  bricklayer?

    Mr.  Daly.  Well,  that  is  determined  largely,  Mr.  Chairman,  by  the
    interview  that  the  interviewer  has  originally.

    Mr.  HoFFMx\N.  Conducted  by  what  interviewer?

    Mr.  Daly.  When  a  man  comes  in  for  a  job  as  a  bricklayer,  he  goes
    to  the  receptionist  at  the  counter  and  so  states  he  is  a  bricklayer.  All
    right.  He  is  transferred  over  to  an  interviewer  who  gives  him  an
    interview  lasting  from  20  minutes  to  half  an  hour,  to  determine  his
    qualifications.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Wlio  selects  these  interviewers?

    Mr.  Daly.  The  interviewers,  you  mean  to  select  that  individual
    man?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Yes.

    Mr.  Daly.  Or  the  employment  of  the  interviewer  ?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  was  asking  first  as  to  the  employment  of  the
    interviewer.

    Mr.  Daly.  They  are  selected  by  the  personnel  office,  but  they  are  all
    civil -service  employees,  as  I  said,  that  are  sent  up  to  us  by  the  Civil
    Service  Commission,  and  we  select  them.

    INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI    STRIKE  113

    Mr.  Hoffman.  So  that,  you  select  the  man  then  to  interview  the
    bricklayer.

    Mr.  Daly.  The  personnel  office  selects  the  man  who  selects  the
    bricklayer.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Wliat  is  the  procedure  of  the  interviewer?  You  say
    he  talks  with  the  applicant  for,  say,  20  minutes.    "What  else  does  he  do  ?

    JNIr.  Daly.  Approximately.  Then  he  records  that  information  on  a
    registration  card  in  the  presence  of  the  applicant  while  he  is  there.
    He  makes  the  record  of  it  on  both  sides.

    Mr.  HoFF3iAN.  Do  you  have  those  cards  now  ?

    Mr.  Daly.  We  have  cards.  Do  you  mean  do  I  have  one  with  me
    at  the  present  time?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  have  those  in  the  office.

    Mr.  Daly.  They  are  permanent  Government  records.  We  have
    them  in  the  office,  and  they  list  the  social-security  number.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Who  has  authority  over  those?

    Mr.  Daly.  The  manager.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  What  is  his  name?

    Mr.  Daly.  We  have  two  managers.  We  have  a  manager  in  the
    Fifth  Street  office.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Give  me  both  of  them.

    Mr.  Daly.  Mr.  Robert  A.  Morrison,  who  is  the  manager  of  the
    office  at  Fifth  and  C  Streets.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  He  is  here  this  morning.

    Mr.  Daly.  He  is  here  this  morning — trades  and  industry.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Go  ahead.

    Mr.  Daly.  And  we  have  Godfrey  G.  Thorn.

    Mr.  HoFF]\rAN.  Spell  the  last  name.

    Mr.  Daly.  T-h-o-r-n,  Thorn,  manager  of  the  clerical  and  profes-
    sional office  on  Fifteenth  Street.  They  have  local  supervision  over
    those  two  branch  offices.  We  call  them  branch-office  managers.  That
    is  their  official  title.

    ]Mr.  Hoffman.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  it  has  been  charged  in  this
    matter  that  there  is  racial  discrimination,  I  wish  you  would  give  me,
    if  you  have  it,  and  if  you  have  not,  I  guess  you  can  get  it,  a  list  of
    the  employees  of  USES  divided  according  to  race  and  color.  We
    want  to  see  how  nuich  discrimination  there  is,  if  any.

    Mr.  Daly.  You  mean  within  the  agency  itself  ?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Yes.

    Mr.  Daly.  Well,  it  varies  from  day  to  clay,  Mr.  Chairman,  but
    ajiproximately  we  have  39  colored  employees  among  the  152.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  am  not  quick  at  figures.  I  wonder  what  percentage
    that  is.

    Mr.  Daly.  That  is,  I  should  say,  roughly,  a  little  better  than  one-
    third,  about  25  percent.

    j\Ir.  Hoffman.  Twentj^-five  percent.

    Mr.  Daly.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  guess  you  still  have  it  a  little  high.  Anyway,  the
    percentage  of  colored  people  in  the  country  to  those  of  whites  is  vari-
    ously estimated  at  between  9  and  11  percent,  is  it  not?

    Mr.  Powell.  The  percentage  in  the  District  is  almost  30  percent.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  If  you  are  going  to  determine  discrimination,  I
    would  not  want  to  select  any  one  city.  Is  that  not  about  right  ?  That  is
    about  right,  is  it  not,  Mr.  Powell?

    114  INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE

    Mr.  Powell.  Yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Some  say  9  and  some  say  11,  and  assuming  that  is
    correct,  your  organization  has  not  in  any  way  discriminated  against
    colored  people  has  it,  with  reference  to  jobs?

    Mr.  Daly.  No,  sir.

    Mr.  Powt:ix.  I  would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Daly,  at  what  office  are  those
    39  Negroes  located?

    Mr.  Daly.  I  would  like  to  revise  those  figures  upward  and  say  ap-
    proximately 45.    I  think  that  is  nearer  than  39.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  will  get  to  that.

    Mr.  Daly.  They  are  divided  equally.  They  are  divided  indiscrimi-
    nately between  the  3  offices ;  in  the  administrative  office  we  have  4  out
    of  the  20 ;  in  the  clerical  and  professional  office  on  Fifteenth  Street,
    I  would  say  that  we  had  about  10  colored  employees  out  of  the  40,  and
    the  remaining  number,  the  larger  bulk  of  them  are  in  the  Fifth  and
    C  Streets  office,  the  trades  and  industrial  office.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  If  you  will  bring  in  the  information  I  asked  for,
    that  will  give  it  to  us  accurately.

    Mr.  Daly.  No,  sir ;  our  records  are  not  kept  according  to  race,  but
    I  can  give  you  a  separate  list  of  the  exact  number  when  I  come  again.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  All  right.  You  may  send  it  up.  I  do  not  think  it
    will  be  necessary  for  you  to  come  up.

    Mr.  Daly.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  In  your  office  you  said  there  was  you  and  one  other.

    Mr.  Daly.  We  have  four  colored  persons  in  the  administrative
    office.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  How  many  white  ones.

    Mr.  Daly.  Sixteen  white  ones.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Let  me  go  back.  I  understood  you  to  testify  a  while
    ago  that  when  they  came  to  you  for  a  job,  and  they  sent  over  the  civil-
    service  record,  your  decision  was  final.

    Mr.  Daly.  Under  the  supervision  of  the  director,  who,  after  all,
    has  the  final  authority  in  the  agency.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Yes.

    Mr.  Daly.  I  am  a  member  of  his  staff,  and  my  duty  is  to  select  th.e
    personnel,  but  he  at  any  time  could  veto  anything  that  I  do  or  change
    it  in  any  way  to  suit  himself.  But  I  am  the  head  of  the  personnel
    office,  which  is  charged  with  the  selection  and  employment  of  new
    personnel  for  the  agency.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  So  in  the  first  instance,  the  new  personnel  must  have
    your  O.  K.

    Mr.  Daly.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  HoFFiiAX.  After  the  interview  and  after  j^ou  have  considered
    the  material  that  comes  over  from  civil  service,  you,  without  the  assist-
    ance of  someone  else,  determine  whether  or  not  that  applicant  gets
    any  particular  job.

    Mr.  Daly.  That  is  right :  yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  no  white  person  assists  you.

    Mr.  Daly.  I  have  an  assistant  vrho  happens  to  be  a  white  person.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Who  is  that?

    Mr.  Daly.  A  Mrs.  Himes.  H-i-m-e-s.  She  is  the  personnel  assist-
    ant, and  she  works  with  me.    When  I  am  not  there,  she  takes  over.

    INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE  115

    Mr.  Fisher.  You  have  not  observed  any  discrimination  down  in
    that  department  ^

    Mr.  Daly.  Beg  pardon  ?

    Mr.  Fisher.  You  have  not  observed  any  discrimination  in  that  de-
    dartment,  have  you?

    Mr.  Daly.  No,  sir.  The  United  States  Employment  Service  for  the
    District  of  Columbia,  in  the  hiring  of  employees  to  work  in  the  agency,
    has  been  fair-minded.

    Mr.  FisiiER.  There  is  no  evidence  of  racial  discrimination  whatever
    that  has  come  to  your  attention?

    Mr.  Daly.  That  would  be  a  very  broad  statement  to  answer.  I  do
    not  feel  that  we  have  any  racial  discrimination  in  the  organization
    per  se.  That  is  among  the  employees  and  among  their  opportunities
    to  advance,  but  it  was  only  until  last  year,  last  September  a  year  ago,
    that  the  office  was  integrated.  Up  until  that  time  we  had  complete
    segregation  through  the  office.  We  had  separate  divisions  within
    the  divisions  for  colored  and  white  applicants  who  came  to  seek  work
    at  the  agency,  and  those  divisions  were  staffed  by  colored  and  white
    personnel  according  to  the  types  of  applicants  that  they  interviewed
    and  handled,

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  has  ben  changed  ?

    Mr.  Daly.  That  was  changed  a  year  ago  this  September.

    Mr.  HoFFiiAN.  Now  the  whites  have  come  to  you,  a  colored  person  ?

    Mr.  Daly.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  HoFFMAX.  You  are  not  finding  any  fault  with  that.

    Mr.  Daly.  No,  sir.

    Mr.  P^isHER.  You  cannot  point  to  any  particular  thing  now  and  say
    that  it  is  evidence  of  existing  racial  discrimination  in  that  depart-
    ment down  there.

    Mr.  Daly.  No,  sir.

    Mr.  Fisher.  You  cannot?

    Mr.  Daly.  No.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Thank  you  very  much.  And  if  you  wish  to  send
    that  information  up,  instead  of  coming  again,  if  it  will  save  you  time,
    that  will  be  all  right.

    Mr.  Daly.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Witt.  May  the  record  show  that  Mr.  Flaxer  appeared  in  the
    hearing  room  at  10  :  40.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Morrison,  you  do  solemnly  swear  that  the  testimony  which  you
    shall  give  shall  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the
    truth,  so  help  you  God  ?

    TESTIMONY  OP  ROBERT  A.  MORRISON,  OFFICE  MANAGER,  UNITED
    STATES  EMPLOYMENT  SERVICE,  WASHINGTON,  D.  C.

    Mr.  Morrison.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  What  is  your  position,  please?

    Mr.  Morrison.  I  am  the  manager  at  the  Fifth  and  C  Streets  office,
    known  as  the  industrial  and  construction  office.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  your  duties?

    Mr.  Morrison.  I  am  the  manager.  I  am  in  charge  of  all  of  the
    activities  that  go  on  in  there.

    116  INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  are  the  manager.  What  do  you  do  ?  There  are
    all  sorts  of  managers.

    ]\lr.  Morrison.  I  am  in  charge  of  all  of  the  personnel.  I  am  in
    charge  of  all  of  the  activities  in  that  office,  to  see  that  the  people  get
    instructions  and  follow  them  out.  That  covers  registrations,  referrals,
    taking  orders,  field  visits,  counseling,  handicapped  counseling,  vet-
    erans.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  All  right,  now;  what  do  your  employees  do?

    Mr.  Morrison.  They  are  the  people — Mr.  Daly  gave  you  the  idea —
    they  are  the  people  that  register  applicants  for  work.  They  are  the
    people  that  visit  our  employers  and  solicit  orders.  They  counsel  handi-
    capped people  and  veterans  for  opportunities  for  work.  They  are  the
    people  that  do  all  of  the  activities  within  the  Employment  Service.

    Any  particular  one  I  could  tell  you,  but  there  is  about  20  or  30
    different  break-downs  in  there.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Assume  that  I  come  in  for  a  job  as  bricklayer.

    Mr.  Morrison.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  register.

    Mr.  Morrison.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  HoFF3iAN.  Sign  a  card.

    Mr.  Morrison.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Someone  interviews  me.

    Mr.  Morrison.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Maybe  someone  visits  me  at  my  home.

    Mr.  Morrison.  No,  sir.

    Mr.  HoFF^iAN.  I  have  been  interviewed,  and  I  have  signed  my  card.
    Then  what  happens  next  ?

    Mr.  Morrison.  Well,  at  the  present  time,  if  you  are  a  bricklayer
    and  you  come  in,  and  go  through  all  of  those  procedures,  say,  I  have
    a  job  at  $30  a  day,  he  will  be  sent  to  a  placement  officer  who  will  tell
    you  about  the  order  in  the  office  from  various  employers,  not  naming
    them,  where  the  jobs  are  located,  and  salaries,  and  you  would  be
    referred  out  on  the  job  at  $30  a  day.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  How  long  a  daj^,  I  want  to  know.

    Mr.  Morrison.  8  hours.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Who  does  that  ?    That  is  what  I  was  getting  at.

    Mr.  Morrison.  That  is  handled  in  the  construction  unit  of  the  office.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  have  been  interviewed,  and  I  have  signed  my  card.

    Mr.  Morrison.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Who  tells  me  where  to  go?  Who  tells  me  what  is
    available  ?

    Mr.  Morrison.  Well,  there  are  two  ways.  One  way  is  at  the  present
    moment  you  used  an  occupation  where  there  is  a  scarcity.  You  go
    upstairs  to  be  registered.     Those  people  have  what  we  call

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  have  been  registered,  and  I  have  been  interviewed.
    Now  what  happens  to  me.

    Mr.  Morrison.  I  am  showing  you  how  it  works.  You  have  been
    registered  by  a  person  upstairs  that  does  nothing  but  registration  work.
    They  have  what  we  call  a  demand  list.  That  is  an  occupation  where
    there  are  a  lot  of  openings.  They  would  send  you  downstairs  to  the
    placement  unit,  and  the  placement  officer  in  that  unit  would  talk  to
    you  and  refer  you  out.  ■

    ]\Ir.  Hoffman.  Wlio  is  the  placement  officer?

    INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI    STRIKE  117

    Mr.  Morrison.  There  are  three  in  that  unit.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  What  are  their  names?

    JNlr.  Morrison.  Koscziensky.

    Mv.  Hoffman.  Wait  a  minute.

    Mr.  Morrison.  Don't  ask  me  how  to  spell  it.  There  is  a  man  named
    Koscziensky,  Joseph  Parasso

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Wliere  does  the  first  gentleman  live  ?

    Mr.  Morrison.  I  do  not  know.

    INIr.  Hoffman.  Do  your  records  show  down  there?  Will  you  send
    me  up  a  letter  when  you  get  back,  giving  me  the  names  and  addresses
    of  those  three  officers.

    Mr.  Morrison.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Thank  you.     We  will  skip  it  then  for  the  moment.

    What  do  you  have  to  do  with  all  of  this  ?    Do  you  supervise  that  ?

    Mr.  Morrison.  Yes,  sir.

    INIr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  supervise  the  placement?

    Mr.  Morrison.  Indirectly ;  yes,  sir.  I  am  responsible  for  all  of  the
    procedures  that  go  into  that.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  you  direct  the  policy  of  the  placement  folks  ?

    Mr.  Morrison.  Yes,  that  is  right ;  in  my  office.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Your  decision  is  final?

    Mr.  Morrison.  According  to  the  procedures  that  come  down  from
    the  Labor  Department,  yes  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  W^hat  do  they  send  down  ?

    Mr.  Morrison.  Well,  when  there  is  a  new  procedure  put  out  by  the
    Labor  Department,  how  tlie  whole  country  should  cooperate,  that
    comes  down  and  I  put  it  into  operation  in  my  office.  They  come  in
    three  different  forms.  One  is  supervisory  memorandum.  I  will  send
    you  a  copy  of  them.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  How  long  have  you  been  in  Government  service  ?

    Mr.  Morrison.  10  years,  going  on  11.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  How  did  you  get  yoiu"  job  ?    You  were  assigned  ?

    Mr.  Morrison.  No,  sir;  I  came  in  there  10  years  ago  off  of  a  district
    civil-service  test,  what  the}^  call  the  test  for  that  particular  job.  We
    were  under  the  District  Government  then.  I  come  in  as  an  interviewer.
    I  have  union  affiliation  with  the  A.  F.  of  L.,  which  I  still  hold.  I  have
    carried  for  27  years.  I  carry  them  in  the  marblesetters  and  polishers.
    And  in  AFGE.    That  is  the  Government  union  for  Government  clerks.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  what  experience  have  you  had  in  any  trade?

    Mr.  Morrison.  I  served  apprenticeship  as  a  carpenter,  4  years,  and
    17  years  as  a  construction  man.  I  helped  build  every  one  of  these
    Government  buildings  in  one  capacity  or  another.  I  went  to  1  year
    of  high  school,  and  a  part  of  a  bookkeeping  course  at  Temple  Uni-
    versity.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Not  that  I  think  education  in  school  is  a  necessity
    at  all.

    Mr.  Morrison.  That  is  all  right.

    Mv.  Hoffman.  And  have  you  a  list  down  there  of  those  who  have
    applied  for  and  been  assigned  to  jobs  in  the  past  4  months  ?

    Mr.  ]Morrison.  Yes,  sir.  You  would  have  to  get  that,  I  imagine,
    through  the  Labor  Department.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  not  have  it  in  your  office  ?

    118  INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE

    Mr.  Morrison.  Yes,  sir ;  but  I  could  not  give  those  to  you.  I  would
    have  to  get  an  order.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  could  not  let  our  investigators  see  those  ?

    Mr.  Morrison.  I  would  have  to  have  orders  from  above  me  to  see
    that.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  It  might  be  confidential  ?

    Mr.  Morrison.  Anything  on  our  record  is  confidential.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  All  you  come  to  us  is  for  money  to  run  your  office,
    but  when  you  get  the  information,  we  cannot  look  at  it  ?

    Mr.  Morrison.  No,  sir ;  I  did  not  say  that.  You  see,  you  people  make
    the  law.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  get  that

    Mr.  Morrison.  What  I  meant  is  you  people  make  the  law,  how  it
    has  to  operate.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Listen

    Mr.  Morrison.  The  orders  must  come  down,  not  from  me.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  never  made  any  law  denying  to  the  Representa-
    tives of  Congress  or  its  committees  information  collected  through
    public  funds.

    Mr.  Morrison.  You  see,  again  I  am  operating  under  procedure  I
    have  to.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Well,  thank  you  ever  so  much.

    Mr.  Morrison.  You  want  copies  of  those  procedures  memorandum?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  want  copies  of  those  rules  that  you  have  to  oper-
    ate under,  and  then  we  will  get,  if  we  can,  from  Mr.  Schwellenbach,
    permission  to  examine  your  interviewing  records.

    You  do  not  discriminate  because  of  color,  do  you  ?

    Mr.  Morrison.  No,  sir ;  I  have  got  about,  I  would  say  I  have  got  now
    60  percent  colored  working  for  me.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  are  discriminating  against  the  whites  ?

    Mr.  Morrison.  No  ;  I  am  not  either.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  can  send  those  up.  It  would  not  violate  Mr.
    Schwellenbach's  rules  if  you  sent  up  some  of  those  blank  forms  that
    you  use  in  interviewing,  would  it?

    Mr.  Morrison.  No,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  If  you  will,  send  some  of  those,  too,  some  time  this
    afternoon.

    Mr.  Morrison.   Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Thank  you  very  much.

    It  is  time  to  adjourn  now,  and  we  will  tentatively  adjourn  until
    2  o'clock.  If  we  can  get  permission  of  the  House  we  will  come  back
    at  2  o'clock.

    (Whereupon,  at  11  a.  m.,  a  recess  was  taken  until  2  p.  m.  the  same
    day.)

    afternoon  session

    (The  hearing  was  resumed  at  2  p.  m.)

    Mr.  Smith.  For  the  benefit  of  those  witnesses  under  subpena,  you
    will  appear  back  in  this  room  at  7  o'clock  this  evening.

    The  session  this  afternoon  is  adjourned  until  7  o'clock  this  evening
    in  this  room.

    (Whereupon,  at  2:05  p.  m.,  a  recess  was  taken  until  7  p.  m.  the
    same  day.)

    INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE  119

    EVENING  SESSION

    (Pursuant  to  taking  the  recess,  the  subcommittee  reconvened  at
    7  p.  m.)

    Mr.  HorF]\rAN.  The  committee  will  come  to  order.

    Let  the  record  show  that  Mr.  Flaxer  is  here.

    Mr.  Witt,  are  you  his  attorney  ?

    Mr.  Witt.  Yes,  I  am,  and  Mr.  Forer  is  associated  with  me.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  Mr.  Klein,  a  member  of  the  House  Committee
    on  Education  and  Labor  is  also  here,  and  will  be  accorded  the  usual
    privileges  of  questioning  witnesses,  if  he  desires,  the  same  as  though
    he  was  a  member  of  the  subcommittee.

    Very  well,  Mr.  Flaxer,  if  you  will  stand  up.  Do  you  solemnly  swear
    that  the  testimony  you  shall  give  shall  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,
    and  nothing  but  the  truth,  so  help  you  God  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  do.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Let  the  record  show  that  all  members  of  the  sub-
    committee are  present.    Mr.  Klein  is  also  here.

    Mr.  Flaxer,  your  first  name  is  what  ?

    TESTIMONY  01'  ABEAM  FLAXEE,  PEESIDENT,  UNITED  PUBLIC
    WORKEES  OF  AMEEICA,  CIO,  NEW  YOEK,  N.  Y.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Abram.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  you  were  born  September  12,  1904.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  In  the  city  of  Vilna,  Lithuania.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  was  at  that  time  a  part  of  the  Russian  Empire «

    Mr.  F'laxer.  Yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  are  also  a  graduate  of  the  City  College  of  New
    York?  .  ^  S

    Mr.  Fi^xER.  Yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  A  member  of  the  American  Labor  Party  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Correct.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  is  that  Communist-controlled?

    Mr.  Flaxer,  I  would  not  know,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  are  president  of  the  United  Public  Workers  of
    America,  CIO?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  former  president  of  the  State,  County,  and  Mu-
    nicipal Workers  of  America,  CIO?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Right.

    Mr.  Hoffjnian.  And  that  was  merged  with  United  Federal  Workers
    in  1946  to  create  the  UPW?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Correct.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  are  .now  a  member  of  the  executive  board,  are
    you  not  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Executive  board  of  the  CIO  ?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Yes.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Right.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  x\nd  of  the  CIO  social-security  committee?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  That  is  correct.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  were  appointed  one  of  the  three  members  to
    work  out  the  CIO  policy  on  communism  at  Atlantic  City  at  the  na-
    tional convention?

    72913 — 48 9

    120  INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE

    Mr.  FiiAXER.  That  is  correct.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  your  position  on  the  strikes  against  the  Gov-
    ernment was  expressed  in  an  article  in  Survey  magazine  of  April  1942,
    and  the  following  is  an  excerpt,  is  it  not,  and  I  quote :

    The  Government  employer  asserts  that  a  strike  against  the  Government  is  akin
    to  insurrection.

    Is  that  right?

    Mr.  F'laxer.  Yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  continue  to  quote :

    Therefore,  if  the  Government  employee  strikes,  he  is  subject  to  penalties.  But
    if  the  Government  employee  refrains  from  striking,  he  is  barred  from  collective
    bargaining  rights  to  which  other  citizens  are  entitled.

    Is  that  correct  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Those  were  the  facts  at  the  time  that  I  wrote  that,
    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  your  statement,  is  it?

    ]\Ir.  Flaxer.  I  believe  that  is  the  statement,  I  am  not  sure,  as  near
    as  I  can  recall.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  I  continue  to  quote :

    Can  a  more  effective  trap  be  devised  for  trade  union  men  and  women?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Is  that  right  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  believe  that  is  right.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  you  take  the  position  now,  do
    you  not,  for  j^our  organization,  that  collective  bargaining  is  not  barred
    to  those  who  do  not  comply  with  the  provisions  of  the  Taft-Hartley
    Act?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  That  is  the  law.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  to  say,  if  you  do  not  comply  with  the  require-
    ments of  the  Taft-Hartley  Act,  calling  for  the  signing  of  certain  affi-
    davits by  the  members  of  the  union,  you  still  have  the  right  to  bar-
    gain collectively.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  That  is  the  law,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  if  you  take  that  position,  you  do  not  get  the
    benefits  of  the  Taft-Hartley  Act,  do  you  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  If  you  do  not  want  to  avail  yourself  of  the  benefits,
    you  don't  avail  yourself.

    ]Mr.  Hoffman.  My  question  is  this :  You  do  not  claim,  do  you,  that
    a  union  whose  officials  refuse  to  comply  with  the  law  are  entitled  to
    the  benefits,  if  there  are  any,  which  maj''  be  derived  from  the  use  of
    the  National  Labor  Relations  Board  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  not  a  matter  of  what  I  claim.  That
    is  the  law.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Well,  I  am  asking  for  your  construction  of  the  law.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  As  I  understand  it,  that  is  the  law.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  to  say,  you  cannot  get  the  benefits  if  there
    are  benefits,  of  the  Taft-Hartley  Act  unless  you  comply  with  that  re-
    quirement as  to  the  signing  of  certain  affidavits.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  are  the  president  of  the  UPW  union?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Yes,  sir.

    INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE  121

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  tliat  is  the  parent  organization  of  local  471  here
    in  Washington  ?

    IVIr.  Flaxer.  Yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  In  bargaining  is  the  UPW  a  party  to  the  collective-
    bargaining  negotiations  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Well,  no  more  than  we  are  a  party  to  the  collective
    bargaining  of  any  one  of  onr  other  locals.  We  try  to  assist  our  local
    unions  to  bargain,  to  solve  their  problems.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Under  arrangement  with  local  471,  may  the  officers
    of  that  organization  bargain  contrary  to  the  wishes  or  desires  as  to
    the  terms  of  a  contract  with  the  local  employer?

    Mr.  Fi^kXER.  Well,  our  local  unions  will  bargain  and  sign  the  terms
    of  an  agreement  based  upon  the  wishes  of  their  membership ;  even  the
    local  officers  cannot  sign  an  agreement  unless  the  members  vote  in
    favor  of  that  agreement.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  assuming  that  the  officers  of  471,  and  the  mem-
    bers, agree  upon  a  contract,  does  the  national  organization  of  which
    you  are  president  have  any  authority  to  override  that  agreement?

    Ml'.  Flaxer.  I  imagine  we  might  have  the  authority,  but  it  has  never
    been  exercised.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  to  say,  if  the  local  union,  471,  and  the  mem-
    bers thereof,  desire  to  enter  into  a  contract  with  their  employer  here
    in  Washington,  you  would  not  in  any  way  interfere  with  that  bargain
    or  contract  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Well,  I  certainly  would  not  interfere  at  the  present
    instance.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  There  is  no  reason  why  the  employer  in  this  case
    cannot  bargain  with  471,  is  there,  if  it  desires  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  No  reason  whatsoever  if  it  has  the  desire,  but  appar-
    enth'  they  have  none.

    Mr.  HoFFJLAN.  And  there  is  no  reason  why  they  could  not  bar-
    gain if  they  desired  with  a  thief  or  habitual  criminal,  so  far  as  you
    know,  is  there?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  You  mean  the  employer  could  bargain  with  anyone
    they  want?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  There  is  no  reason  why  the  local  union  cannot,  if  it
    wishes,  bargain  with  the  employer  if  it  chooses  to  comply  with  the
    provisions  of  the  Taft-Hartley  Act,  and  thus  obtain  all  of  the  benefits
    of  the  National  Labor  Relations  law  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  That  is  a  matter  for  the  local  union.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  say  there  is  no  reason  why  it  cannot  if  it  desires,
    is  there?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  No  ;  there  is  no  reason  at  all.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  So  that  there  are  two  things  now  which  stand  in
    the  way  of  collective  bargaining  between  the  employer  and  471 ;  first,
    the  refusal  of  the  employer  to  bargain.

    Mr  .Flaxer.  Yes.  •

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  it  gives  as  one  reason,  at  least,  the  refusal  of
    the  officers  of  the  local  to  sign  these  affidavits  required  by  the  Taft-
    Hartley  Act.     You  understand  that,  too,  do  you  not  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  understand  that.  I  don't  believe  those  are  the  rea-
    sons, however.

    122  INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE

    Mr.  Hoffman.  But  that  is  one  of  the  reasons  it  gives,  is  it  not?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  that  it  has  a  right  under  the  law  to  rely  upon
    it,  has  it  not  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  you  can — wait  a  minute.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  am  sorry.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Now,  counsel,  you  are  permitted  to  sit  here,  but
    not  to  coach  the  witness.

    Mr.  Witt.  These  are  legal  questions.  I  am  not  coaching  the  wit-
    ness.    I  have  a  right  to  discuss  legal  questions  with  my  client.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  cannot  discuss  anything  while  we  are  exam-
    ining the  witness.  I  think  he  is  fully  qualified.  He  has  had  years
    of  experience,  and  you  are  here  as  a  matter  of  courtesy,  and  we  are
    glad  to  have  you  here.  But  we  will  ask  to  have  the  witness  testify
    on  his  own.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Would  j^ou  mind  repeating  that  last  question  ?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  To  go  back  a  moment,  to  show  your  competency  to
    speak  for  yourself,  and  I  have  every  reason  to  believe  that  you  are
    fully  competent,  j^ou  were  president  of  the  same  organization  back
    in  May  of  1941,  were  you  not?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  was  president  of  the  State,  County,  and  Municipal
    Workers  in  May  1941.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  did  not  hold  an  office  in  the  national  organi-
    zation ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  was  president  of  the  national  union  of  State,  County,
    and  Municipal  Workers  in  1941.

    Mr,  Hoffman.  Yes.  And  one  of  your  locals  at  that  time  was  carry-
    ing on  a  strike  in  Pittsburgh  against  two  hospitals,  was  it  not  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  The  West  Penn  hospitals ;  that  is  correct.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  remember  the  names  of  them  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  West  Penn.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Mercy  was  one  of  them,  and  St.  Elizabeth's  was  the
    other,  was  it  not  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  don't  remember.  I  think  it  was  the  West  Penn  Hos-
    pital, that  was  the  only  one.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  One  of  them  was  the  St.  Francis  Hospital,  was  it
    not?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  don't  remember,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Well,  for  your  information,  I  will  say  it  was.  And
    the  other  was  the  Mercy  Hospital,  in  Pittsburgh.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Again  I  will  say  I  don't  remember.  I  remember  the
    West  Penn.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  For  the  record  I  will  state  those  were  the  two  hos-
    pitals, and  you  do  not  deny  that,  do  you  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Well,  I  can't,  because  I  don't  remember.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  Femember  the  number  of  the  local,  the  name
    of  the  local?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  No  ;  I  don't.  I  don't  know  whether  that  local  union
    is  now  in  existence.

    INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE  123

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Hospital  Workers  Local  Union  255  of  the  State,
    ijounty,  and  Municipal  Workers  of  America.    Is  that  right  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  don't  know.     It  may  be  right.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  know  David  Kains?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  He  use  to  be  our  regional  director  in  the  State  of
    Pennsylvania.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Of  the  organization  of  which  you  were  then
    president  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer,  Right.  I  want  to  make  a  correction  of  that.  He  was
    the  president  of  the  district,  not  the  regional  director.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  Robert  Weinstein.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  He  was  the  secretary-treasurer  of  that  district.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Is  he  now  connected  with  your  national  organ-
    ization ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Yes ;  he  is  director  of  organization.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Foss  Baker  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  He  used  to  be  an  organizer  for  the  district.  .He  is
    no  longer  connected  with  our  union.

    Mr,  Hoffman.  John  Donnelly?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  John  Donnelly  was  the  president  of  the  local,  I  be-
    lieve, I  don't  know  where  he  is  now.  I  don't  think  he  has  any  con-
    nection with  the  union.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  At  that  time  a  Mr.  Filer,  was  it  John  W.  Filer,  was
    the  captain  of  the  picket  line.

    Mr.  Flaxer,  I  don't  remember  that,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  know  a  Mr.  Hines,  legislative  counsel,  I
    think,  at  the  present  time  for  the  A.  F.  of  L,  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  don't  know  him,  I  know  of  him.  He  used  to  be,
    1  believe,  the  chairman  of  the  labor  department  of  the  State  of  Penn-
    sylvania.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Louis  G.  Hines;  he  was  secretary  of  the  department
    of  labor  and  industry  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania.

    Mr.  Fi^\XER.  Yes.    I  don't  know  him.    I  know  of  him.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  He  held  that  office  on  January  30  of  1941.

    You  liave  no  personal  objections,  have  you,  to  the  local  union
    officers,  Mr.  Palmer  and  Mr.  Bancroft,  the  others,  signing  these  affi-
    davits required  by  the  Taft-Hartley  Act,  have  you?     Or  have  you?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Well,  I  would  rather  explain  this  as  follows,  Mr.
    Chairman.  At  the  Boston  convention  of  the  CIO,  we  passed  and
    adopted  a  resolution.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  by  "we,"  I  suppose  you  mean  the  organization.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  All  of  the  delegates  at  the  CIO  convention.  In  adopt-
    ing that  resolution  and  the  discussion  that  ensued  and  particularly
    in  the  remarks  of  President  Murray  on  that  particular  resolution,
    we  all  unanimously  agi-eed  that  the  Taft-Hartley  Law  was  the  most
    vicious  piece  of  antilabor  legislation  this  country  has  ever  seen,  and
    that  we  would  leave  no  step  unturned  to  have  it  repealed.

    The  sense  of  that,  therefore,  was  to  frown  upon  any  compliance,
    or  rather  let  me  put  it  this  way :  The  sense  of  that  was  to  frown
    upon  any  going  along  with  that  law,  and  wherever  possible  and  if

    124  INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE

    possible,  to  try  to  work  out  our  collective -bargaining  arrangements
    without  reference  and  without  interference  by  the  Taft-Hartley  I-aw
    and  its  machinery.

    That  expresses  not  merely  my  personal  convictions,  but  I  believe
    the  convictions  of  every  delegate,  every  one  of  the  600  people  who  were
    delegates  of  CIO  at  that  convention.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Well,  boiled  down,  that  means  that  the  union  took
    the  position  at  that  time  that  it  would  comply  with  that  law  only  as  a
    last  resort.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  No,  no.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Well,  only  if  it  became  necessary  in  order  to  get
    collective  bargaining.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  No,  no.  That  was  merely  the  decision  on  the  part  of
    some  of  the  other  unions.  Some  unions  felt  that  it  might  be  worth-
    while for  them  to  sign.  But  having  decided  that,  and  having  signed,
    they  still  had  not  changed  their  opinion  about  the  law,  and  their
    determination  to  have  it  repealed.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Well,  then,  at  the  moment,  however,  the  local  or
    your  organization  takes  the  position  that  it  will  not  suggest  to  the
    officers  that  they  sign  such  affidavits  until  they  have  exhausted  every
    other  means  of  obtaining  collective  bargaining.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  No.    Let  me  explain  m  a  few  words.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  have  had  a  few  words,  and  I  still  do  not  get  it.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Well,  I  tried  to  explain  the  larger  issues  affecting  the
    CIO,  and  I,  as  a  board  member  of  CIO,  and  as  a  delegate  at  the  CIO
    convention,  that  the  Taft-Hartley  law  has  its  various  applications  to
    the  various  differing  unions,  and  for  our  union,  for  example,  the
    United  Public  Workers,  it  practically  has  no  applications  at  all,
    because  we  do  not  come  under  the  provisions  of  that  law.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  What  do  you  mean  by  that  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Well,  Government  employees  never  were  covered  by
    the  old  Wagner  Labor  Relations  Act.  They  were  excluded  from  its
    benefits  and  provisions.

    The  Taft-Hartley  Act,  which  is  supposed  to  merely  amend  the  Wag-
    ner Relations  Act,  but  in  actual  fact,  of  course,  it  repeals  it,  and
    writes  a  different  law,  that  too  excludes  Government  employees  from
    the  various  provisions  with  one  exception;  it  provides  that  Federal
    employees  do  not  strike,  and  that  is  merely  an  extension  of  a  rider,  of
    appropriation  riders  that  were  adopted  about  a  year  and  a  half  ago.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Well,  all  right.  The  Taft-Hartley  Act  provides
    that  your  union  can,  if  it  wishes,  force  an  employer  to  bargain,  does  it
    not?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  No.    The  Taft-Hartley  law  does  not  provide  that.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  So  you  say  that  if  you  comply  with  the  provisions
    of  the  Taft-Hartley  Act,  you  still  cannot  bargain  collectively  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  No;  we  can  bargain  collectively  regardless  of  com-
    pliance.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Sure  you  can.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  But  the  point  I  am  trying  to  make  is  that  we  do  not
    fall  under  the  Taft-Hartley  Act,  and  we  do  not  have  to  be  concerned
    by  its  provisions  as  an  individual  union.

    INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE  125

    Mr.  Hoffman.  But  you  will  concede,  will  you  not,  that  if  you  want
    the  benefits  of  the  Taft-Hartley  Act,  you  must  comply  with  its  terms.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Well,  sir,  we  have  no  benefits  deriving  from*  the  Taft-
    Hartley  Act,  especially  us.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Now,  wait  a  minute.  Assume  there  are  benefits,  as
    most  of  organized  labor  at  the  present  time  thinks  there  are •

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  beg  to  differ  with  you.  I  don't  think  that  most  of
    organized  labor  believes  that.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  will  take  a  hypothetical  question.  Assume  that
    there  are  benefits  to  be  obtained  by  organized  labor  through  the  use
    of  the  Taft-Hartley  Act.  Your  union  can  get  those  benefits  if  it
    complies  with  the  law,  can  it  not?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  presume  that  if  our  union  wants  to,  and  can,  that  is,
    when  I  say  can,  if  it  is  possible  to  get  what  you  call  benefits  of  the
    Taft-Hartley  Act,  then  I  presume  we  have  to  conform  to  the  rules  and
    regulations  under  the  Taft  Hartley  Act.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  What  do  you  say  to  this  statement  ?  The  Federation
    News  of  September  2,  1940,  in  a  comment  concerning  you  said,  and
    I  quote :

    He  was  an  unknown  social  worker  when  the  Communist  Party  began  looking*
    about  for  someone  to  build  into  the  head  of  a  Government  employees  union.

    What  do  you  say  as  to  that  ?    Is  that  correct  or  not  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Well,  sir,  I  do  not  see  that  that  question  has-

    Mr.  Hoffman.  It  does  not  make  any  difference  whether  you  do  or
    not.    We  will  get  along  faster

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  would  rather  not  answer  that  question.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  refuse  to  answer  that  question?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  would  like  to  make  a  statement  on  that  particular
    subject.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  are  asking  some  questions  here,  and  if  you  will
    answer  them,  we  will  get  along  very  quickly.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  May  I  consult  with  my  counsel?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Sure.

    Mr.  Flayer.  Sir,  do  you  mind  reading  the  question  again?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Read  the  question.

    (The  question  was  read  by  the  reporter.)

    Mr.  Hoffman.  To  the  best  of  your  knowledge.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  That  is  really  silly,  that  whole — with  due  deference
    to  you.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  If  that  is  your  comment,  if  that  is  your  answer,
    that  is  all  right.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  certainly  do.  Anybody  can  make  all  kinds  of  com-
    ments of  that  kind,

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  true.

    Now,  what  do  you  say  as  to  this:  On  January  30,  1941,  Louis  J.
    Hines,  then  secretary  of  the  department  of  labor  and  industry  of  the
    Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania,  referring  to  you,  said  that  you  had,
    and  I  now  quote :

    *  *  *  has  been  singled  out  on  a  number  of  occasions  as  one  of  the  leading
    members  of  the  Communist  Party  in  America.

    126  INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE

    What  is  your  comment  on  that  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  have  about  the  same  comment  on  the  statement  of
    Hines  as  I  have  on  the  statement  of  the  federation,  and  any  number
    of  other  statements  of  like  caliber.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  mean  that  statement  of  Mr.  Hines  was  silly?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  think  it  is  silly.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  At  that  time,  were  you  a  member  of  the  Communist
    Party  ?     That  is  January  30, 1941.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  That  I  will  have  to  refuse  to  answer,  sir,  and  I  would
    like  to  give  my  reasons  for  refusing  to  answer.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Well,  if  you  have  any,  I  am  not  especially  concerned
    in  any  reason  unless  you  claim  that  it  might  tend  to  incriminate  you.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  don't  make  such  a  claim.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Wait  a  minute  until  I  finish  my  statement.

    If  you  claim  that  answering  the  question  might  tend  to  incriminate
    you,  or  to  disgrace  you.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  No ;  I  don't  make  that

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Of  course,  you  have  the  right  to  refuse.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  don't  make  that  claim  at  all.  I  am  refusing  on  other
    ,  grounds,  and  I  would  like  to  explain  what  those  grounds  are.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Well,  one  of  my  associates  suggests  that  you  be  asked,
    "Were  you  at  that  time  a  member  of  the  Communist  Party."

    Mr.  Flaxer.  The  same  answer  as  before,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  I  also  ask  you  the  question,  have  you  at  any
    time  been  a  member  of  the  Communist  Party  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  The  same  answer  to  all  of  those  classes  of  questions,  and
    I  would  like  to  explain  why  I  am  refusing  specifically  now  to  answer
    that  question.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  will  get  to  that  later.  We  will  ask  a  series  of
    questions,  and  then  you  can  make  the  same  statement  as  to  those,  each
    and  all  of  them.

    Have  you  at  any  time  been  affiliated  with  any  organization  which
    has  since  your  affiliation  with  it  been  listed  either  by  the  Attorney
    General,  well,  by  the  Attorney  General  as  being  a  communistic  or-
    ganization ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  The  same  answer,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  How  is  that  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  The  same  answer.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  are  familiar  with  the  organizations  which  have
    been  listed  by  the  Attorney  General  as  being  communistic  organiza-
    tions, are  you  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  don't  know  by  what  you  mean  by  familiar.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  know  the  names  of  them  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  have  seen  the  names,  yes ;  I  have  seen  them  on  the  list.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  do  not  know  whether  you  have  them  in  mind  or  not.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  There  have  been  some  but  you  don't  have  to  read  the
    list,  Mr.  Chairman,  because  I  think  that  question  falls  in  the  same
    category  as  those  that  I  am  refusing,  and  I  would  like  to  give  the
    reasons  why  I  am  refusing  to  answer  them.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  wanted  it  so  as  to  make  the  record  complete.

    I  am  looking  for  that  list  that  the  Attorney  General  handed  down.

    INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE  127

    Are  you  familiar  with  the  list  that  was  used  by  the  Government
    in  its  loyalty  test  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  If  you  mean  did  I  see  the  list,  I  will  say  that  I  saw  it.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Here  is  the  letter  and  I  will  hand  it  to  you.  We  will
    have  it  marked  "Exhibit  No.  1"  and  will  reproduce  it  here  in  the
    record.

    (The  letter  and  list  referred  to  are  as  follows :)

    United  States  Civil  Service  Commission,

    Washington  25,  D.  C,  December  4,  19-',7.

    Sir  :  Part  III  of  Executive  Order  No.  9835  prescribing  procedures  for  the
    administration  of  an  employee  loyalty  program  in  the  executive  branch  of  the
    Government  requires  the  Department  of  Justice  to  furnish  this  Board  with  "the
    name  of  each  foreign  or  domestic  organization,  association,  movement,  group,
    or  combination  of  persons  which  the  Attorney  General,  after  appropriate  invest-
    igation and  determination,  designates  as  totalitarian,  Fascist,  Communist,  or
    subversive,  or  as  having  adopted  a  policy  of  advocating  or  approving  the  com-
    mission of  acts  of  force  or  violence  to  deny  others  their  rights  under  the  Con-
    stitution of  the  United  States,  or  as  seeking  to  alter  the  form  of  government
    of  the  United  States  by  unconstitutional  means."

    In  performance  of  said  requirement,  the  Department  of  Justice  has  furnished
    to  this  Board  a  letter  from  the  Attorney  General  containing  the  names  so
    designated  by  him.

    Part  III  of  said  Executive  order  also  requires  this  Board  "to  disseminate  such
    information  to  all  departments  and  agencies."  A  copy  of  said  letter  from
    the  Attorney  General  is  accordingly  enclosed  herewith  and  a  copy  is  also  being
    sent  to  each  other  department  and  agency  of  the  Government.  This  Board  is
    preparing  and  will  shortly  forward  to  you  rules,  regulations,  and  standards  by
    which  you  are  to  be  guided.

    The  President  in  addressing  this  Board  said,  with  reference  to  the  names  to
    be  furnished  by  the  Department  of  Justice :

    "Membership  in  an  organization  is  simply  one  piece  of  evidence  which  may
    or  may  not  be  helpful  in  arriving  at  a  conclusion  as  to  the  action  which
    is  to  be  taken  in  a  particular  case."

    In  using  the  names  set  forth  in  said  letter,  you  should  have  in  mind  these
    sentiments  to  which  this  Board  subscribes.

    Seth  W.  Richardson,
    Chairman,  Loyalty  Review  Board.

    Department  of  Justice,
    Washington,  D.  C,  November  2^,  iS^7.
    Hon.  Seth  W.  Richardson,

    Chairman,  Loyalty  Review  Board,

    Civil  Service  Commission,  Washington,  D.  G.

    My  Dear  Mr.  Richardson  :  This  is  submitted  pursuant  to  the  President's
    Executive  Order  No.  9835  in  which  he  stated  that  it  is  of  vital  importance  that
    persons  employed  in  the  Federal  service  be  of  complete  and  unswerving  loyalty
    to  the  United  States,  and  further  stated  that  although  the  loyalty  of  by  far  the
    overwhelming  majority  of  all  government  employees  is  beyond  question,  the
    presence  within  the  Government  service  of  any  disloyal  or  subversive  person  con-
    stitutes a  threat  to  our  democratic  processes.  The  order  provided  in  part  III,
    section  3,  as  follows :

    "3.  The  Loyalty  Review  Board  shall  currently  be  furnished  by  the  Department
    of  Justice  the  name  of  each  foreign  or  domestic  organization,  association,  move-
    ment, group  or  combination  of  persons  which  the  Attorney  General,  after  ap-
    propriate investigation  and  determination,  designates  as  totalitarian.  Fascist,
    Communist  or  subversive,  or  as  having  adopted  a  policy  of  advocating  or  ap-
    proving the  commission  of  acts  of  force  or  violence  to  deny  others  their  rights
    under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  or  as  seeking  to  alter  the  form  of
    government  of  the  United  States  by  unconstitutional  means.

    "a.  The  Loyalty  Review  Board  shall  disseminate  such  information  to  all  de-
    partments and  agencies."

    128  INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE

    Under  a  previous  Executive  order  (No.  9300),  issued  February  5,  1943,  en-
    titled "Establishing  the  Interdepartmental  Committee  to  Consider  Cases  of  Sub-
    versive Activity  on  the  Part  of  Federal  Employees,"  and  under  other  relevant
    authority,  the  Department  of  Justice  named  a  number  of  organizations  as  sub-
    versive. The  list  was  disseminated  among  the  Government  agencies  for  use  in
    connection  vpith  consideration  of  employee  loyalty,  and  included  the  following
    organizations :

    American  League  Against  War  and  Fascism

    American  Patriots,  Inc.

    American  Peace  Mobilization

    American  Youth  Congress

    Association  of  German  Nationals  (Reichsdeutsche  Vereinigung)

    Black  Dragon  Society

    Central  Japanese  Association  (Beikoku  Chuo  Nipponjin  Kai)

    Central  Japanese  Association  of  Southern  California

    The  Central  Organization  of  the  German-American  National  Alliance  (Deutsche-
    Amerikanische  Einheitsfront)

    Communist  Party  of  U.  S.  A.

    Congress  of  American  Revolutionary  Writers

    Dai  Nippon  Butoku  Kai  (Military  Virtue  Society  of  Japan  or  Military  Art  So-
    ciety of  Japan)

    Dante  Alighieri  Society

    Federation  of  Italian  War  Veterans  in  the  U.  S.  A.,  Inc.  (Associazione  Nazionale
    Conbattenti  Italiani,  Federazione  degli  Stati  Uniti  d'  America)

    Friends  of  the  New  Germany  (Freunde  des  Neuen  Deutschlands)

    German-American  Bund  (Amerikadeutscher  Volksbund)

    German-American  Vocational  League  (Deutsche-Amerikanische  Berufsgemein-
    schaft)

    Heimuska  Kai,  laso  known  as  Nokubei  Heieki  Gimusha  Kai,  Zaibel  Nihonjin,
    Heiyaku  Gimu.sha  Kai,  and  Zaibei  Heimusha  Kai  (Japanese  Residing  in  Amer-
    ica Military  Conscripts  Association)

    Hinode  Kai  (Imperial  Japanese  Reservists)

    Hinomaru  Kai  (Rising  Sun  Flag  Society — a  group  of  Japanese  War  Veterans)

    Kokubei  Zaigo  Shoke  Dan  (North  American  Reserve  Officers  Association)

    Japanese  Association  of  America

    Japanese  Overseas  Central  Society  (Kaigai  Dobo  Chuo  Kai)

    Japanese  Overseas  Convention,  Tokyo,  Japan,  1940

    Japanese  Protective  Association  (Recruiting  Organization)

    Jikyoku  lin  Kai  (Current  Affairs  Association)

    Kibel  Seinen  Kai  (Association  of  U.  S.  Citizens  of  Japanese  Ancestry  who  have
    returned  to  America  after  studying  in  Japan)

    Kyffhaeuser,  also  known  as  Kyfifhaeuser  League  (Kyffhaeuser  Bund),  Kj^-
    haenser  Fellowship  (Kyffhaeuser  Kameradschaft)

    Kyffhaeuser  War  Relief  (Kyffhaeuser  Kriegshilfswerk)

    Lictor  Society  (Italian  Black  Shirts)

    Mario  Morgantini  Circle

    Michigan  Federation  for  Constitutional  Liberties

    Nanka  Teikoku  Gunyudan  (Imperial  Military  Friends  Group  or  Southern  Cali-
    fornia War  Veterans)

    National  Committee  for  the  Defense  of  Political  Prisoners

    National  Federation  for  Constitutional  Liberties

    National  Negro  Congress

    Nichihei  Kogyo  Kaisha  (The  Great  Fujii  Theat*)

    Northwest  .Japanese  Association

    Protestant  War  Veterans  of  the  U.  S.,  Inc.

    Sakura  Kai  (Patriotic  Society,  or  Cherry  Association — composed  of  veterans  of
    Russo-Japanese  War)

    Shinto  Temples

    Silver  Shirt  Legion  of  America

    Sokoku  Kai  (Fatherland  Society)

    Suiko  Sha  (Reserve  Officers  Association  of  Los  Angeles)

    Washington  Bookshop  Association

    Washington  Committee  for  Democratic  Action

    Workers  Alliance

    INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI    STRIKE  129

    Under  part  III,  section  3.  of  Executive  Order  No.  0835,  the  following  additional
    organizations  are  hereby  designated:

    American  Polish  Labor  Council

    American  Youth  for  Democracy

    Armenian  Progressive  League  of  America

    Civil  Rights  Congress  and  its  ofRliated  organizations,  including:

    Civil  Rights  Congress  for  Texas

    Veterans  Against  Discrimination  of  Civil  Rights  Congress  of  New  York
    The  Columbians

    Communist  Party,  U.  S.  A.,  formerly  Communist  Political  Association,  and  its
    affiliates  and  committees,  including:

    Citizens  Committee  of  the  Upper  West  Side  (New  York  City)

    Committee  to  Aid  the  Fighting  South

    Dennis  Defense  Committee

    Labor  Research  Association,  Inc.

    Southern  Negro  Youth  Congress

    United  May  Day  Committee

    United  Negro  and  Allied  Veterans  of  America
    Connecticut  State  Youth  Conference
    Council  on  African  Affairs
    Hollywood  Writers  Mobilization  for  Defense
    Hungarian-American  Council  for  Democracy

    International  Workers  Order,  including  People's  Radio  Foundation,  Inc.
    Joint  Anti-Fascist  Refugee  Committee
    Ku  Klux  Klan

    Macedonian-American  People's  Legue
    National  Committee  To  Win  the  Peace
    National  Council  of  American-Soviet  Friendship
    Nature  Friends  of  America  (since  1935)
    New  Committee  for  Publications
    Photo  League  (New  York  City)
    Proletarion  Party  of  America
    Revolutionary  Workers  League
    Socialist  Workers  Party,  including  American  Committee  for  European  Workers'

    Relief
    Veterans  of  the  Abraham  Lincoln  Brigade
    Workers  Party,  including  Socialist  Youth  League

    Your  attention  is  also  directed  to  certain  organizations  which  are  operated  as
    schools.  While,  of  course,  I  am  not  of  the  view  that  any  institution  of  learn-
    ing, devoted  to  the  advancement  of  knowledge,  is  subversive,  it  appears  that  these
    organizations  are  adjuncts  of  the  Communist  Partj\     They  are  as  follows :

    Abraham  Lincoln  School,  Chicago,  111.

    George  Washington  Carver  School,  New  York  City

    Jefferson  School  of  Social  Science,  New  York  City

    Ohio  School  of  Social  Sciences

    Philadelphia  School  of  Social  Science  and  Art

    Samuel  Adams  School.  Boston,  Mass.

    School  of  Jewish  Studies,  New  York  City

    Seattle  Labor  School,  Seattle,  Wash.

    Tom  Paine  School  of  Social  Science,  Philadelphia,  Pa.

    Tom  Paine  School  of  Weschester,  N.  Y.

    Walt  Whitman  School  of  Social  Science,  Newark,  N.  J.

    After  the  issuance  of  Executive  Order  No.  9835  by  the  President,  the  Depart-
    ment compiled  all  available  data  with  respect  to  the  type  of  organization  to  be
    dealt  with  under  that  order.  The  investigative  reports  of  the  Federal  Bureau
    of  Investigation  concerning  such  organizations  were  correlated.  Memoranda  on
    each  such  organization  were  prepared  by  attorneys  of  the  Department.  The  list
    of  organizations  herein  certified  i.s  based  on  their  recommendations  as  reviewed
    by  the  Solicitor  General,  the  Assistant  Attorneys  General,  and  the  Assistant
    Solicitor  General,  and  by  subsequent  careful  study  of  the  recommendations  of  all.

    In  connection  with  the  designation  of  these  organizations  I  wish  to  reiterate,
    as  the  President  has  pointed  out,  that  it  is  entirely  possible  that  many  persons

    130  INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE

    belonging  to  such  organizations  may  be  loyal  to  the  United  States ;  that  member-
    ship in,  affiliation  with  or  sympathetic  association  with,  any  organization  desig-
    nated, is  simply  one  piece  of  evidence  which  may  or  may  not  be  helpful  in  arrivinj;
    at  a  conclusion  as  to  the  action  which  is  to  be  taken  in  a  particular  case.  "Guilt
    by  association"  has  never  been  one  of  the  principles  of  our  American  jurispru-
    dence. We  must  be  satisfied  that  reasonable  grounds  exist  for  concluding  that
    an  individual  is  disloyal.    That  must  be  the  guide.

    The  organizations  named  in  this  letter  do  not  represent  a  complete  or  final
    compilation.  For  example,  a  number  of  small  and  local  organizations  are  not
    listed.  As  to  many  organizations  not  named,  the  presently  available  information
    is  insufficient  to  warrent  a  final  determination  as  to  their  character.  Others,
    presently  innocuous,  may  become  the  victims  of  dangerous  infiltrating  forces  and,
    as  a  consequence,  become  proper  subjects  for  designation.  New  organizations
    may  come  into  existence  whose  purposes  and  activities  are  in  conflict  with  loyalty
    to  the  United  States.

    From  time  to  time,  therefore,  as  contemplated  and  directed  by  the  Executive
    order,  there  will  be  furnished  to  the  Board  the  names  of  those  additional  organi-
    zations and  groups  as  to  which  the  information  received  by  this  Department,
    resulting  from  continued  investigation,  indicates  similar  designations  are
    required.

    If  I  can  be  of  further  assistance  to  you  in  reference  to  the  subject  matter  of  this
    letter,  please  let  me  know.
    Sincerely  yours,

    Tom  C.  Clark,  Attorney  General.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  If  you  will  look  over  that  list  and  tell  me  whether
    you  are  now  or  whether  you  ever  have  been  a  member  of  or  affiliated
    with  any  of  those  organizations,  and  if  you  wish  to  separate  that  ques-
    tion into  four  parts  that  is  all  right.

    The  first  one,  whether  you  are  now ;  the  second  one,  whether  you  ever
    have  been.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  don't  think  there  is  any  need  to  separate  that.  There
    is  an  awful  lot  of  organizations,  and  it  really  does  not  really  matter
    whether  it  is  a  question  of  past,  present,  or  future.  I  have  a  principal
    answer  to  that  question,  sir,  and  I  would  like  to  give  the  reasons  for  it.
    I  have  a

    Mr.  Hoffman.  My  associate  suggests  that  I  ask  you  again  whether
    you  are  now  a  member  of-

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  must  refuse-

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Wait  a  minute — or  affiliated  with  any  of  the  organ-
    izations named  in  that  list,  which  you  have  just  examined.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  must  refuse  to  answer,  and  I  would  like  to  give  the
    reasons.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  will  come  to  that  later.

    Have  you  ever  been  affiliated  with  any  of  those  organizations  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Again  I  refuse  to  answer,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  One  of  my  associates  is  inclined  to  the  opinion  that
    you  should  be  required  to  rely  only  upon  the  ground  that  your  answer
    might  tend  to  incriminate  you.  I  think  he  is  correct  about  that,  one
    of  them.  What  did  you  say,  Mr.  Fisher.  Do  you  want  us  to  extend
    him  the  privilege  ?

    Mr.  Klein,  I  assume  that  j^ou  want  him  to  go  along  as  long  as  he
    wants  to.

    Mr.  Klein.  I  would  not  say  that.     I  do  not  want  to  invade  my  hos- '
    pitality  here.     I  appreciate  the  fact  that  you  have  consented  ito  my
    being  here  to  ask  some  questions.     I  would  like  to  extend  him  the  right
    to  explain  why  he  refuses  to  answer  them.     That  is  just  a  suggestion.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  do  not  think  he  has  that  right.     Nevertheless,  if

    INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE  131

    you  want  to  explain  it  in  j^our  own  way,  that  is  all  right.  But  I  do
    not  want  you  to  read  a  prepared  statement  or  speech.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  prepared  it  all  by  myself,  and  it  is  one  and  one-
    half

    Mr.  Hoffman.  If  you  will  now-

    Mr.  Flaxer.  It  is  one  and  one-half  pages  long,  and  I  would  prefer
    to  read  it,  because  I  am  very  much  interested  in  having  precise  lan-
    guage, rather  than  loose  construction,  and  I  think  it  is  to  your  interest,
    too.

    Mr.  Witt.  May  I  say  a  word,  Mr.  Chairman?  The  witness'  legal
    rights  turn  on  his  answer  to  this  question,  or  his  being  permitted  to
    give  the  reasons.  I  do  not  see  why  this  committee  does  not  let  him
    give  the  reasons  in  his  own  way.  If  he  prefers  to  read  it,  he  has
    already  stated  that  it  amounts  to  only  a  page  and  a  half.  I  don't  see
    what  harm  is  done,  Mr.  Chairman,  but  if  you  prefer  not  to  have  him
    state  the  reasons,  he  won't  state  the  reasons.  It  is  up  to  you.  But
    what  possible  objection  can  there  be  to  the  witness  stating  the  reasons
    as  he  himself  has  formulated  them  in  writing  ?

    Mr.  Smith.  For  not  answering  the  questions,  is  that  your  point  ?

    ISIr.  "Witt.  For  not  answering  the  questions ;  these  are  the  reasons  for
    not  answering  the  questions.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Very  well.  I  would  rather  make  a  mistake  on  the
    side  of  leniency,  but  for  your  information  now,  and  that  you  may  be
    guided  in  the  hearings  here,  it  is  the  procedure  in  the  Congress  to
    let  the  witnesses  answer  for  themselves.  They  have  no  right  as  a
    matter  of  right  to  counsel.  They  are  not  here  charged  with  any
    offense.  It  is  merely  an  inquiry.  But  as  stated,  I  prefer  to  make  a
    mistalve,  err  on  the  side  of  leniency,  and  one  of  the  reasons  why  I  think
    the  committees  do  not  permit  these  long  statements  is  because  usually
    the}''  are  more  or  less  of  an  argument,  which  is  not  pertinent.  But  go
    ahead  now.     Let  us  have  it.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  appreciate  that,  and  I  am  grateful  for  the  courtesy
    extended  me.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  all  right,  you  are  welcome.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  And  I  want  to  say  that  for  the  following  reasons  I
    must  decline  to  answer  this  question.     First

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Wait  a  minute

    Mr.  Flaxer.  All  of  these  questions

    Mr.  Smith.  Which  questions  ?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  question  the  jurisdiction  of  the  committee  to
    make  the  inquiry  which  it  is  making  or  to  ask  the  questions  which
    are  being  asked  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  tell  you  frankly  I  am  not  sufficiently  legally  versed
    on  this  matter  to  give  you  any  opinion.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  will  ask  your  counsel.

    Mr.  Witt.  May  the  witness  consult  counsel  ?

    Mr.  FoRER.  Let  him  read  it,  Mr.  Chairman.

    Mr.  Witt.  Let  him  read  it,  and  then  if  you  have  any  further  ques-
    tions

    Mr.  Flaxer.  If  you  don't  mind,  let  us  get  going  with  this  thing.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  have  been  waiting  on  you  and  your  counsel.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  would  like  to  get  down  to  the  issues.

    132  INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE

    Mr.  Hoffman.  First,  Mr.  Smith  suggests  that  you  say  whether  or
    not  you  will  answer  the  question,  and  then  give  your  reasons  for  refusal.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  refuse  to  answer  the  questions

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  the  following

    Mr.  Flaxer.  The  following  are  my  reasons.

    First,  the  question  itself  reveals  that  this  committee  is  permitting
    itself  to  be  used  as  an  instrument  against  the  1,600  Negro  workers  in
    the  Government  cafeterias  who  are  now  on  strike.  For  me  to  answer
    this  question  would  be  inimical  to  the  best  interests  of  the  strikers,  be-
    cause it  assumes  that  the  issue  is  my  political  beliefs,  and  not  the  eco-
    nomic needs  of  the  strikers.

    If  this  committee  desired  to  play  a  constructive  role  in  this  strike,
    it

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Is  that  a  reason  or  a  lecture  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  This  is  a  reason,  sir.

    The  committee  would  be  looking  into  the  shamefully  low  wage  of
    $21.91  a  week  paid  to  the  strikers.  The  committee  would  be  investi-
    gating the  conditions  of  virtual  servitude  forced  upon  the  workers
    by  Government  Service,  Inc.  The  committee  has  not  done  this.  On
    the  contrary,  the  committee  is  subverting  the  purposes  of  a  congres-
    sional committee  to  raise  a  false  issue,  and  thus  serving  the  strike-
    breaking aims  of  GSI.

    The  committee's  action  in  calling  high  officials  of  the  Government
    who  are  seeking  to  resolve  the  issues  in  this  strike  only  heightens  that
    impression  that  the  sole  purpose  of  the  committee  is  to  give  strength
    to  the  company's  strikebreaking  endeavor.  This  impression  is  fur-
    ther confirmed  by  the  committee's  act  of  calling  this  morning  officials
    of  the  United  States  Employment  Service  in  an  effort,  I  gather,  to
    compel  this  agency  to  supply  strikebreakers  to  GSI.

    Why  did  agents  of  this  committee  have  to  raid  our  union  head-
    quarters and  subpena  staff  and  clerical  employees?  Why  did  this
    committee  go  as  far  as  to  subpena  the  wife  of  one  of  our  miion  of-
    ficials? Wliat  do  these  employees,  what  does  this  wife,  have  to  do
    with  the  issues  of  the  GSI  strike  ?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  what  we  wanted  to  find  out.  That  is  the
    reason  we  subpenaed  you  here.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  The  committee's  present  line  of  inquiry,  the  entire
    conduct  of  the  committee  in  connection  with  this  strike,  do  not  reflect
    a  proper  activity  on  the  part  of  a  committee  of  Congress.  Rather,
    the  net  effect  of  the  committee's  activities  amounts  to  the  use  of  con-
    gressional power  for  strike-breaking  purposes.

    By  answering  this  question,  I,  the  national  president  of  this  union,
    will  be  encouraging  this  unfair  and  improper  course.

    My  second  reason  is  that  this  question  invades  and  violates  my  free-
    dom of  opinion.  On  advice  of  counsel,  it  is  my  position  that  you  have
    no  authority  to  inquire  into  my  political  beliefs.  If  a  congressional
    committee  has  authority  to  inquire  into  political  beliefs,  it  may  also
    invade  religious  beliefs.  Intrusion  into  political  or  religious  beliefs  is
    contrary  to  the  constitutional  guaranties,  and  I  must  resist.

    The  issue,  as  you  know,  is  now  before  the  courts.  For  this  com-
    mittee to  pursue  the  same  issue  at  this  time  I  believe  amounts  to
    persecution.     The  Supreme  Court  should

    INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI    STRIKE  133

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Let  me  interrupt  you.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Should  decide  this  issue  and — I  have  one  more  para-
    graph to  finish,  and  then  you  can  talk.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Thanks  for  the  privilege.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Finally

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  you  did  not  have  to  subpena  me  to  get  me  to
    talk.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  certainly  won't  do  what  you  did.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  I  will  not  hide  out  2  weeks  either.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Finally — I  am  going  to  answer  to  that  question.

    Finally,  by  answering  the  question,  I  feel  that  I  would  be  lending
    aid  and  comfort  to  the  current  drive  to  destroy  civil  liberties  in  our
    country.  It  is  a  drive  of  which  I  particularly  am  all  too  conscious,
    for  it  is  the  President's  loyalty  order  aimed  directly  at  all  Govern-
    ment workers  and  indirectly  at  all  Americans  which  is  a  major  weapon
    in  this  drive.     I  cannot  abet  it  and  remain  faithful  to  my  trust.

    Nor  can  I,  by  answering  this  question,  aid  and  abet  the  red-baiting
    hysteria  which  in  the  hands  of  labor-hating  employers  and  their  allies
    is  sweeping  this  country.  As  a  trade-union  leader,  I  cannot  allow
    myself  to  add  fuel  to  a  fire  which  threatens  to  consume  organized  labor.

    I  submit  that  the  entire  inquiry  before  this  committee  amounts  to
    an  abuse  of  congressional  power.  In  this  instance,  such  abuse  helps
    only  a  sweatshop  employer  intent  on  preventing  Negro  workers  from
    enjojnng  the  benefits  of  unionism.

    These,  sir,  are  my  reasons  for  refusing  to  answer  those  questions.

    And  now,  sir,  about  this  hiding  out.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  About  what?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  About  this  hiding  out  that  you  accused  me  of.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  will  get  to  that  later.  Sit  down  and  answer  my
    questions,  now.     You  have  had  your  say.

    Most  of  this,  I  would  say,  is  about  what  I  expected  it  would  be,  sort
    of  a  tirade  against  the  committee  and  its  activities,  and  challengin^g
    the  good  faith  of  the  commjttee,  all  of  which  so  far  as  I  am  concerned
    personally  has  little,  if  any,  effect,  and  let  the  record  show  that  as  the
    witness  read  it,  his  counsel  handed  mimeographed  copies  to  the  press,
    which  I  rather  suspect  was  the  main  purpose  in  having  it  read.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  No  ;  the  main  purpose

    Mr.  Hoffman.  The  first  paragroph  here,  I  think  we  will  take  the
    trouble  to  go  through  with  it.     We  might  just  as  well.

    Mr.  Smith.  I  wish  somebody  would  explain  it  to  me.

    Mr.  FoRER.  Why  don't  you  allow  the  witness  to  do  it.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  It  means  that  you  lend  yourself  to  strikebreaking,
    that  you  are  unfair.

    Mr.  Smith.  I  want  to  know  the  reasons  why  he  cannot  answer  the
    question  because  I  am  a  strikebreaker.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  will  ask  him  again.

    Are  you  now  affiliated  with  any  of  those  organizations  named  in
    that  list  that  I  showed  you  and  which  was  marked  "Exhibit  1"?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  have  already  responded  to  that  question  that

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Tell  me,  yes  or  no ;  do  you  refuse  to  answer?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  refuse  to  answer.     I  have  already  given  you-

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Have  you  ever  been  affiliated  with  any  of  those
    organizations  ?

    134  INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  have  already  stated  my  reasons  for  not  answering
    that  question.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  you  refuse  to  answer ;  do  you  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  For  the  reasons  stated  in  that  statement.

    Mr;  Hoffman.  I  say,  do  you  refuse  to  answer  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  refuse  to  answer  for  the  reasons  given.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  I  will  ask  you  again,  have  you  ever  been  a
    member  of  the  Communist  Party?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  refuse  to  answer  for  the  reasons  stated.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Well,  now,  if  you  wish,  and  your  counsel  will  ad-
    vise you  on  that,  we  will  assume  every  time  you  say  you  refuse  to
    answer,  that  it  is  for  the  reasons  you  have  given.

    Mr.  Witt.  We  prefer  the  witness  to  say  for  the  reason  said.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  jorefer

    Mr.  Witt.  We  are  advising  the  witness,  if  you  please.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Well,  you  will  be  courteous  about  it,  or  you  will
    not  be  advising.

    Mr.  Witt.  I  am  doing  the  best  I  can,  doing  the  best  I  can.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Were  you  ever  affiliated  with  the  Communist
    Party  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  refuse  to  answer,  sir;  for  the  reasons  given.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  The  first  one  you  have  here,  you  say  that  the  ques-
    tion reveals  that  the  committee  is  permitting  itself  to  be  used  as  an
    instrument  against  the — no  smoking  in  here,  please.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  am  sorry.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  one  of  the  civil  rights  that  you  cannot  ex-
    ercise here.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  am  sorry.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Because  the  rest  of  us  do  not  want  it,  you  see,  the
    majority,  and  there  are  ladies  present,  and  if  they  all  smoked,  it
    would  be  unbearable  in  here.     [Reading:]

    *  *  *  against  the  1,600  Negro  workers  in  the  Government  cafeterias  who
    are  now  on  strike.

    Do  you  know  how  many  Negroes  are  now  employed  in  those
    cafeterias  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  don't  know  how  many  are  employed  now,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  For  your  information,  I  will  say  that  t  think  he
    testified  this  morning  it  was  1,300,  was  it  not?  There  are  some  1,300
    Negroes.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Who  testified — who  was  that  that  testified?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Some  personnel  man  for  GSI.

    Ml".  Flaxer.  Well,  they  made  all  kinds  of  claims  through  the
    newspapers.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  All  right.    They  are  paying  them ;  you  are  not.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  didn't  say  anything  about  that.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Then  you  suggested  that  if  this  committee  desired
    to  play  a  constructive  role,  the  conunittee  would  be  looking  into  the
    shamefully  low  wage.

    Now,  the  committee,  for  your  information,  I  will  tell  you,  has
    nothing  to  do  with  the  merits  of  the  strike.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Then  how  come  you  came  into  this  strike  ?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  are  endeavoring  to  ascertain  why  it  is  that  the
    Government  agencies  closed  the  Supreme  Court  cafeteria  and  the

    INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE  135

    cafeteria  in  the  Department  of  Labor,  and  thus  discriminated  against
    people  who  wanted  to  work.    That  is  how  we  got  in.

    I  am  not  asking  you.    I  am  just  answering  your  question.

    Then  you  refer  to  a  raid  on  the  union  office.  You  were  not  there
    personally,  were  you?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  was  told  about  it.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  say  you  were  not  there  personally.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  No,  I  was  out  of  town,  sir.  You  might  ask  me  where
    I  was  at  this  stage  of  the  game,  because  you  have  already  implied

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  am  not  interested.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  You  implied  that  I  was  hiding  away  from  you,  sir,
    and  I  was  not.  I  was  away  on  business,  and  any  one  of  your  mar-
    shals could  have  gotten  me  where  I  was.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Strike  it  all  out.  We  did  not  ask  him  anything
    about  it.

    I  think  that  is  all  I  care  to  ask  him;  later  on,  I  have  some  other
    questions.

    Were  you  ever  affiliated  with  the  American  Committee  for  Pro-
    tection of  the  Foreign  Born  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  indicated  before,  sir;  and  we  can  save  ourselves  a
    lot  if  time,  if  you  will  remember  that  I  said  on  all  of  these  affiliation
    questions,  I  will  refuse  to  answer  on  the  basis  of  the  reasons  already
    given.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Were  you  the  sponsor,  were  you  one  of  the  spon-
    sors of  the  American  Committee  for  Protection  of  Foreign  Born'^

    Mr.  Flaxer.  The  same  is  true  for  that  question  as  for  all  of  the
    others  in  that  category.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  will  ask  you  whether  or  not  you  were  one  of  the
    endorsers  for  the  American  Committee  for  the  Yugoslavia  Relief.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  The  same  thing,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  will  ask  you  whether  you  were  one  of  the  labor
    sponsors  for  the  American  Committee  to  Save  Refugees.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  The  same  reason  as  before.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Whether  you  were  an  endorser  of  the  American
    Congress  for  Peace  and  Democracy.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Ditto,  ditto.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  whether  your  name  did  not  appear  on  their
    letterhead  on  January  6  and  8, 1939.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Look,  the  same  answer  and  the  same  reason,  but  I  hon-
    estly don't  understand  what  that  has  to  do  with  the  issues  before  us
    tonight,  which  is  the  strike  of  local  471  against  GSI.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Whether  you  were  or  not  the  general  manager  of
    the  American  Federation  of  Government  Employees,  NYC.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  That  is  a  matter  of  record,  sir,  that  I  was  the  general
    manager  of  that  local  union,  was  the  American  Federation  of  Labor.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  was  not  a  Conmiunist  front,  was  it?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  refuse  to  answer  that,  sir.

    Mr  Hoffman.  Well,  for  your  information

    Mr.  Flaxer.  The  same  reasons.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  will  tell  you  it  was  not  a  Communist  front.  I
    wanted  to  see  if  you  would  answer  one  that  was  not.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  The  same  reason,  the  same  reason  as  before.

    72913 — i8 10

    136  INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI    STRIKE

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Well,  you  have  already  answered  it.     You  forgot
    yourself  there.

    Were  you  a  member  of  the  National  Labor  Committee  of  the  Ameri-
    can League  for  Peace  and  Democracy  ?
    Mr.  Flaxer.  The  same  answer,  the  same  reason.
    Mr.  Hoffman,  Did  not  your  name  appear  on  the  letterhead  of  Feb-
    ruary 8,  1939  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  The  same  answer,  the  same  reason.
    Are  you  going  to  read  all  of  the  committees  and  all  of  the  letter-
    heads on  which  my  name  appeared,  and  ask  me  the  same  question  ?    We
    will  spend  about  a  night  and  a  half  here.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Are  you  meaning  to  say  that  your  name  did  appear
    on  that  letterhead?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  am  not  saying  that.    You  are  saying  it.
    Mr.  Hoffman.  No;  I  did  not  say  so.     I  was  just  asking  whether  it
    did  or  not.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  No,  no.  What  I  thought  we  came  here  to  do  was  to
    see  if  we  can't  resolve  this  strike  which  has  gone  on  for  4  weeks.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  can  bargain  collectively  for  these  workers,  as-
    suming that  you  have  a  majority  there  now,  very  quickly  by  having
    your  local  sign  the  affidavits  and,  as  I  get  it,  that  is  the  only  way  you
    will  get  bargaining.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  That  is  a  matter  between  the  local  union  and  GSI.    1
    don't  think  that  you  ought  to  inject  yourself  into  that  situation.
    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  have  no  authority  over  GSI.
    Mr.  Flaxer.  Exactly,  precisely  what  I  thought,  and  I  don't  under-
    stand wh}'^  you  injected  yourself  in  that  situation.
    Mr.  Hoffman.  Well,  sir,  maybe  you  never  will.
    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  certainly  won't.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  All  right.  I  will  ask  you  again.  Did  your  name
    appear  on  the  letterhead  of  the  American  League  for  Peace  and  De-
    mocracy on  July  12,  1939?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  The  same  answer,  same  reason.
    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  refuse  to  answer  that,  that  is.
    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  certainly  do.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Were  you  a  signer  of  the  statement  on  the  inter-
    national situation  for  the  same  organization  as  narrated  in  the  New
    Masses  on  March  15,  1938,  page  19?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Same  answer,  same  reason.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Were  you  a  member  of  the  National  Council  of  the
    American  Peace  Mobilization  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Same  answer,  same  reason.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Did  your  name  appear  in  a  leaflet  entitled,  "To
    the   Delegates   to   the   Emergency    Peace   Mobilization,"   pamphlet

    A.  P.  M.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  The  same  answer.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Page  11.     That  is  to  say,  you  refuse  to  answer.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  refuse  to  answer  for  the  same  reason.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Were  you  a  member

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  refuse  to  answer.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Of  the  Citizens  Committee  to  End  Discrimination
    in  Baseball  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Do  you  mind  repeating  that?

    INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE  137

    Mr.  HoFFMAiSr.  Were  you  a  member  of  the  Citizens  Committee  to
    End  Discrimination  in  Baseball^

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Is  that  a  Communist  front,  too  ?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  How  is  that^

    Mr.  Flaxer.  The  same  answer,  same  reason.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  reject  the  suggestion  of  your  counsel  that  time?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  No,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Well,  I  do  not  know,  the  Daily  Worker  of  October
    14,  1942,  page  6,  listed  you  that  way.

    Mr.  PYaxer.  Is  that  so?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Were  you  the  sponsor  of  the  Committee  for  Defense
    of  Public  Education,  American  Federation  of  Teachers,  Locals  5  and
    537?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Same  answer,  same  reason.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Were  you  a  member  of  the  delegation  which  pre-
    sented Governor  Lehman  with  a  protest  against  intimidation  of  peti-
    tion signers,  and  the  barring  of  the  Communist  Party  from  the  ballot
    in  New  York  State,  Committee  on  Election  Rights,  1940  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer..  Sir,  I  must  insist  that  I  cannot  answer  these  questions
    for  the  reasons  given,  and  I  must  insist  that  these,  all  of  these  ques-
    tions are  not  getting  to  the  heart  of  the  problem  that  I  thought  this
    committee  was  trying  to  solve.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Let  me  tell  you  once  and  for  all  that  it  just  does
    not  perhaps  unfortunately  fall  within  your  province  to  tell  the  com-
    mittee what  to  do,  or  to  lecture  the  committee,  because  if  the  commit-
    tee oversteps  its  bounds  far  enough,  its  authority,  and  acts  too  arbit-
    rarily or  unfairly,  the  Congress  can  discipline  it,  do  you  not  see  ?

    Mr.  P'laxer.  I  understand  that.

    Mr,  Hoffman.  You  are  not  our  boss ;  the  Congress  is.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  did  not  mean  it  in  that  way,  I  am  sorry,  but  I
    thought

    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  will  assume  for  the  sake  of  the  record  that  you
    just  do  not  agree  with  what  we  think  our  purpose  is,  or  our  methods,
    and  you  do  not  need  to  repeat  it  all  of  the  time.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  want  to  suggest,  however,  that  it  would  be  a  worth-
    while proceeding  if  we  could  get  down  to  the  issues  of  the  strike,  which
    is  in  its  fifth  week.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  It  is  unfortunate  that  you  cannot  guide  the  com-
    mittee, but  there  it  is  and  we  will  have  to  go  along  in  our  own  ignorant
    way.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  am  sorry,  sorry  about  that.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  What  do  you  say  as  to  whether  you  were  a  sponsor
    of  the  American  Peace  Mobilization  Committee  of  Greater  New  York?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Same  answer,  same  reason.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  whether  your  name  did  not  appear  on  their
    letterhead.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Same  answer,  same  reason.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Were  you  a  sponsor  of  the  Emergency  Peace  Mobili-
    zation, and  were  you

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Same  answer,  same  reason.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Did  you  have  a  part  in  the  preparation  and  circula-
    tion of  the  leaflet,  "Mobilization  for  Peace,"  Chicago,  August  31  and
    September  2,  1940?

    138  INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Same  answer,  same  reason,

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Were  you  a  trade  union  sponsor  of  the  Joint  Anti-
    Fascist  Refugee  Committee?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Same  answer,  same  reason.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  a  signer  of  a  telegram  to  President  Koosevelt
    in  behalf  of  the  International  Fur  and  Leather  Workers  Union  De-
    fendants, Joint  Committee  for  Trade  Union  Rights  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Same  answer,  same  reason.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Were  you  the  signer  of  an  open  letter  to  the  mayor
    of  Stalingrad  National  Council  of  American-Soviet  Friendship

    Mr.  Flaxer.  What  date  was  that,  sir?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  For  Soviet  Russia — well,  I  do  not  know  what  date
    the  letter  was.  Have  you  several  ?  How  many  ?  Yes.  Counsel  wants
    to  know  if  you  have  written  several.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  No  ;  I  just  wanted  to  get  in  my  mind  clear,  maybe  I
    could  recall  that  particular  item

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Well,  it  was  an  open  letter  to  the  mayor  of  Stalin-
    grad, Soviet  Russia

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Because  at  that  time

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Published  under  date  of  June  1943,  on  page  21.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  June.    I  see.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  remember  it  now  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  That  must  have  been  after — during  the  war,  is  that  it  ?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Nineteen  hundred  and  forty-three.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  The  same  answer,  same  reason.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is,  were  you  one  of  the  signers?

    Mr.  Witt.  Excuse  us  a  minute.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Were  you  the  signer  of  a  message  to  the  House  of
    Representatives  opposing  renewal  of  the  Dies  committee?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  It  is  quite  likely.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Were  you  affiliated  with  the  National  Federation
    for  Constitutional  Liberties  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  The  same  answer,  same  reason.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Were  you  the  signer  of  an  open  letter  denouncing
    United  States  Attorney  General  Biddle's  charges  against  Harry
    Bridges  and  the  Communist  Party  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  don't  recall.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Were  you  a  signer  of  the  statement  hailing  the  War
    Department's  order  on  commissions  for  Communists,  praising  them
    for  it?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  didn't  get  that  one  at  all.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Around  March  18,  1945,  page  2,  you  find  it  in  the
    Daily  Worker,  signer  of  a  statement  praising  the  War  Department's
    order  permitting  Communists  to  have  commissions  in  the  Army.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  do  not  recall  that.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Were  you  discussion  leader  at  the  National  Negro
    Congress  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  don't  remember.  Off  the  bat  I  would  say  "No" ;  but  I
    would  not  want  to  be  accounted  for.

    ]VIr.  Hoffman.  You  are  forgetting  your  answer  to  that  one.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  It  is  getting  to  be  a  little  monotonous.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  think  if  we  keep  on  we  will  get  the  answer
    later  on  ?

    INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE  139

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  will  give  you  it.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Were  you  sponsor  of  the  American  Committee  for
    Protection  of  Foreign  Born  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  The  best  answer  I  can  give,  I  can't  recall,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Did  you  contribute  an  article  to  the  New  Masses
    in  1943?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  don't  remember.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  are  changing  it ;  you  are  not  refusing  to  answer
    those.  Now,  am  I  right  in  assuming  that  in  all  of  the  questions  except
    those  where  you  said  you  do  not  remember,  that  you  refuse  to  answer
    for  the  reasons  which  you  have  given  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Were  you  not  in  1941  a  member  of  the  Communist
    Party?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  have  answered  that  before,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  refuse  to  answer  that  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  refuse  to  answer  that  for  the  same  reasons.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Did  you  not  in  1941  attend  meetings  of  the  Com-
    munist Party  in  the  city  of  New  York  which  were  restricted  only  to
    members  of  the  party  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Same  answer,  same  reason.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  refuse  to  answer.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  What  would  you  say  as  to  the  statement  of  John  P.
    Frye,  head  of  the  Metal  Trades  Department,  A.  F.  of  L.,  made  in  these
    hearings  before  a  congressional  committee  that  you  were  known  as  a
    Communist — do  you  deny  that?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  would  say  the  same  thing  I  said  about  that  newspaper
    article  from  the  Federationist.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  It  was  silly;  and  you  also  refuse  to  answer  that
    question,  do  you,  as  to  whether  you  were?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  say  it  is  a  silly  remark.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  refuse  to  answer  the  question  as  to  whether
    his  statement  was  correct?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Yes ;  I  do,  sir.    The  same  reason.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  gentlemen  have  some  questions  ?

    Mr.  Fisher.  Mr.  Flaxer,  how  many  members  are  there  of  the  union
    of  which  you  are  the  president  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Well,  at  the  CIO  convention,  at  the  time  of  the  Boston
    convention,  we  had  85,126  members.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Eighty-five  thousand ;  when  was  that  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Boston  convention  was  in  October  1947.

    Mr.  Fisher.  How  many  of  those  reside  in  the  continental  United
    States,  approximately  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  would  say  about  70,000,  perhaps  a  little  less  than
    that.

    Mr.  Fisher.  So  approximately  15,000  of  your  members  do  not  reside
    in  the  United  States,  that  is,  in  the  continental  United  States.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Yes.

    Mr.  Fisher.  How  many  of  your  members  reside  in  the  Canal  Zone  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Well,  that  is  the  reason  I  gave  you  that  approximate
    figure,  because  we  have  about  17,000  in  the  Canal  Zone.  I  was  talking
    about  dues-paying  members.     That  is  regularly  and  currently  dues-

    140  INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI    STRIKE

    paying  members.  Sometimes  if  they  skip  a  month  or  two,  it  is  all  in
    terms  of  a  CIO  convention  that  is  averaged  over  a  12-month  period.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Do  you  also  have  a  union  in  Hawaii,  in  the  Territory
    of  Hawaii  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  We  have  approximately  about  between  800  and  1,000.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Members  in  Hawaii  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Yes.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Do  you  have  members  in  any  other  Territory  or  any
    place  outside  of  the  United  States  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  No.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Only  in  the  Canal  Zone  and  in  the  Territory  of  Hawaii,
    then,  is  that  correct?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  That  is  correct.  Oh,  we  have  a  very  tiny  local  in  Brit-
    ish Columbia.

    Mr.  Fisher.  How  many  members  do  you  have  down  there?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  said  a  very  tiny,  it  is  about  17  or  27  members,  there-
    abouts.

    Mr.  Fisher.  What  percent  of  the  members  of  your  union  work  for
    the  Government,  Federal,  State,  or  local  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Oh,  I  see.  Well,  I  think  I  could  work  it  out  the
    other  way.  Let's  see,  do  you  consider  the  GSI  as  a  Government
    agency  or  do  you  consider  it  a  private  corporation  ?

    Mr.  Fisher.  Well,  it  has  been  held  to  be  a  private  corporation.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Well,  I  would  say  about  10  percent  of  our  members.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Do  not  work  for  the  Federal  Government  or  State  or
    local  governments  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Right.

    Mr.  Fisher.  In  other  words,  the  United  Public  Workers  is  a  little
    bit  of  a  misnomer  as  applied  to

    Mr.  Flaxer.  No,  no.

    Mr.  Fisher.  To  people  in  that  category.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  No,  no.  I  would  like  to  explain  that,  if  I  may.  For
    example,  most  of  the — aside  from  the  cafeteria  workers  who  work  in
    the  Federal  Government  agency  cafeterias,  the  only  members  of  our
    union  who  are  not  connected  with  the  Government  are  hospital  em-
    ployees, and  that  is  only  due  to  the  fact  that  hospital  industry  as  such
    is  a  homogeneous  whole,  that  is,  the  public  and  private  hospital  em-
    ployees, both  in  the  public  and  private  hospitals,  any  one  locality  fre-
    quently interchange  where  there  is  no  civil  service.  So  that  for  ex-
    ample in  the  city  of  Rochester,  Minn.,  we  have  the  hospital  employees
    connection  witli  the  Kohler  Corp.  or  the  Mayo  Clinic,  but  other  than
    that  we  have  no

    Mr.  Fisher.  Other  than  that  and  the  GSI  employees.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  would  say  they  are  public  employees.

    Mr.  Fisher.  They  do  not — you  regard  them  as  working  for  the  Fed-
    eral Government  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Well,  certainly  GSI,  no  matter  how  it  squirms  about
    the  issues,  is  a  quasi-public  agency.     There  is  no  question  about  that.

    Mr.  Fisher.  It  may  be  that  you  are  not  fully  familiar  with  the
    set-up,  Mr.  Flaxer,  but  the  Government  itself  has  held  that  they  are
    not ;  General  Fleming  has  so  held  that  they  are  not  actually  working
    for  the  Government.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Except  that  there  are  other  Government  officials  who
    differ  with  him  ?

    INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI    STRIKE  141

    Mr.  FisHEE.  Which  ones  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Well,  I  would  rather  not  mention  names  right  now;  I
    don't  think  I  ought  to  bring,  if  I  may,  bring  other  names  into  the
    picture,  but  General  Fleming  is  not  the  last  authority  on  that.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Well,  I  would

    Mr.  Flaxer.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  sir,  GSI  itself,  before  the  passage
    of  the  Taft-Hartley  Act,  claimed  that  it  was  a  Government  agency.

    Mr.  Fisher.  We  know  all  about  that,  and  we  have  gone  into  that
    previously.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Yes.

    Mr.  Fisher.  But  you  say  that  you  do  not  care  to  tell  the  name  of  any
    Government  official  who  takes  contrary  position  to  that  which  I  have
    just  stated,

    Mr,  Fl.\xer.  Well,  I  am  very  wary  of  your  question  now ;  what  is  the
    implication  of  that  ?

    Mr.  Fisher.  That  is  more  or  less  immaterial  anyway;  let  us  go
    ahead.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  If  it  is  immaterial,  all  right.

    Mr.  Fisher.  When  were  you  elected  president  of  the  UPW?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  At  its  convention  in  1946  at  Atlantic  City,  in  April.

    Mr.  FisiiER.  At  that  time  two  unions  merged;  did  they  not?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Eight.

    Mr.  Fisher.  And  what  was  the  name  of  the  other  union  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Well

    Mr.  Fisher.  The  one  that  merged.

    Mr,  Flaxer.  The  two  unions  ?

    Mr.  Fisher,  Wliat  were  the  names  of  the  two  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  The  United  Federal  Workers,  and  the  State,  County,
    and  Municipal  Workers.

    Mr.  Fisher.  And  you  had  been  president  of  one  of  the  others  ?

    ]\Ir.  Flaxer,  Yes,

    Mr.  Fisher.  What  was  the  name  of  it?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  State,  County,  and  Municipal  Workers.

    Mr.  Fisher,  And  at  the  Atlantic  City  convention  you  were  elected
    president  of  this  organization  which  now  has  85,000  members?

    Mr.  Fi^^xER.  I  didn't  say  now.  I  said  at  the  time  of  the  Boston
    convention  of  ClO.

    Mr,  Fisher.  Approximately  how  many  do  you  have  now,  if  you
    know  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Well,  it  is  rather  difficult  to  tell  you  now,  because  we
    have  a  regular  audit  of  our  membership  about  every  6  months,  so
    that  it  would  be  difficult  for  me  to  tell  you  precisely,  f  would  say  it  is
    about  the  same.

    Mr.  Fisher,  Mr.  Flaxer,  do  you  take  the  position  as  president  of  a
    great  union  of  some  85,000  people,  most  of  whom  are  working  for  the
    Government  itself,  drawing;  their  salaries  from  the  taxpayers,  that  it  is
    an  invasion  of  civil  liberties  for  you  to  be  asked  whether  you  are  a
    member  of  the  Communist  Party  or  not?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  certainly  do.

    Mr.  Fisher.  At  the  Atlantic  City  convention  in  1946,  do  you  recall
    a  resolution  that  was  adopted  there  regarding  foreign  policy  of  this
    Government  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  recall  it.

    142  INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE

    Mr.  Fisher.  Do  you  happen  to  have  a  copy  of  that

    Mr,  Flaxer.  No ;  I  don't.

    Mr.  Fisher.  In  your  files  here  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  No  ;  I  don't.

    Mr.  Fisher.  "Wliat  was  in  brief  the  content  of  that  resolution?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Well,  I  think  that

    Mr.  Witt.  May  I  interrupt?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  was  going  to  try  to  recall,  but  I  think  at  this  hearing
    it  would  be  better  for  me  not  to  try  to  do  that.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Here  is  a  newspaper  account  of  it  at  the  time.  Let  us
    see  if  this  impresses  you  as  being  approximately  correct.

    The  resolution  in  effect  charged  the  demobilization  of  American
    troops  throughout  the  world  is  being,  and  this  is  quoting  from  the  res-
    olution, "deliberately  delayed"  to  further  the  imperialist  ambitions
    of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  and  to  isolate  Kussia.  It  called
    for  the  immediate  withdrawal  of  American  and  British  troops  from
    all  friendly  countries,  including  China,  the  Philippines,  France,
    Greece,  India,  Indonesia,  Belgium,  and  Iceland.
    Do  you  recall  that  provision  in  the  resolution  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  recall  that  after  the  adoption  of  that
    resolution  in  Atlantic  City  there  was  an  awful  lot  of  distortions  of
    that  resolution.

    Mr.  Fisher.  That  is  a  quotation  from  the  resolution  that  I  have  just
    read.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  It  is  in  the  press,  and  I  have  found  a  certain  amount
    of  distortions  that  way.  I  would  discuss  not  only  that  resolution  but
    any  of  the  policies  of  our  union  specifically  from  the  resolutions  that
    we  adopted,  and,  sir,  I  would  challenge  you  to  cite  one  instance  of  this
    union's  policies  which  was  inconsistent  with  the  policies  of  CIO  on
    any  matter.

    Mr.  Fisher.  That  was  not  the  question  I  asked.  My  question  was,
    Do  you  recall  the  statement  which  I  have  just  quoted  from  your  reso-
    lution as  being  substantially  correct?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  would  have  to  say  I  don't  recall,  because  I  would
    prefer  to  discuss  that  resolution  in  terms  of  the  specific  wording  of
    that  resolution.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Do  you  recall  that  the  resolution  did  condemn  what
    was  termed  the  imperialist  ambitions  of  the  United  States  and  Britain
    in  their  attempt  to  isolate  Russia?      Do  you  remember  those  words
    being  used  in  the  resolution  ?
    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  don't  remember.
    Mr.  Fisher.  How  is  that  ?
    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  don't  remember.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Does  that  sound  about  right?  You  remember  some-
    thing about  the  resolution.    You  were  there.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  would  not  say  that  sounded  about  right.
    Mr.  Fisher.  Were  you  presiding  at  the  time?
    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  was  the  president.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Do  you  remember  the  resolution  being  offered  ?
    Mr.  Flaxer.  Sir,  we  had  400  resolutions  presented  at  that  con-
    vention.

    Mr.  Fisher.  My  question  was.  Do  you  remember  the  resolution  per-
    taining to  foreign  policy  being  offered  while  you  were  presiding?
    Mr.  Flaxer.  Yes,  sir ;  I  remember  it.

    INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE  143

    Mr,  Fisher.  You  remember  that.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Yes.

    Mr.  Fisher.  But  you  do  not  recall  anything  of  this  kind  being  in-
    cluded in  the  resolution  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Something  along  that  line;  I  would  not  say  it  was
    precisely  what  you  are  saying.

    Mr.  Fisher.  But  substantially  correct  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  No;  I  would  not  say  that  is  substantially  correct.  I
    would  not  say.  It  may  be  substantially  correct  and  it  may  be  sub-
    stantially wrong.

    Mr.  Fisher.  When  can  you  submit  to  us  an  authentic  copy  of  that
    resolution  that  I  refer  to?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  It  would  be  a  simple  matter  to  send  you  a  copy  of  it,
    if  you  wanted  it.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Will  j^ou  do  that?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Certainly.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  think  the  committee  member  would  like  to  have
    you  and  the  resolution  together.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  would  be  very  happy.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Yes ;  we  might  want  to  go  into  that.

    Mr.  HoFFMAx.  When  can  you  do  that?  Let  me  get  that  nailed
    down.    When  will  you  do  that  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  When  do  you  want  this  stuff  ?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  would  like  to  have  it,  of  course,  tomorrow  morn-
    ing, by  10  o'clock,  if  you  can  have  it.  Perhaps  we  can  find  it  over  here
    in  the  library.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  see.  Well,  I  am  not  sure  whether  I  could  provide  that
    for  you  at  10  o'clock  in  the  morning.  I  might  try.  I  had  hoped  that
    we  would  wind  up  these  hearings  tonight.

    Mr.  Fisher.  According  to  the — do  you  want  to  pursue  that  further?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  No  ;  only  to  say  in  view  of  the  charges  he  has  made
    about  the  good  faith  and  intelligence  of  the  committee,  it  will  take  us
    perhaps  longer  than  that  to  wind  up.

    Mr.  Fisher.  The  resolution  from  which  I  quoted,  which  you  say
    sounds  familiar,  but  you  are  not  able  to  identify  exactly,  urged  that
    all  f  riendlv  countries,  including  China,  the  Philippines,  France,  Greece,
    India,  Indonesia,  Belgium,  and  Iceland,  that  all  British  and  American
    troops  be  withdrawn  from  those  countries.

    Do  you  remember  in  substance  that  that  was  included  in  the  reso-
    lution ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  remember  this,  sir,  if  I  may,  at  the  time  I  think  most
    of  the  labor  movement  here,  and  the  GI's  who  were  stationed  in  the
    various  islands  in  the  South  Pacific  and  in  Europe  were  clamoring  to
    get  home,  and  I  think  there  was  something  in  that  resolution  to  that
    effect.

    Mr.  Fisher.  That  was  in  the  spring  of  1946,  was  it  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Yes.

    ]\fr.  Fisher.  And  your  resolution  was  to  try  to  bring  the  boys  home
    because  they  were  in  a  hurry  to  get  home  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  think  both  we  and  they  wanted  that  thing  to  come
    about.

    Mr.  Fisher.  So  the  provision,  then,  in  this  resolution  as  it  is  re-
    ported in  this  newspaper  account,  which  says,  "we  charged  that
    the  demobilization  of  American  troops  throughout  the  world  is  being

    144  INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI    STRIKE

    deliberately  delayed  to  further  the  imperialist  ambitions  of  the  United
    States  and  Britain,  and  to  isolate  Russia,"  that  is  a  little  different
    reason  than  the  one  you  give  now.  You  say  now  it  was  to  get  the
    boys  home.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  was  trying  to  say  that  the  demand  in  a  resolution
    to  get  the  boys  home  must  have  been  grounded  on  that  fact.  What
    the  exact  wording  of  that  was,  I  can't  recall.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Do  you  recall  anything  in  the  resolution  condemning
    the  imperialist  activities  of  Soviet  Russia?  It  does  condemn  the
    United  States  and  Britain  for  their  imperialist  ambition.  Do  you
    recall  anythng  being  offered  condemning  the  imperialist  ambition  of
    Soviet  Russia  at  that  time  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  can't  recall.

    Mr.  Fisher.  One  man  offered  an  amendment  to  that  effect  to  the
    resolution.  He  was  howled  down,  was  he  not?  Do  you  not  remem-
    ber that?     You  were  presiding.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  will  tell  you  what  happened  there  when  I  was
    presiding.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Your  memory  is  pretty  hazy ;  go  ahead.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  It  was  not  howled  down.  The  man,  while  I  was  pre-
    siding, everyone  had  the  floor,  was  given  the  floor,  and  had  a  right
    to  speak  and  did  speak.  Now,  there  were,  I  think,  about  two  or
    three  people  that  spoke  against  the  resolution.  I  think  there  were
    about  two  dozen  who  spoke  for  it.  So  far  as  I  can  recall,  none  of  the
    elected  officers  or  those  who  were  elected  later  on  were  participating
    in  the  debate.

    Mr.  Fisher,  I  will  quote  here  briefly  from  an  editorial  that  ap-
    peared in  the  Washington  paper  at  the  time.     It  said :

    We  should  like  to  tap  the  administration  and  Congress  on  the  shoulder —

    and  calls  attention  to  what  appears  to  have  been  a —

    successful  effort  by  our  Stalinist  friends  to  gain  complete  control  of  the  new
    United  Public  Workers  of  America,  and  to  exploit  it  in  the  interests  of  the
    Communist  Party  line.

    Quoting  further:

    The  convention,  for  example,  called  upon  the  United  States  to  cease  its  recent
    policy  of  attempting  to  isolate  the  Soviet  Union  in  the  UN  and  world  affairs.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  May  I  know  from  what  you  are  reading  ?

    Mr.  Fisher.  I  think  this  is  the  Washington  Post.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Well,  do  you  thing,  sir

    Mr.  Fisher.  Just  a  moment.     I  will  finish  this.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Do  you  think  it  is  fair  to  read  the  comments  of  these
    newspapers  on  that  ?

    Mr.  Fisher.  I  want  your  comment  on  it.  You  can  disagi'ee  if  you
    want  to.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  No  ;  I  would  not  comment  on  that.  If  I  were  to  try
    to  comment  on  the  various

    Mr.  HorFMAN.  Will  you  wait  until  he  finishes,  please?

    Mr.  Fisher.  This  may  not  be  so  bad  after  all.  Let  us  see  how  it
    sounds :

    *  *  *  and  demanded  that  the  administration  not  only  withdraw  American
    troops  from  all  friendly  countries,  such  as  China,  the  Philippines,  France,  Bel-
    gium, and  Iceland,  but  also  that  it  call  upon  the  British  to  withdraw  from  Greece,
    India,  and  Indonesia.

    INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE  145

    Were  you  also  interested  at  that  time  not  only  in  getting  our  boys
    home,  but  trying  to  help  the  British  to  get  their  boys  home  at  the
    same  time  ?

    Were  you  impelled  by  the  same  motives  in  putting  that  in  the
    resolution  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  When  you  say,  "You,"  to  whom  are  jou  referring?

    Mr.  Fisher.  You  were  president  of  the  UPWA.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Wait  a  second.

    Mr.  Fisher.  How  is  that  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  You  know  this  was  a  convention  resolution.  This  was
    a  resolution  adopted  by  my  organization;  600  delegates  were  present
    there.  I  stand  by  the  things  that  they  adopted.  But  they  are  not
    my  personal  opinions  or  positions  or  necessarily  so.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Well,  do  you  disagree  then  with  the  resolution?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Tliat  is  not  the  jjoint,  sir.

    Mr.  Fisher.  No  ;  my  question  is.  Do  you  disagree  with  the  resolution  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  stand  by  any  policy  our  national  organization

    Mr.  HoFFMAX,  Listen,  Mr.  Flaxer,  he  is  asking  you  for  your  personal
    opinion,  regardless  of  what  the  organization  did.  That  is  all  he  is
    asking  you  for  at  the  moment.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  thought  as  far  as  my  personal  opinions  on  these  mat-
    ters were  concerned,  that  I  have  already  made  my  answer  to  that.

    Mr.  Fisher.  You  just  stated,  Mr.  Flaxer,  in  answer  to  my  question,
    that  that  might  not  necessarily  be  your  opinion,  as  I  understood  your
    answer.

    Now.  my  question  is  was  it  or  was  it  not

    Mr.  Flaxer.  No,  no.

    Mr.  Fisher.  In  accordance  with  your  views,  the  resolution  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  think  that  is  entirely  irrelevant.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  for  the  committee  to  decide.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Because  as  the  president  of  this  union,  my  views  on
    these  matters  or  that  is  the  views  of  the  organization  become  my  views.

    Mr.  Fisher.  All  right.  Then  you  refuse  to  answer  whether  that  is
    your  personal  view,  those  are  your  personal  views.

    Mr.  Flax'ek.  No,  no,  I  will  say  that  the  views  of  my  organization
    become  my  views  on  these  matters.

    Mr.  FisiiER.  All  right.    Quoting  further :

    An  effort  to  amend  this  resolution  so  that  it  would  also  call  for  the  withdrawal
    of  Russian  troops  from  Poland  and  other  friendly  countries  in  Europe  failed.
    The  report  by  the  oflScers  of  the  United  Federal  Workers  approving  and  urging
    the  merger  with  the  UCjMWA  also  took  occasion  to  attack  both  the  Administration
    and  Congress  for  carrying  out  a  program  of  aggressive  imperialism  in  foreign
    affairs —

    and  so  forth.

    Do  you  ever  read  the  Newsweek  magazine  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Occasionally.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Do  you  legard  it  as  a  good  publication,  a  respectable
    publication  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  don't  think  I  ought  to  comment  on  that,  sir.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Reasonably  accurate,  ordinarily,  is  it  not?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  don't  know.

    Mr.  Fisher.  You  don't  know  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  No.

    146  INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE

    Mr.  Fisher.  Let  me  see  if  you  agree  with  this  statement.  This  is  in
    the  June  2,  1947,  issue,  title  of  the  article  "What  Communists  Are  Up
    To."

    Mr.  Flaxer.  May  I

    Mr.  Fisher.  Just  a  moment.    Let  me

    Mr.  Flaxer.  May  I  consult  with  my  attorney  ?

    Mr.  Fisher.  I  will  ask  the  question,  and  then  you  talk  to  your  two
    lawyers.  You  have  two  attorneys,  do  you  not,  by  the  way,  Mr.  Witt,
    and  who  is  the  other  ?

    Mr.  Witt.  Mr.  Forer.

    Mr.  Forer.  Is  there  anything  wrong  with  that  ?

    Mr.  Fisher.  Are  you  implying — are  you  the  same  Mr.  Forer  that
    defended  Gerhart  Eisler  ?

    Mr.  Witt.  I  must  object  to  that.  Mr.  Forer  is  here  as  a  lawyer,  a
    member  of  the  Bar  of  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  it  is  none  of  your
    business.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Just  a  moment.  Wait  a  minute.  You  sit  down.
    Take  him  outside.     He  need  not  sit  here  any  more.

    Mr.  Witt.  I  am  here  as  Mr.  Flaxer's  counsel.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  are  all  through  in  here,  when  you  begin  to  tell
    the  committee  what  its  business  is.

    Mr.  Witt.  I  don't  think  Mr.  Fisher  has  any  right  to  attack  Mr.
    Forer  on  the  basis  of  his  professional  association.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Step  him  out,

    Mr.  Witt.  You  can  take  me  out,  but  that  will  still  be  the  case.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  are  excused.     Go  on.

    Mr.  Fisher.  This  article

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Wait  until  he  gets  out.

    Any  attorney  who  wants  to  make  a  statement,  any  attorney  who
    comes  in  here  and  conducts  himself  properly,  and  not  insult  members
    of  the  committee,  is  welcome  to  stay,  but  anyone

    Mr.  Witt.  IMay  I  say  something  on  that  ?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Put  him  out.  Anyone  who  commences  to  make  false
    charges  against  the  committee  is  not  going  to  have  the  courtesy  of  the
    committee.     There  is  a  limit  to  what  we  will  take.

    Mr.  Forer.  May  I  address  myself  to  your  remarks?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Yes,  sir,  you  mRj.

    Mr.  Forer.  I  think  that  counsel  has  an  obligation  to  be  courteous
    to  the  committee,  but  I  think  the  committee  has  certain  obligations  as
    well,  and  I  think  that  one  of  the  obligations,  and  I  am  saying  this  with
    all  due  deference  to  this  committee,  a  committee  of  Congress,  one  of
    those  obligations  is  that  when  a  man  has  counsel  of  his  own  choosing,
    they  not  smear  that  counsel,  particularly  now.

    You  attempted  to  draw  an  implication  by  that  remark,  Mr.  Fisher,
    and  I  want  to  state  my  personal  resentment  at  that.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Do  you  resent  having  your  clients  named  ?

    Mr.  Forer.  I  am  proud  of  the  people  I  am  attorney  for?

    Mr.  Fisher.  Wliat  are  you  howling  about  ?

    May  I  proceed  with  my  questions?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  will  give  you  ample  time  shortly,  when  Mr.  Fisher
    is  finished.

    Mr.  Fisher.  The  article  that  I  referred  to,  Mr.  Flaxer,  that  we  were
    interrupted  on  here  a  moment  ago,  "What  Communists  Are  Up  To —

    INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE  147

    Intrigue  and  Infiltration  by  a  Few  Party  Members  Using  Many
    Patterns."  And  in  the  story  it  refers  to  the  15  CIO  unions  controlled
    by  the  Communists  or  fellow-travelers,  and  among  those  is  listed  the
    United  Public  Workers  of  America,  membership,  50,000,  and  they  had
    listed,  that  was  as  of  June  2,  apparently  their  figures  were  not  accurate
    according  to  your  statement,  although  your  reference  was  to  last  fall,
    in  October,  was  it  not?

    The  UrWA  was  formed  in  amalgamation  of  tlie  State,  Coimty,  and  Municipai
    Workers  and  the  Federal  Workers  of  America.  The  president  is  Abram  Fhixer,
    who  had  been  president  of  the  former.  The  secretary-treasurer  is  Eleanor
    Nelson,  who  had  been  president  of  the  latter.  Flaxer  and  Miss  Nelson  both  are
    inveterate  party-liners.  Characteristically  at  its  organizing  convention,  the
    union  denounced  all  forms  of  imperialism,  except  the  Russian.

    Do  you  agree  that  that  is  a  substantially  accurate  report  in  News
    Weekasof  June2, 1947?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  May  I  talk  to  my  counsel  ?

    Mr.  Fisher.  Yes.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Have  you  got  more  of  that  stuff  to  read,  Mr.  Fisher?
    I  don't  want  it  read  back.  Just  a  minute.  I  was  just  asking  whether
    you  had  more  of  that  kind  of  material  to  read.

    Mr.  Fisher.  I  will  get  around  to  that  later.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Because  I  might  just  as  well  sit  down  and  listen  to  all
    of  the  stuff  you  have  asked,  and  my  answer  would  merely  be  to  advise
    you  again  that  the  very  things  that  I  was  worried  about  with  regard
    to  this  committee  are  obviously  coming  to  pass.

    Mr.  Fisher.  My  question

    Mr.  Flaxer.  It  seems  to  me,  sir,  if  I  may,  it  seems  to  me  that  you  are
    reading  out  of  newspaper  stories,  magazine  articles,  all  for  the  pur-
    pose of  creating  a  red-baiting  atmosphere,  so  that  if  there  is  any  hope
    at  all  of  trying  to  solve  and  settle  this  strike  that  is  going  on  today,
    that  that  possibility  would  be  broken.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Mr.  Flaxer,  do  you  not  think

    Mr.  Flaxer.  And  you  are  asking  that  kind  of  stuff  in  the  same
    way

    Mr.  Fisher.  Do  you  not  think

    Mr.  Flaxer.  That  every  other  employer  does.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Do  you  not  think  it  is  of  some  interest  to  this  commit-
    tee and  to  the  country,  and  all  that  may  be  interested  in  the  labor-union
    movement,  that  we  know  something  about  this  UPWA,  a  party  to  this
    strike,  and  Avho  their  officers  are  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  don't  think  so.    I  don't  think  so.

    Mr.  Fisher.  You  don't  think  so  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  No.    I  think

    Mr.  Fisher.  We  may  disagree  on  that.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  think  that  every  membership  organization  is  for  and
    of  and  by  its  members.    It  is  their  interest.

    Mr.  Fisher.  My  question  was  do  you  agree  or  not  that  the  statement
    I  read  from  News  Week  is  substantially  correct?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  must  admit  that  the  committee  is  very  provocative.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Will  you  answer  my  question  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Yes.  I  think  that  article  is  an  extremely  nonsensical
    article.  It  has  the  figures  of  our  membership  wrong,  and  a  lot  of  other
    facts.

    148  INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE

    Mr.  Fisher.  You  disagree  that  the  membership  figures  are  correct.
    Do  you  or  do  you  not  agree  that  the  balance  of  it,  of  the  article,  is  sub-
    stantially correct  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  will  refuse  to  answer  that  question.

    Mr.  Fisher.  That  is  all.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  For  the  reasons  you  have  given.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  For  the  reasons  that  I  have  given.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  If  I  may,  you  wanted  to  say  something,  Mr.  Forer,
    about  the  question  that  Mr.  Fisher  was  asking.

    Mr.  Forer.  Yes ;  I  would  like  to  make  some  remarks  on  that.  I  will
    be  brief.

    But  it  seems  unfair  to  me,  in  the  first  place,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  when
    you  give  me  the  opportunity  to  make  those  remarks,  Mr.  Fisher  inter-
    rupts me  before  I  can  state  my  position.

    Mr.  Fisher.  I  am  sorry.

    Mr.  Forer.  What  is  more,  Mr.  Fisher  asked  me  a  question,  and  I
    attempt  to  answer  it ;  he  stops  me.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Very  well.  Get  down  to  it,  why  you  think  his  ques-
    tion as  to  whether  you  w^ere  attorney  for  a  certain  individual  was
    im])roper.    That  is  what  I  think  provoked  the  discussion.

    Mr.  Forer.  It  is  none  of  Mr.  Fisher's  business  who  I  am  attorney
    for,  and  I  am  here  representing  Mr.  Flaxer,  and  his  question  as  to
    whether  I  am  attorney  for  somebody  else  was  simply  done,  and  the  only
    possible  purpose  for  it,  and  Mr.  Fisher  knows  it,  was  to  make  an
    invidious  connotation  for  Mr.  Flaxer,  and  an  invidious  reference  to  me.

    I  don't  know,  Mr.  Fisher,  whether  you  are  an  attorney  or  not.  May
    I  ask  if  you  are?

    Mr.  Fisher.  Yes ;  I  am  a  member  of  the  bar.

    Mr.  Forer.  If  you  are  a  member  of  the  bar,  all  I  can  say  is  that  you
    know  that  is  an  improper

    Mr.  Fisher.  I  have  never  been  ashamed  to  admit  whom  I  represent;
    I  have  never  been  insulted  by  anybody  asking  whom  I  represent.

    Mr.  Forer.  You  must  know  that  it  is  not  the  business  of  this  com-
    mittee.   I  can  represent  anj^body  I  want,  so  long  as  I  do  it  ethically.

    Mr.  Fisher.  Has  anyone  questioned  that  right  'i

    Mr.  Forer.  It  is  not  your  business  whom  I  represent.  It  is  not  the
    business  of  a  congressional  committee,  and  I  object  to  your  attempting
    to  make  it  your  business;  yes.

    Mr.  Fisher.  You  object  to  my  identifying  you  in  that  way,  and  by
    naming  one  of  your  clients  ?

    Mr.  Forer.  You  do  not  identify  me  by  naming  one  of  my  clients,
    and  you  know  that  very  well.

    Mr.  Fisher.  You  are  so  proud  of  him.  I  did  not  know  that  you
    were  sensitive  on  that  subject.

    Mr.  Forer.  I  am  proud  of  the  cases  I  handle,  and  you  do  not  identify
    me  by  naming  any  particular  client,  any  more  than  I  woidd  do  that  to
    you.    As  attorney,  I  consider  that  your  conduct  is  unethical.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  up  to  the  local  bar  again.  The  trouble  is,  all
    of  the  time  there  are  so  many  of  the  witnesses — let  me  go  ahead,  Mr.
    Fii^her — so  many  of  the  witnesses  and  their  counsel  assume  to  discipline
    the  committee,  which  is  a  prerogative  of  the  Congress  and  of  the  neAvs-
    papers,  which  give  us  plenty  of  criticism.

    INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI   STRIKE  149

    Mr.  FoRER.  It  is  also  not  the  prerogative  of  the  committee  to  dis-
    cipline. The  committee  has  no  prerogative  to  discipline  private
    individuals.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  are  not  trying  to,  we  have  no  authority  to  do  so,
    and  we  make  no  such  claim.

    Let  me  tell  you  about  this.  You  see,  the  Congress  wrote  the  Taft-
    Hartley  Act,  and  in  its  wisdom  or  unwisdom  it  put  in  certain  require-
    ments that  must  be  complied  with  by  labor  organizations.

    The  Congress  assumed  that  organized  labor  as  a  group  wanted  the
    right  of  collective  bargaining,  and  the  unions  asked  to  have  that  right
    made  available  to  them,  and  to  have  a  law  which  would  force  employers
    to  bargain  collectively,  and  so  we  passed  the  Taft-Hartley  Act,  and  we
    put  certain  conditions  in  there,  one  of  which  was  designed  to  squeeze
    Communists  out  of  labor  organizations.  Because  again  the  Congress,
    acting  for  the  people  it  represents,  thought  that  is  what  the  people
    wanted,  and  that  is  what  they  had  a  right  to  do.

    Now,  there  comes  this  question  of  this  union  calling  a  strike  here,
    which  it  had  a  right  to  do.  The  union  tries  to  bargain  collectively  with
    the  employer  and  the  employer  refused  to  do  that,  on  the  ground,  one  of
    the  grounds,  anyway,  that  the  union  officials  refused  to  deny  that  they
    were  Communists.

    We  all  know  that  the  employer  had  that  right  to  refuse.  One  of  the
    things  that  the  committee  was  interested  in  learning  was  by  what  au-
    thority the  Government  itself  closed  two  of  those  cafeterias  and  thus
    discriminated  against  the  people  who  wanted  to  work  there,  thus  de-
    prived the  people  who  use  the  cafeteria  from  obtaining  service  there.
    Mr.  FoRER.  Why  don't  you  ask  the  people  that  closed  it,  then  ?  If  I
    vv'anted  to  find  out  what  authority  a  person  had  to  close  the  Supreme
    Court  cafeteria,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  ask  the  person  that  closed  the
    Supreme  Court  cafeteria.
    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  have  already  done  that.

    Mr.  FoRER.  You  "will  not  find  it  out  from  Mr.  Flaxer

    Mr.  Hoffman.  But  we  want  to  ascertain

    Mr.  FoRER.  Or  from  me.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  wish  to  ascertain  among  other  things  whether
    the  employer  was  justified  in  its  assumption  that  this  union,  the  union
    officers,  were  Communists  or  not.

    They  have  refused  to  sign  a  statement  that  they  do  not  belong  to  an
    organization  which  advocates  the  overthrow  of  the  Government  by
    force.  And  so  it  is  part  of  the  business  of  this  committee  to  ascertain
    among  other  things  the  truth  or  the  falsity  of  that  charge,  and  then  to
    get  down  to  the  question  of  the  attorney,  if  this  man  refused  to  deny
    whether  or  not  he  is  a  Communist,  if  you  as  his  attorney  advise  him —
    and  you  have  been  advising  him  with  the  other  gentleman  here  right
    through  the  hearing — if  you  advise  him  that  he  should  not  answer,  as
    we  assume  that  you  may,  if  he  follows  your  advice,  then  we  have  a
    right  to  know,  I  think,  whether  or  not  you  are  defending  Communists,
    not  these  particular  people  alone,  but  others  along  down;  if  you  are
    making  a  specialty  of  defending  Communists.

    I  am  a  lawyer,  I  practiced  for  40  years.  I  have  never  denied,  and  I
    have  no  intent  to  deny  my  relationship  with  my  clients,  if  I  had  I
    would  not  take  the  cases.  If  you  are  ashamed  of  it,  that  is  all  right.
    If  you  just  say  it  is  none  of  our  business,  that  is  your  opinion.

    150  INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE

    Mr.  FoKER.  I  am  not  ashamed  of  any  case  that  I  am  in,  and  it  is  none
    of  your  business.    Suppose  we  leave  it  there.
    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  what  you  say.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Let  us  proceed.

    Mr.  Smith.  In  1939,  did  you  sue  somebody  for  libel  when  you  were
    president  of  the  A.  W.  P.  R.  A.  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  really  can't  remember.  I  really  don't  remember
    whether  I  sued  anybody  or  anything.

    Mr.  Smith.  Well,  it  seems  to  me  if  I  sued  for  libel

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Pardon

    Mr.  Smith.  I  would  remember  it.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  1936.

    Mr.  Smith.  Rossi ;  was  Mr.  Rossi  your  attorney  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Wlio?

    Mr.  Smith.  Leopold  Rossi.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  No.

    Leopold  Rossi  is  an  attorney,  or  used  to  be  an  attorney  for  a  civil-
    service  organization  in  New  York,  called  the  Civil  Service  Forum,
    was  never  our  attorney.

    Mr,  Smith.  And  you  do  not  know  whether  he  was  an  attorney  for
    the  defendant  in  that  case  or  not  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Well,  I  don't  recall  that  I  ever  sued  anyone,  so  I  don't
    know  who  the  defendant  was,  or  who  his  attorney  was.

    Mr.  Smith.  Your  name  is  Abraham  Flaxer,  is  it  not?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Correct.

    Mr.  Smith.  Do  you  know  of  any  other  Abraham  Flaxer  up  in  New
    York  that  has  been  around  suing  people  for  libel  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  No.

    Mr.  Smith.  And  if  the  Supreme  Court  of  New  York  has  Abraham
    Flaxer  in  there  where  he  sued  a  man  for  libel  and  this  Leopold  Rossi
    was  the  defendant's  attorney,  you  do  not  think  you  are  the  man  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  don't  think  I  am  the  man.

    Mr.  Smith.  Who  is  president  of  the  union  in  Panama,  your  union
    down  in  Panama?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  The  president  ?

    Mr.  Smith.  Yes.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Of  the  union  ?

    Mr.  Smith.  Yes.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  A  chap  by  the  name  of  Oraz.

    Mr.  SMriH.  Oraz?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Oraz.     He  is  a  Panamanian  citizen.

    Mr.  Smith.  Panamanian  citizen.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  believe;  yes.

    Mr.  Smith.  And  how  many  of  the  members  of  that  union  of  yours
    down  in  Panama  are  American  citizens?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  That  I  don't  know,  sir.

    Mr.  Smith.  How  long  since  you  have  seen  this  Oraz?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  haven't  seen  him  at  all.

    Mr.  Smith.  Never  have  seen  him;  never  have  seen  him?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Never  saw  him.

    Mr.  Smith.  Who  do  you  correspond  with  down  there?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Well,  I  normally  correspond  with  the  international
    representatives  that  the  union  sends  down  there.

    INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE  151

    Mr.  Smith.  What  do  you  mean,  the  international;  is  that  an  inter-
    national union  of  UPW?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  The  national  union,  as  you  call  it.  The  national  union,
    that  is  just  nomenclature.     The  national  organization.

    Mr.  Smith.  The  UPW.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  United  Public  Workers  of  America  is  a  national  union,
    and  we  have  national  representatives  that  we  send  from  the  national
    office  to  various  parts  of  the  country  where  we  try  to  organize.  And  it
    is  with  these  people  primarily  that  I  correspond  unless  the  local  officials
    want  to  correspond  with  me  about  matters  that  they  want  to  learn
    about,  or  whatever  else.

    Mr.  Smith.  Have  you  had  occasion  to  do  much  corresponding  with
    that  Panamanian  local  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  In  the  early  days  when  it,  I  did,  but — ■ —

    Mr.  Smith.  Have  you  seen  any  representative  of  that  local  within
    the  last  6  months?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Well,  I  don't  know  what  you  mean  by  representatives
    of  the  local.

    Mr.  Smith.  Some  of  their  local  officers.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  No.

    Mr.  Smith.  Have  you  ever  seen  any  of  them  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  No.

    Mr.  Smith.  And  all  you  know  about  your  local  down  in  Panama
    is  by  correspondence  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Yes ;  not  only  by  correspondence — we  get  reports  from
    the  local.

    Mr.  Smith.  I  mean  by  some  form  of  communication.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  No,  no ;  we  have  our  own  representatives  there.  I  was
    trying  to  tell  you  that  we  have  field  men  whom  we  sent  down  there  and
    who  stay  there  from  time  to  time.

    Mr.  Smith.  Then  they  come  back  and  report  to  you  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  They  come  back,  yes;  they  report  to  me  as  president;
    they  might  report  to  the  national  executive  board.

    Mr.  Smith.  How^  long  since  one  of  those  men  came  up  and  reported
    to  you  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Well,  last  man  that  came  up,  last  report  made  to  the
    executive  board  was  made  in,  I  guess,  last  August.

    Mr.  Smith.  Last  August?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Yes.

    Mr.  Smith.  Were  you  president  when  he  made  his  report?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Yes;  certainly.

    Mr.  Smith.  What  did  he  say  when  he  came  back  about  the  Pana-
    manian Government  going  to  make  the  United  States  take  all  of  their
    airfields — get  them  back  into  the  Canal  Zone?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  He  said  nothing  about  it,  sir.

    Mr.  Smith.  Did  he  not  say  anything  about  it?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Of  course  not.

    Mr.  Smith.  Did  you  have  any  members  in  your  union  out  on  those
    dozens  of  airfields  scattered  around  over  Panama?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  don't  think  we  have  any  members  in  the  interior.
    Most  of  our  members  are  just  on  the  Isthmus.

    Mr.  Smith.  On  the  Isthmus  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Yes.

    72913—48 11

    152  INVflSTIGATION    OF   GSI    STRIKE

    Mr.  Smith.  How  many  do  you  have — employees  do  you  have  or
    members  do  you  have  in  Guam '{

    Mr.  Flaxer.  We  have  none,  sir.

    Mr.  Smith.  How  many  members  of  your  union  do  you  have  lu
    Europe  at  this  time?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  What  do  you  mean  by  that?    I  don't  quite  understand.

    Mr.  Smith.  I  mean  members  of  your  organization.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  In  the  armed  forces  ?

    Mr.  Smith.  That  are  in  it  working  for  some  civilian  capacity  over
    with  the  Army,  and  over  in  Germany  or  Austria  or  France  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  really  don't  know  of  any.

    Mr.  Smith.  What  is  your  best  judgment  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  would  say  none  is  my  best  judgment,  unless  the  mem-
    bers of  our  union  who  were  in  the  armed  services  still  are  staying  there,
    but  they  would  be  members  who  would  not  be  paying  dues ;  we  exon-
    erate those  who  are  in  the  service.

    Mr.  Smith.  You  do  not  think  any  of  the  five  or  six  thousand — the
    civilian  employees  in  Europe — are  members  of  your  union  (

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  would  say  I  doubt  it  very,  very  much  if  any  of  them
    are  members  of  our  union.

    Mr.  Smith.  Do  you  think  that  a  Government  employee  has  a  right
    to  strike  against  the  Government?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Well,  our  union  passed  a  law.

    Mr.  Smith.  That  is  not  what  I  asked  you.  I  asked  you  whether  an
    employee  of  the  Government  has  a  right  to  go  out  on  strike  to  enforce
    some  demand  against  his  Government.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Well,  I  told  you  before,  sir,  that  the  policies  of  our  own
    international  union  or  national  union  on  these  matters  are  my  policies,
    and  become  my  opinions,  the  policy  of  this  union  is  that  it  is  illegal  to
    strike  against  the  Federal  Government;  that  therefore  becomes  my
    policy,  and  my  opinion.    Have  I  made  myself  clear?

    Mr.  Smith.  There  is  a  law  against  it,  too.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Of  course,  but  that  was  our  policy  before  the  law  was
    passed.

    Yes :  I  indicated  that  the  Taft-Hartley  Act  has  a  special  provision
    ^vhich  prohibits  Federal  employees  from  striking  against  the  Federal
    Government,  but  we  had  such  a  policy  before  that  law  was  passed.

    Mr.  Smith.  You  do  not  think  that  is  an  inherent  right  in  the  indi-
    vidual •  to  strike  against  his  Government?

    Ml".  Flaxer.  Well,  I  am  not,  I  don't  think  we — that  is  certainly  not
    an  inherent  right,  no.    No ;  it  is  not  an  inherent  right.

    Mr.  Smith.  Did  you  confer  with  Secretary  Schwellenbach  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Pardon  ?

    Mr.  Smith.  Have  you  conferred  with  Secretary  Schwellenbach  2  or
    3  days  ago  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  That — yes;  that  is  a  matter  of  public  record.

    Mr.  Smith.  Who  was  with  you  at  that  meeting?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  guess  I  have  to  answer  these  questions.

    Mr.  Smith.  No,  no;  you  do  not  have  to  answer  anything,  just  give
    us  that  old  stock  phrase.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  just  don't  know  that  there  are  certain  things  that  I
    would  be  revealing  confidence.

    INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE  153

    Mr.  Smith.  I  do  not  want  you  to  reveal  any  state  secrets  about  Mr.
    Schwellenbach ;  if  you  do  not  want  to  answer  it,  just  skip  it.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Let  us  find  out  who  told  him.  You  are  asking  about
    v>ho  visited  him.

    Mr.  FoRER.  Have  you  withdrawn  the  question,  General  Smith  ?

    Mr.  HoFFMAX.  Pardon  me.    Go  ahead.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  If  you  still  insist  on  an  answer,  I  will  give  it  to  you.

    Mr.  Smith.  I  will  not  insist  on  anything.  You  will  be  answering
    that  question — you  do  not  need  to  answer  that  question  at  all.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  just  want  to  be  understood.  I  am  not  refusing  to
    answer  that  question.

    ]Mr.  Smith.  I  understand  that.

    Do  you  know  a  man  by  the  name  of  Budenz  ?  Does  that  word  mean
    anything  to  you?

    JNIr.  PYaxer.  I  know  of  him.

    Mr.  Smith.  How  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Certainly,  that  word  means  something  to  a  lot  of  peo-
    ple who  read  the  newspapers.

    Mr.  Smith.    Have  you  ever  had  any  acquaintance  with  him  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Well,  now,  that  again;  I  could  answer  that  question
    directly,  sir,  but  I  think  that  again  falls  into  the  category  of  questions
    which  on  principles — as  a  principle  matter  I  refuse  to  answer.

    ]Mr.  Smith.  The  man  I  am  talking  about  is  a  professor  up  here  in
    one  of  the  New  York  universities,  professor  of  economics.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Why  do  you  want  me — are  you  asking  whether  I  know
    certain  j)rofessors  of  economics;  is  that  it^  I  mean,  is  that  the  rea-
    sons?

    Mr.  Smith.  I  asked  you  whether  or  not  you  knew  Louis  Budenz,
    and  you  said  that  you  did  not  want  to  answer  it.

    Now,  that  is  sufficient.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Has  he  refused  to  answer?

    Mr.  Smith.  He  just  said  that  falls  in  that  category;  that  when  he
    waves  his  hand  and  gives  that  long  general  statement

    ISIr.  Hoffman.  You  mean  you  refuse  to  answer?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Well,  I  indicated  that;  that  that  particular  answer
    falls  in  that  general  category,  of  course.

    JNIr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  refuse  to  answer  whether  you  know  the  gen-
    tleman he  named  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Yes;  I  do.

    Mr.  Smith.  Did  you  make  any  speeches  against  Russia  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  It  is  possible.

    Mr.  Smith.  How?

    INIr.  Flaxer.  It  is  possible.

    Mr.  Smith.  Tell  me  one  place  where  you  made  a  speech.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  would  rather  make  the  same  answer  as  before.

    Mr.  Smith.  I  see.     That  is  all.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Mr.  Klein.

    Mr.  Klein.  Mr.  Flaxer,  you  have  said  that  you  are  interested  in
    settling  the  strike  and  so  am  I.    That  is  why  I  am  here.

    I  am  inclined  to  agree  with  you  that  the  questions  as  to  your  po-
    litical beliefs  or  whether  you  are  a  member  of  any  so-called  Commu-
    nist-front'organization  may  be  irrelevant,  but  I  want  to  ask  you  a
    couple  of  questions.

    154  INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE

    Mr.  Hoffman,  Right  there — but  you  will  concede  the  right  of  the
    committee  to  ask?

    Mr,  Klein.  Yes,  and  he  has  a  right  to  refuse  to  answer  these  ques-
    tions.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  for  the  court  to  determine  later  on.

    Mr.  Klein.  Your  union  has  refused  to  sign  the  non-Communist
    affidavit ;  is  that  not  so  ?  Let  us  take  this  particular  local  first.  Wliat
    is  the  number  ?     471  ?

    Mr.  Smith.  471.

    Mr.  Flaxer,  The  local  union  has  so  far  refused  to  comply  with  the
    Taft-Hartley  provisions.

    Mr,  Klein.  I  am  talking  specifically  of  the  provision  which  pro-
    vides for  the  filing  of  this  so-called  non-Communist  section.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Yes.

    Mr.  KJLEiN.  They  have  not  availed  themselves  of  that  particular
    section.

    Mr.  Flaxer,  Yes,

    Mr,  Klein.  Is  that  a  policy  of  the  national  organization  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Well,  I  guess  I  have  to  answer  you  as  I  did  before  on
    this  particular  question ;  that  is,  it  is  the  policy  of  all  CIO  unions  to
    try  to  fight  the  repressive  character  of  the  Taft-Hartley  law  to  the
    end  of  its  being  repealed.

    However,  the  question  of  signing  or  not  signing  the  affidavits  are
    left  to  the  various  international  unions.  Our  international  union  does
    not  fall  Avithin  the  provisions  of  the  Taft-Hartley  Act.  Only  some
    of  our  locals  may,  I  doubt  whether  any  do,  insofar  as  those  locals
    are  concerned,  they  have  local  autonomy.

    Mr.  Klein,  In  other  words,  there  is  no  policy  regarding  the  national
    organization,  you  leave  it  up  to  any  particular  local?

    Mr,  Flaxer.  No  more  than  as  a  general  policy  of  the  CIO.

    Mr,  K1.EIN,  Are  j^ou  prepared  to  tell  this  committee  or  me  as  to  the
    reasons  why  this  local  did  not  sign  and  file  that  particular  affidavit?

    Mr.  Flaxer,  I  think  that  you  could  get  that  answer  a  little  bit  better
    from  the  local  union  officers,

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  want  the  local  union  officers  to  answer. that?

    Mr.  Klein,  Whenever  you  call  them  I  will  talk  to  them,

    Mr.  Hoffman.  All  right.

    Mr,  Klein,  It  is  a  fact,  is  it  not

    Mr,  Flaxer,  The  only  comment  that  I  would  make,  the  reason  why
    I  suggested  that  you  talk  to  the  local  officers,  is  that  they  might  give
    you  a  more  authoritative  and  definitive  answer  to  that.

    Mr,  Klein,  Either  you  or  the  national  organization  has  not  advised
    the  officials  of  this  organization.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  would  not  say  that ;  I  believe  we  have  discussed  the
    problem.

    Mr.  Klein.  You  did  not  tell  them  not  to  do  it  or  to  do  it  ?

    Mr,  Flaxer,  What  they  will  do  on  that  matter  or  what  they  have
    done  was  entirely  the  result  of  their  membership's  wishes.  I  attended
    several  of  their  membership  meetings.

    Mr.  Klfjn,  That  is  an  answer,  I  am  trying  to  help  you,  and  now
    do  not  make  a  speech,

    Mr,  Hoffman,  This  is  Mr.  Klein,  you  know.  I  know  he  wants  to
    help  you.     He  is  not  a  member  of  the  subcommittee,  but  he  is  a  mem-

    INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI    STRIKE  155

    ber  of  the  full  committee,  and  he  does  not  com,e  under  that  description
    your  attorneys  have  given  here.

    He  really  wants  to  be  helpful  to  you,  because  he  is  your  friends.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  The  point  1  want  to  make  is  that  I  want  some  assist-
    ance from  this  committee  to  help  solve  the  present  strike,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  Mr.  Klein  is  trying  to  help  you.

    Mr.  Klein.  That  is  my  purpose  here.  I  do  not  have  any  views  and
    it  does  not  interest  me  what  your  ideology  may  be,  and  what  organiza-
    tion you  may  belong  to  and  what  your  politics  may  be.

    I  want  to  see  if  I  cannot  settle  this  strike,  because  I  think  it  is  a
    very  praiseworthy  effort,  and  I  think  that  you  will  agree  with  me  on
    that.

    Is  it  true  that  Mr.  Philip  Murray,  who  is  the  head  of  the  CIO,  and
    also  the  president  of  the  Steel  Workers  Union  has  also  taken  the  posi-
    tion that  his  union  will  not  sign  and  file  this  so-called  Communist
    affidavit  ?

    Can  you  mention  any  other  large  unions  to  me  which  have  taken  the
    same  position  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  The  United  Electric  and  Radio  Workers  and  the
    United  Mine  Workers  have,  just  to  mention  three  of  the  largest  unions
    in  the  country,  and  the  Typographical  Union  has.

    I  understand  that  when  Secretary  Schwellenbach  was  testifying
    before  this  very  committee,  he  indicated  that  he  sent  out  about  67,000
    forms  for  the  filing  of  affidavits,  and  he  only  received  about  10,000,
    which  means  that  there  is  a  vast  majoritv  who  have  not  signed.

    Mr.  Klein.  You  have  stated  that  that  is  because  at  least  with  regard
    to  the  CIO,  it  is  a  general  policy  to  bring  out  the  bad  features  of  the
    Taft-Hartley  Act,  so  that  a  drive  may  be  made  to  repeal  the  act?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  would  not  put  it  that  way.  The  CIO  is  opposed  to
    the  law  because  of  its  restrictive  character.  The  CIO  does  not  feel
    that  there  are  any  benefits  to  be  gotten  from  the  National  Labor  Rela-
    tions Board  as  it  is  now  constituted  under  the  act.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  would  favor  the  repeal  of  the  act?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Most  definitely  so.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  The  whole  thing,  the  Taft-Hartley 'Act;  is  that
    right  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  would  leave  you  back  without  any  labor  law.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  With  some  analysis  of  this  present  labor  law,  our  view
    is  that  we  have  been  thrown  back  50  years.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  think  that  that  is  far  enough?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  It  is  a  bit  too  far  today.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Pardon  me,  Mr.  Klein ;  go  ahead.

    Mr.  Klein.  Now,  I  think  that  the  Solicitor  for  the  Labor  Depart-
    ment testified,  and  I  believe  the  general  counsel  for  the  National
    Labor  Relations  Board  testified  before  this  committee,  and  I  can  only
    judge  from  what  I  saw  in  the  newspapers,  and  they  testified  that  there
    IS  nothing  in  the  law  which  would  prohibit  an  employer  from  bargain-
    ing with  an  employee's  group  regardless  of  whether  they  signed  this
    or  not;  is  that  correct?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  That  is  entirely  correct.

    Mr.  Klein.  So  that  you  take  the  position  that  the  failing  to  file  this
    simply  means  that  you  do  not  subject  yourself  to  the  jurisdiction  of
    the  National  Labor  Relations  Board :  is  that  correct?

    156  INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE

    Mr.  Flaxer.  That  is  correct.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Your  failure  to  sign  fixes  it  so  that  you  cannot
    force  the  employer  to  bargain  with  you ;  does  it  not  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  do  not  think  that  signing  will  force  the  employer  to
    bargain  with  us.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  If  you  had  a  majority,  it  would.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  We  have  a  majority  today.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  said  if  the  Labor  Board  certified  your  union,  or  if
    the  Labor  Board  certified  that  471  was  a  representative  bargaining
    agent  of  the  local,  then  the  employer  would  have  to  bargain;  would
    it  not?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  It  might.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  know  it  would,  do  you  not?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  do  not.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  not  know  that  they  can  get  a  court  order,
    and  hold  them  guilty  of  an  unfair  labor  practice  if  they  did  not?

    You  know  that,  and  what  is  the  use  of  quibbling  about  it?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  No,  because  bargaining  with  GSI  at  present  doesn't
    necessarily  mean  a  peaceful  conclusion.  We  have  gone  through  bar-
    gaining with  GSI  for  a  number  of  years  now.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  did  not  say  anything  about  GSI;  the  question  I
    asked  you  was  if  you  did  not  know  that  if  you  had  an  election  and  the
    Labor  Board  certified  that  your  union  or  471  represented  the  workers,
    then  GSI  would  have  to  bargain  with  you  under  the  law.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Sure ;  but  you  do  not  care  to  follow  that  road.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  But  we  are  already  the  collective  bargaining  agent
    there,  and  we  have  been  for  10  years.

    There  is  no  question  of  representation  there  except  as  it  was  forced
    upon  us  by  GSI.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  will  admit  that  you  cannot  force  GSI  to  bar-
    gain, legally?

    Mr.  Flaxer,  Yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  So  you  have  appealed  to  the  President,  and  you  have
    tried  it  that  way.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Wliat's  wrong  with  that?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Nothing.     I  said  that  you  have  tried  it.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  have.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  you  have  not  succeeded ;  have  you  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  So  far,  I  have  not,  and  I  am  afraid  that  this  committee
    has  frightened  a  lot  of  people  off.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Mr.  Schwellenbach  and  the  President,  you  mean.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  am  very  much  concerned  about  that.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  They  may  not  like  it,  now.

    Will  you  tell  me  of  any  reason  that  you  know  of  as  to  why  the  officers
    of  471  should  not  sign  affidavits  that  they  are  not  members  of  or  that
    they  do  not  support  an  organization  that  believes  in  or  teaches  the
    overthrow  of  the  United  States  Government  by  force?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  would  like  to  talk  to  my  lawyer.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Wait  a  minute.     Do  you  want  to  consult  your  counsel
    on  that  to  find  out?
    ]    Yes ;  you  consult  him  if  you  have  to  do  that  on  that  question.

    INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI    STRIKE  157

    Mr.  FoRER.  I  think  that  he  ought  to  be  allowed  to  choose  his  own
    time  for  consulting  counsel  witliout  invidious  remarks.

    IVrr.  Hoffman.  Never  mind  the  remarks,  now.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  would  like  to  hear  that  question  repeated.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Read  the  question.

    (The  pending  question  was  then  read.)

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  am  in  no  position  to  know  any  reason.  If  they  want
    to  sign  petitions,  they  can  go  ahead  and  sign  petitions.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  believe  in  a  party  or  organization  which
    advocates  the  overthrow  of  the  Government  by  force?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Do  I  believe  in  a  party — you  mean  a  political  party?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  do  not  care  whether  it  is  a  political  party  or  fra-
    ternal organization  or  just  the  Sons  and  Daughters  of  I  Will  Arise.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  don't  believe  in  the  overthrow  of  the  Government  by
    force  and  violence,  if  that  is  the  question.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  you  would  not  give  support  to  any  such  or-
    ganization, would  you?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  would  not  and  I  have  not.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  you  Avould — does  that  mean  that  you  are  not  a
    member  and  never  have  been  a  member  of  the  Communist  Party?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  That  question  I  refuse  to  answer.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  are  getting  awful  close  to  an  answer  to  it.

    My  associate  suggests  this  question  :  Do  you  know  whether  the  Com-
    munist Party  advocates  the  overthrow  of  the  Government  by  force?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  am  no  authority  on  that,  sir,

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Well,  now,  I  will  ask  this  question ;  You  know  all
    Federal  employees,  it  is  my  information,  or  all  Members  of  Congress
    must  take  an  oath  without  any  mental  reservations  whatsoever  that
    they  will  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  all  Fed-
    eral employees,  Mr.  Klein  says,  too.

    Have  you  any  objection  to  that  oath  being  taken  by  Members  of
    Congress  or  Federal  employees?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Of  course  not,

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Then  what  is  your  objection  to  the  signing  of  an
    oath?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  have  suggested  to  GSI  that  in  order  to  expedite  col-
    lective bargaining  that  the  officers  of  471  sign  an  identical  oath  with
    the  oath  that  Federal  employees  sign,  a  loyalty  oath,

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Have  you  ever  suggested  to  them  that  they  sign
    this  oath  required  by  the  Taft-Hartley  Act?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  No."

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Would  you  suggest  that  they  sign  an  affidavit  that
    they  are  not  members  of  an  organization  which  advocates  the  over-
    throw of  the  Government  by  force  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Certainly.
    ■    Mr.  Hoffman.  Well,  that  is  part  of  that  oath.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  have  suggested  that  they  sign  such  an  oath.

    Mr,  Hoffman.  You  do  not  know  why  they  do  not  do  it,  then  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  GSI  does  not  want  to  accept  that  oath ;  the  employer.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  am  talking  about  this  oath ;  I  just  asked  you  about
    this  one  that  is  on  page  12  of  the  Taft-Hartley  Act,

    Mr.  Flaxer.  You  mean  the  Taft-Hartley  affidavit.

    158  INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  that  he  does  not  believe  in  or  is  not  a  member
    of  or  supports

    Mr.  Flaxer.  That  is  not  the  wording  of  the  affidavit  so  much,  Mr.
    Chairman,  that  we  object  to,  and  that  the  labor  movement  objects  to,
    It  is  the  Taft-Hartley  Act  itself,  and  any  provisions  thereof.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Assuming  that  these  people  in  the  back  of  the  room
    are  interested  as  former  employees  of  the  GSI,  the  thing  that  is  pre-
    venting them  going  back  to  work  is  the  refusal  of  these  officers  of  471
    to  sign  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  That  is  not  the  reason  they  cannot  go  back  to  work.
    That  is  the  reason  that  GSI  claims  they  cannot  go  back  to  work.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  no  matter  what  the  claims  are,  the  officers  just
    will  not  sign  it,  will  they  ?

    Mr.  Flaxer.  I  did  not  say  that.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  They  have  not  up  to  date.  I  think  that  that  is  all
    right;  and  I  want  to  hear  one  gentleman  here  that  was  coming  in,  if
    you  will  let  him  come  in,  and  then  we  will  start  tomorrow  morning  at
    10  o'clock.

    Mr.  Flaxer.  Do  you  want  me  back  at  10  o'clock?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Yes;  and  if  you  will  bring  that  resolution — if  you
    can  find  it.

    Do  you  solemnly  swear  in  the  matter  before  us  to  tell  the  truth,  the
    whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  so  help  you  God?

    Mr.  Mitchell.  I  so  swear.

    TESTIMONY  OF  CLARENCE  MITCHELL,  NATIONAL  LABOR  SECRE-
    TARY,  NATIONAL  ASSOCIATION  FOR  THE  ADVANCEMENT  OF
    COLORED  PEOPLE,  WASHINGTON,  D.  C.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Your  first  name  is  Clarence?

    Mr.  Mitchell.  Clarence  Mitchell ;  that  is  correct.

    Mr.  HoFFaiAN.  And  you  hold  what  position  with  the  National  Asso-
    ciation for  the  Advancement  of  Colored  People?

    Mr.  Mitchell.  I  am  the  national  labor  secretary.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  you  had  a  conference,  did  you,  with  Mr.  Flem-
    ing, or  did  you  write  him  a  letter?

    Mr.  Mitchell.  My  communication  was  a  letter  to  Mr.  Fleming.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Have  you  that  letter  or  a  copy  of  it?

    Mr.  Mitchell.  I  have  a  copy  of  a  similar  letter  which  I  addressed
    to  all  of  the  members  of  the  cabinet,  which  I  will  be  glad  to  submit
    for  the  record  if  you  wish.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  in  that  letter — and  we  will  take  the  letter  and
    receive  it  in  evidence  if  you  wish,  and  mark  it  as  exhibit  2.

    Mr.  Mitchell.  I  would  like  to  hold  it  until  I  finish  my  testifying.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  all  right.

    (The  letter  above  referred  to  was  marked  "Exhibit  No.  2"  and  filed
    for  the  information  of  the  committee.)

    Mr.  Hoffman.  In  that  letter  did  you  urge  the  cafeterias  involved  in
    this  strike  be  closed  ?

    Mr.  Mitchell.  That  is  correct,  Mr.  Chairman.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  May  I  have  that  letter  a  moment?

    Mr..  Mitchell.  Certainly.

    INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI    STRIKE  159

    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  asked  you  to  come  because  we  wanted  you  to
    have  full  opportunity  to  put  your  views  on  the  record.

    Mr,  Mitchell.  Certainl}'.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Now,  the  part  that  I  am  interested  in  is  this — and
    I  do  not  find  it  in  the  letter — that  the  vast  majority  of  the  cafeteria
    employees  in  the  strike  are  Negroes,  and  then  your  letter  charges
    that  the  real  problem  in  the  dispute  is  racial  rather  than  economic.

    Mr.  Mitchell.  I  think  that  you  will  find  that  on  the  first  page,  and
    the  first  paragraph.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Now,  the  vast  number  employed  were  Negroes,  before
    the  strike.

    Mr.  Mitchell.  The  vast  number  of  persons  involved  in  the  strike ;
    and  by  the  way,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  this  thing  an  amplifier — and  I  just
    want  to  make  sure  about  it.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  the  gentleman  right  back  of  you  who  could
    tell  you.

    Mr.  Mitchell.  I  did  not  want  to  talk  into  it  if  I  am  not  doing
    any  good  so  far  as  the  rest  of  the  audience  is  concerned.

    I  think,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  this  thing  which  is  dragged  on  and
    going  into  its  fifth  week  now  is  a  situation  that  is  a  real  disgrace
    to  the  Nation's  Capital,  and  I  think  any  of  you  gentlemen  who  sit
    here  in  this  committee  looking  out  at  those  persons  who  are  in  this
    audience  who  are  the  employees  of  the  Government  Services,  Inc.,
    can  realize  that  the  issues  involved  here  are  not  questions  of  whether
    people  are  or  are  not  members  of  the  Communist  Party.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Now,  wait  a  moment ;  that  is  not  what  I  was  asking
    you  about.

    Do  you  mean  to  tell  me  that  these  people  back  here — how  many
    of  you  were  former  employees  of  GSI  ?

    [Cries  of  "all  of  us."]

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  practically  all  of  them.  Now,  do  you  mean
    to  tell  me  that  those  people  out  there  who  formerly  worked  in  these
    cafeterias  refused  and  do  not  want  to  make  an  affidavit  that  they  are
    not  Communists?

    Mr.  Mitchell.  No.     I  am  saying  that  that  is  not  a  relevant  issue.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Whether  it  is  relevant  or  not  is  for  us,  and  not
    for  you.

    Mr.  Mitcheix.  I  think  that  I  should  make  this  personally  clear.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  just  answer  my  question;  and  now,  you  did  not
    want  to  come  back  tomorrow?

    Mr.  Mitchell.  As  I  understood  it,  I  was  here  at  your  invitation,
    and  I  am  very  happy  to  be  here.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  To  answer  some  questions  ?

    Mr.  Mitchell.  I  am  very  happy  to  appear  and  answer  any
    questions.

    Mr.  HoFFMxVN.  And  now,  I  will  ask  them.

    Mr.  Mitchell.  I  didn't  understand  that  you  wanted  me  to  answer
    it  in  one  word.

    Mr,  Hoffman,  Never  mind  what  I  want  or  do  not  want ;  I  want
    you  to  answer  my  questions,

    Mr,  Mitchell.  I  think  that  you  will  find  me  a  cooperative  wit-
    ness.    I  have  no  ax  to  grind  in  the  situation.

    160  INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Now,  these  people  need  jobs;  do  they  not?

    Mr.  Mitchell.  I  suppose  so.     They  act  like  it.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  they  went  out  on  strike  as  they  had  a  right
    to  do?

    Mr.  Mitchell.  That  is  correct.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  For  higher  wages,  we  will  say.

    Mr.  Mitchell.  That  is  correct.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  then,  whether  it  was  a  subterfuge  or  not,
    whether  it  was  sincere  or  not,  whether  it  was  the  real  reason  or  whether
    it  was  not,  GSI  refused  to  bargain  because  the  officers  of  471  would  not
    sign  an  afHdavit  stating  those  things  that  are  required,  that  they  were
    not  Communists?

    Mr.  Mitchell.  No,  that  is  not  correct ;  that  is  not  the  way  I  under-
    stand it.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Is  that  not  one  of  the  reasons  given  by  GSI  ?

    Mr.  Mitchell.  Not  always ;  that  was  not  the  reason.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Now,  let  us  stick  to  our  knitting.  That  was  one  of
    the  reasons,  was  it  not?

    Mr.  Mitchell.  I  think  it  would  be  impossible  for  me  to  answer  it
    the  way  you  want  me  to.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  do  not  care  how  you  answer  it  as  long  as  you  tell
    the  truth  about  it.

    Mr.  Mitchell.  I  am  not  accustomed  to  lying.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  am  not  assuming  that  you  are,  I  am  assuming  that
    you  are  going  to  tell  the  truth  as  all  good  citizens  do.

    Mr.  Mitchell.  As  a  member  of  the  Methodist  Church,  I  have  taken
    an  oath  saying  that  I  will.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  am  a  member  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  and  I  am
    trying  to,  too.  I  am  just  asking  you  as  one  man  to  another,  if  one  of
    the  reasons  given  by  GSI,  and  I  said  whether  it  was  the  real  reason
    or  whether  it  was  not,  one  of  the  reasons  given  for  the  refusal  to  bar-
    gain was  that  the  union  officers  would  not  sign  this  anti-Communist
    affidavit,  was  it  not  ?

    Mr.  Mitchell.  That  is  the  reason  they  gave.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Now,  let  it  go  at  that.  AVliy  did  not  the  officers  of  the
    union  sign  that  affidavit  if  they  wanted  to  bargain?

    Mr.  Mitchell.  You  are  not  asking  me  what  the  officers  are  thinking
    about.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Can  you  think  of  any  reason  why  any  American
    should  not  sign  an  affidavit  denying  that  he  believes  in  the  overthrow
    of  his  Government  by  force?

    Mr.  Mitchell.  I  hope  that  you  will  ask  an  American  citizen  to,  a
    fellow  American  who  does  not  happen  to  be  a  Congressman,  but  who
    is  a  taxpayer  and  a  citizen

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  probably  knows  more  than  a  Congressman ;  and
    we  will  admit  that.

    Mr.  Mitchell.  I  will  not  say  that.  I  am -trying  to  be  honest  and
    sincere  with  you,  Mr.  Chairman.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  So  am  I.

    Mr.  Mitchell.  I  am  saying  that  in  this  country  you  have  got  peo-
    ple who  have  lots  of  different  ideas  about  things.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  am  not  interested  in  that.  Read  him  the  question,
    and  listen  to  the  question,  Mr.  Mitchell,  please.

    INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI    STRIKE  161

    Mr.  Mitchell.  I  assume  you  don't  want  me  to  answer,  and  if  you
    are  not  going  to  let  me  say

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  do  not  want  a  lecture.

    We  will  adjourn  until  tomorrow  morning  at  10  o'clock.

    (Wliereupon,  the  subcommittee  adjourned  at  9 :  05  p.  m.,  until  10
    o'clock  a.  m.  of  the  following  day.)

    INVESTIGATION  OF  GSI  STEIKE

    TUESDAY,   FEBRUARY  3,    1948

    House  of  Representatives,

    Special  Subcommittee  of  the
    Committee  on  Education  and  Labor,

    Washington^  D.  C.
    The  subcommittee  met,  pursuant  to  recess,  at  10  a.  m.,  in  room  429,
    Old  House  Office  Building,  Hon.  Clarft  E.  Hoffman  (chairman  of  the
    subcommittee)  presiding.

    Also  present :  Hon.  Max  Schwabe,  of  Missouri,  Hon.  Carroll  D.
    Kearns,  of  Pennsylvania,  and  Hon.  Arthur  G.  Klein,  of  New  York,
    members  of  the  House  Committee  on  Education  and  Labor.
    Mr.  Hoffman.  The  committee  will  come  to  order.
    Mr.  Sands,  you  have  been  sworn.    I  will  hand  you  exhibit  3.

    TESTIMONY  OF  CHARLES  E.  SANDS— Recalled

    Mr.  Hoffman.  When  was  this  exhibit  3,  captioned  "Attention  air-
    port restaurant  employees,"  put  out  ?
    Mr.  Sands.  1946,  about  May,  I  think.
    Mr.  Hoffman.  Well,  now,  I  notice  you  signed :

    Charles  E.  Sands,  international  representative,  Hotel  and  Restaurant  Em-
    ployees Alliance  and  Bartenders  National  League  of  America.

    Mr.  Sands.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  Hoffman  (reading) :

    Proud  to  be  affiliated  with  the  American  Federation  of  Labor.

    Mr.  Sands.  That  is  still  right.
    -   Mr.  Hoffman.  Then  the  first  paragraph :

    The  CIO  cafeteria  workers  union  you  are  asked  to  vote  for  is  a  part  of  the
    United  Federal  Employees.

    What  union  were  they  being  asked  to  vote  for  at  that  time?

    Mr.  Sands.  There  was  an  election  in  the  National  Airport  Restau-
    rant between  local  471  or  no  union.  We  were  denied  a  place  on  the
    ballot.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  mean  the  A.  F.  of  L.  ? .

    Mr.  Sands.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  continue'  to  read  :

    Delegates  from  the  cafeteria  union  were  in  attendance  at  this  convention,
    among  them,  Mr.  Palmer,  the  business  agent.

    What  convention  are  you  talking  about?

    163

    164  INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE

    Mr.  Sands.  We  are  talking  about  the  convention  of  the  UPW,  which
    passed  the  alleged  communistic  resolutions,  and  condemned  the  for-
    eign policy  of  the  United  States  Government.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Lower  down  it  says :

    We  do  not  believe  that  you  want  to  be  tied  to  a  Moscow  kite.

    What  was  meant  by  that,  if  you  know  ?

    Mr.,  Sands.  Well,  we  joined  with  a  great  many  other  citizens  in
    the  press  generally,  and  we  were  rather  amazed  in  view  of  the  fact  that
    Mr.  Palmer  was  mentioned  for  one  of  the  mayors  of  the  District,  we
    were  very  much  amazed  that  he  sat  in  the  convention  complacently
    and  did  not  vote  or  say  anything  against  the  resolution.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  all,  I  think,  unless  you  had  something  of
    your  own.

    Mr.  Sands.  No.

    Mr.  Horr3iAN.  We  will  call  Mr.  Palmer.

    You  do  solemnly  swear  thai  the  testimony  which  you  shall  give
    shall  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  so  help
    you  God  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  I  do.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Your  attorney  is  with  you  this  morning?

    TESTIMONY  OF  OLIVER  T.  PALMER,  BUSINESS  AGENT,  LOCAL  471,
    UNITED  CAFETERIA  EMPLOYEES  UNION,  WASHINGTON,  D.  C.

    Mr.  Palmer.  Mr.  Forer.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Let  the  record  show  that  Mr.  Witt  is  also  here  this
    morning,  and  sitting  above  there.  Mr.  Witt,  if  you  care  to  sit  down
    with  the  witness,  it  is  all  right  with  me.

    Mr.  Witt.  I  appreciate  that.     I  will  stay  here.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  So  long  as  you  confine  yourself  to — what  would  I  say
    there,  what  would  you  say,  Mr.  Klein  ?

    ]\Ir.  Klein.  Confine  himself  to  advising  the  witness.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Confine  yourself,  as  Mr.  Klein  suggested,  to  advising
    the  witness  and  not  advising  the  committee  as  to  its  course.

    Oliver  Terrace  Palmer.

    Mr.  Palmer.  Not  ''Terrace,"  but  "Terrance";  1114  W  Street,  apart-
    ment 4,  Washington,  D.  C.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Mr.  Palmer,  what  office  do  you  hold  at  this  time  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  I  am  the  business  agent  of  local  471,  United  Cafeteria
    and  Restaurant  Workers.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Affiliated  with  what  national?

    Mr.  Palmer.  UPW,  CIO.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  residing  where?

    Mr.  Palmer.  The  office,  you  want  my  home  address  there,  or  the
    office  address  ?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Home  address.

    Mr.  Palmer.  1114  W  Street  NW.,  apartment  4,  Washington,  D.  C.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Did  you  sign  the  petition  urging  the  release  of  Earl
    Browder  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  I  did  not.

    INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE  165

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  never  signed  any  petition  urging  his  release?

    Mr.  Palmer.  Not  to  my  knowledge.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Well,  you  would  know  if  you  did.

    Mr.  Palmer.  I  assume  that  I  would.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  In  1941  you  were  a  member  of  the  executive  com-
    mittee of  the  National  Negro  Congress,  were  you  not?

    Let  the  record  show  that  he  is  consulting  comisel,

    Mr.  Palmer.  In  answer  to  the  question,  Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  my
    understanding  that  I  was  asked  to  come  to  this  hearing  to  discuss
    issues  concerning  the  strike.  The  question  that  you  have  asked  to  my
    mind  is  not  relevant  to  the  strike.  Therefore,  I  see  no  reason  why  I
    should  answer  that  question  as  being  a  proper  one  at  this  hearing.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  am  asking  you  again.  Were  you  in  1941  a  member
    of  the  executive  committee  of  the  Negro  Council  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  My  answer  to  that  question,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  the
    same.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Now,  just  a  moment.  We  are  going  to  get  along
    much  quicker  if  you  either  answer  the  question  or  refuse  to  answer
    it,  if  you  will,  please.

    Mr.  Palmer.  I  want  to  get  along,  too,  but  I  have  to  take  into  con-
    sideration that  here  I  represent  3,000  people  and  their  interests.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Well,  now,  you  are  just  making  a  speech;  there
    might  be  a  difference  of  opinion.

    Mr.  Palmer.  I  am  not  making  a  speech.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Wait  a  minute  until  I  get  through.

    Now,  when  I  ask  a  question,  wait  until  I  finish  the  question  and  then,
    if  you  will,  please,  have  the  courtesy  to  answer  the  question  or  refuse
    to  answer  it,  instead  of  discussing  something  else.  Now,  wait  a
    minute ;  I  did  not  ask  you.

    Mr,  Palmer.  As  a  supposition

    JMr.  Hoffman.  Wait  a  minute.

    Mr.  Palmer.  Surely.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  did  not  ask  you  how  many  people  you  represented
    nor  whom  you  represented.

    Mr.  Palmer.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  just  asked  you  a  very  simple  question  as  to  whether
    you  were  or  were  not  in  1941  a  member  of  the  executive  council  of
    the  National  Negro  Congress.

    You  can  answer  that,  I  think,  very  easily,  and  that  is  what  I  am
    asking  you  to  do.

    Mr.  Palmer.  Well,  if  the  question  is  not  relevant  to  the  strike

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Wait  a  minute.  It  does  not  fall  within  your  prov-
    ince to  pass  upon  the  relevancy  or  the  irrelevancy  of  the  questions
    we  ask.

    If  you  refuse  to  answer,  and  if  it  turns  out  later  that  it  was  a  ques-
    tion which  the  committee  had  no  right  to  ask,  some  court,  if  it  comes
    before  a  court,  will  so  advise  the  committee.  If,  on  the  other  hand,
    the  court  should  decide  that  the  question  was  proper,  and  within  the
    scope  of  our  investigation,  then  perhaps  your  refusal  to  answer  might
    or  might  not  be  contempt.    You  see  the  point  ?

    It  is  not  up  to  you  to  tell  us  what  to  ask.  It  is  up  to  us  to  ask,  and
    if  we  are  mistaken,  then  there  is  nothing  comes  of  it.

    Let  the  record  show  that  the  witness  again  consults  counsel.

    166  INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE

    Mr.  Palmer.  Mr.  Chairman.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Palmer.  I  want  to  make  my  position  very  clear.  This  investi-
    gation, as  I  understand  it,  concerns  the  strike.  This  is,  this  question
    is  not  relevant  to  the  strike.  The  interests  of  1,500  Negro  workers
    is  at  stake  here.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  have  dropped  1,500;  you  had  3,000  a  moment

    Mr.  Palmer.  It  will  be  1,500  immediately  at  stake.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  I  might  suggest  to  you  there  that  they  are  out
    of  work  because  of  the  course  followed  by  you  and  your  fellow  union
    officials.

    Mr.  Palmer.  We  disagree  on  that.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Just  a  moment.  You  folks  are  here  by  virtue  of  our
    courtesy.  Now,  you  will  either  refrain  from  demonstrations,  or  the
    room  will  be  cleared  of  all  except  the  reporters  and  the  witnesses  and
    their  attorneys.

    Mr.  Palmer.  We  disagree  on  that,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  if  we  disagree,
    that  is  an  honest  disagreement  on  my  part.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Admitting  all  of  that,  will  you  or  will  you  not,  sir,
    answer  the  question  I  just  asked  you  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  1  will  not  answer  a  question  that  is  not  relevant  to  the
    strike.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  In  other  words,  you  will  not  answer  this  question,
    is  that  right?

    Mr.  Palmer.  I  will  not  answer  a  question  that  is  not  relevant  to  the
    strike.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Now,  once  more,  and  for  the  last  time,  I  am  going
    to  ask  you  the  question :  Were  you  in  1941  a  member  of  the  executive
    committee  of  the  National  Negro  Congress  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  My  answer,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  the  same.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Is  it  "Yes"  or  "No,"  or  do  you  refuse  to  answer?

    Mr.  Palmer.  My  answer  is  I  will  not  answer  questions  that  are  not
    relevant  to  the  strike.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  you  reserve  the  right  to  determine  whether  or
    not  they  are  relevant,  do  you  not  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  No,  I  don't  reserve  the  right,  but  that  has — of  1941,
    has  nothing  to  do  with  1948.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  My  associate  suggests  I  ask,  are  you  a  member  of  the
    executive  committee  of  the  National  Negro  Congress  at  this  time?
    '  Mr.  Palmer.  That  is  not  relevant  to  the  strike.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Will  you  answer,  or  will  you  not  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  I  made  my  position  very  clear.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  No,  I  am  asking  you  the  plain  question,  you  can  say
    you  will  or  you  will  not.

    Mr.  Palmer.  I  made  my  position  very  clear,  that  this  is  not  relevant
    to  the  strike.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Well,  I  think  I  have  laid  a  foundation  so  that  any
    court  will  say  that  you  have  had  a  fair  opportunity  to  say  whether  you
    would  or  would  not  answer.

    Did  you  attend  a  banquet  for  Al  Lanon  on  or  about  March  6,  1946,
    in  Washington?

    Mr.  Palmer.  My  position  on  that  question  would  be  the  same.

    Mr.  HoFFlMAN.  That  is  to  say,  you  refuse  to  answer.

    INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE  167

    Mr.  Palmer.  That  certainly  would  be  the  same.  That  is  not  at  all
    relevant  to  the  strike  that  is  now  going  on.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Is  that  your  sole  reason  for  refusing  to  answ^er?

    Mr.  Palmer.  That  is  my  reason  that  I  am  setting  forth  at  this  time,

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  say — now,  just  a  moment.  Instead  of  delivering
    a  long  statement  here,  is  that — now,  wait  a  moment — now%  counsel,  if
    the  witness  is  going  to  answer,  well  and  good,  but  if  you  are  going  to
    sit  there  by  his  side  and  suggest  to  him  the  answer,  we  will  have  to  ask
    you  to  step  aside.  When  there  is  a  legal  point  involved,  that  is  all
    right,  but  for

    Mr.  FoRER.  I  am  not  suggesting  any  answers  to  the  witness.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  As  a  lawyer  I  cannot  concede  why  it  is  necessary  on
    almost  every  question  for  him  to  consult  counsel  before  he  answers,
    because  the  issues  involved  are  very  simple.

    Mr.  FoRER.  I  do  not  believe  that  he  has  consulted  counsel  before
    every  question.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Not  every  one,

    Mr.  FoRER.  Not  many  have  been  asked,  and  this  w-itness  is  testifying
    for  himself.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Is  there  any  reason  why  you  should  not  advise  him  to
    answer  directly  whether  he  will  or  will  not  answer  these  questions.  I
    am  asking  you,  as  a  lawyer  ?

    Mr.  FoRER.  As  a  law\yer,  Mr,  Hoffman,  you  know  that  I  cannot  dis-
    cuss what  advice  I  give  to  my  client,

    Mr,  Hoffman,  I  was  asking  whether  or  not  you  knew^  of  any  reason
    why  you  should  not  advise  him  as  a  lawyer,  as  your  client,  to  answer.

    Mr,  FoRER.  Mr.  Hoffman,  as  a  lawyer

    Mr.  Hoffman.  As  to  whether  he  would  or  would  not  make  replies.

    Mr.  FoRER.  I  am  sorry.  I  think  if  you  will  think  that  question  over
    3'ou  will  see  that  it  infringes  the  attorney-client  privilege.

    Mr,  Hoffman.  Mr,  Fisher  suggests  I  am  not  asking  you  to  divulge
    any  confidential  communication,

    Mr,  FoRER.  I  think  indirectly  it  amounts  to  that,

    Mr,  Hoffman,  The  situation  is  open  to  the  supposition,  perhaps
    very  remote,  that  some  of  the  answers,  are  the  answers  of  the  counsel,
    instead  of  the  answers  of  the  client.

    Mr.  FoRER.  Let  me  now  say,  Mr.  Hoffman,  that  that  is  not  so.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  am  glad  to  know  that,

    Mr,  FoRER.  Very  well.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Wliat  would  you  say  about  answering  that  question,
    as  to  whether  you  did  or  did  not  attend  this  banquet  to  Mr,  Lanon
    on  March  6,  1046,  or  alwut  that  date,  here  in  Washington,  the  ban-
    quet being  held  here  in  Washington?

    Mr.  Palmer.  As  I  have  stated  before,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  do  not  appear
    here  personally  representing  myself.

    Mr.  Hoff3ian.  Yes;  you  are  here  personally,  and  if  it  turns  out
    that  you  are  in  contempt  of  the  committee  or  of  Congress,  you  w^ill  go
    to  jail  personally,  if  the  judge  so  decides,  the  union  will  not  go,  none
    of  these  people  back  here  will  go,  they  are  not  witnesses.  This  is  your
    personal  responsibility.

    Mr.  Palmer.  They  are  questions  involved  that  are  propounded  for
    obscuring  real  issues  here,  and  I  have  a  responsibility.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  if  you  guess  wrong  about  that,  yovt  would  still
    be  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court.     I  am  trying  to  protect  you

    72913 — 48 12

    168  INVESTIGATION    OF   GST    STRIKE

    and  prevent  your  getting  into  a  situation  that  may  hereafter  be  very,
    very  unpleasant,  and  I  do  that  in  all  good  faith,

    Mr.  Palmer.  I  in  all  good  faith  want  to  cooperate  with  the  com-
    mittee in  answering  questions  concerning  the  strike.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  want  to  know  one  thing  that  the  committee  is
    anxious  to  learn,  and  I  think  the  full  committee  too,  and  the  Congress,
    and  that  is  whether  back  of  this  strike  there  are  Communists  and  com-
    munistic influences.     That  is  one  thing  we  are  driving  at.

    Mr.  Palmer.   You  are  driving

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  so  charged.  Whether  that  is  true  or  not,  I  do
    not  know.

    Mr.  Palmer.  Are  you  driving  on  both  sides  to  find  out  what  caused
    the  strike,  Mr.  Chairman  ?

    Mr.  Hoffman.   As  to  whether  there  are  communistic  influences.

    Mr.  Palmer.  No  ;  on  both  sides,  as  to  the  real  cause  of  the  strike.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  The  employer  is  not  required  to  sign  any  anticom-
    munistic  affidavit.

    Mr.  Palmer.  But  I  mean  the  employers'  activity  here  is  certainly
    involved  in  what  has  caused  this  strike.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Well,  so  far  as  Mr.  Fisher  suggests,  the  GSI  officials
    have  answered  all  that  we  have  asked.

    Have  I  made  that  clear,  our  question  and  his  refusal  to  answer  ?

    Do  you  remember  the  banquet  that  was  given  here  on  or  about
    March  6, 1946,  for  Al  Lanon,  when  he  was  leaving  district  No.  4  of  the
    Communist  Party  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  Here  again  we  have  another  question  similar  to  the
    one  that

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  say-

    INIr.  Palmer.  Just  asked.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  refuse  to  answer  that  question  'i

    Mr.  Palmer.  These  questions  all  have  one

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  refuse  to  answer  the  question  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  My  answer  to  that  would  be  the  same,  that  it  is  an
    irrelevant  question.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  hence  you  refuse

    Mr.  Palmer.  Irrelevant  to  the

    Mr.  Hoffman.   You  refuse  because  the  question  is  irrelevant?

    Mr.  Palmer.  No  ;  I  have  other  reasons  for  refusing.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  What  other  reasons  have  you  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  Simply  because  the  answering  of  such  questions  at  this
    time,  at  a  time  like  this,  certainly  would  be  inimical  to  the  interests  of
    these  workers.     I  have  a  responsibility  here.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Well,  assuming  that  Mr.  Lanon  was  a  Communist,
    you  think  that  hooking  you  up  with  him  would  injure  the  interests  of
    the  union,  and  the  members,  do  you  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  That  again  is  an  irrelevant  question  to  what  is  going
    on.

    Mr.  Fisher,  You  said  it  would  be  inimical  to  the  interests  of  the
    workers.  Now,  why  do  you  say  it  would  be  inimical?  Just  why
    would  it  be  inimical?  Answer  that  question  as  to  your  connection
    with  this  man  he  asked  you  about.

    Mr.  Palmer.  In  connections  with  what  man  ?

    Mr.  Fisher.  How  is  that?

    INVESTIGATION"   OF   GSI    STRIKE  169

    Mr.  Palmer.  You  say  connections  with  wliom  ?

    Mr.  Fisher.  With  the  man,  what  is  his  name  'i

    Mr.  Hoffman.  A1  Lanon.

    Mr.  Fisher.  The  Communist.

    Mr.  Palmier,  Why,  certainly  this  is  not  relevant  to  the  strike.

    Mr.  Fisher.  You  said  it  would  be  inimical  to  the  interests  of  the
    workers.  Why  would  it  be  inimical  to  the  interests  of  the  workers  for
    you  to  answer  that  question  i  What  is  there  in  the  question  that  would
    be

    Mr,  Paemer.  I  don't  see  where  it  is  relevant  at  all  to  the  strike,  and
    the  cause  of  the  strike.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Have  you  any  other  reason  than  those  you  have,
    given  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  No.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  What?

    Mr.  Palmer.  Not  at  this  time.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Well,  have  you  at  some  other  time  that  you  want
    to  come  in  and  give  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  May  I  consult  with  him  ?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Just  a  minute.  Let  the  record  show  on  this  particular
    occasion,  sitting  before  us,  counsel  nudged  the  witness,  and  then  con-
    ferred with  him,  before  the  witness  would  ask  counsel  for  advice.

    What  do  you  say  now?

    Mr.  Palmer.  You  have  another  question  to  ask  ?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  did  not  answer  the  last  one.

    Mr.  Palivier.  Oh,  I  mean

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Have  you  any  other  reason,  have  you  any  reason
    other  than  those  you  have  given  as  to  why  you  should  not  answer
    this  last  question,  or  any  of  the  others?

    Mr.  Palmer.  In  addition  to  the  reasons  that  I  set  forth,  I  do  not
    think  that  it  is  proper  to  answer  questions  that  concern  me  personally,
    my  personal  beliefs,  at  all,  because  they  are  not  why  I  have  anything
    to  do  with  the  situation.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Have  you  ever  been  a  member  of  the  Communist
    Party?

    Mr.  Palmer.  My  answer  to  that  would  be  I  think  that  is  a  very
    improper  question.

    ^Ir.  HoFF^iAN.  I  mean  do  you  refuse  to  answer  the  question?

    Mr.  Paunier.  I  would  not  answer.  I  don't  want  to  answer  that
    question.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  What  is  that?

    Mr.  Palmer.  I  won't  answer  that  question.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Have  you  ever  been  affiliated  with  the  Communist
    Party  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  My  answer  to  that  would  be  the  same.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  did  you  know  in  1941,  and  subsequently,  in
    11)4(),  that  Lanon,  Al  Lanon,  was  or  was  not  a  Communist?

    Mr.  Palmer.  My  answer  to  that  would  be  the  same.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  refuse  to  answer.

    I  am  asking  you  if  you  did  not  at  a  dinner,  at  a  banquet  held  here
    on  March  6,  1946,  make  a  speech  from  the  floor  in  which  j-ou  compli-
    mented Lanon  for  the  fine  work  that  he  had  done  while  an  official  of
    the  Communist  Party?

    Mr.  Palmer.  My  answer  to  that  would  be  the  same.

    170  INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE

    Mr.  Hoffman,  Did  the  banquet  end  with  the  singing  of  the  Inter-
    nationale?

    Mr.  Palmer.  My  answer  to  that  would  be  the  same.
    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  will  ask  you  if  you  did  not  attend  a  meeting  of
    the  Communist  Political  Association  in  Washington  on  July  15,
    1945.

    Mr.  Palmer.  My  answer  to  that  would  be  the  same.
    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  am  correct  in  understanding  that  you  refuse  to
    answ^er  any  and  all  of  those  questions  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  For  the  reasons  that  I  have  given.
    Mr,  Hoffman.  For  the  reasons  you  have  given,  and  not  for  any
    reason  that  the  answ'er  might  tend  to  incriminate  you  or  to  disgrace
    you.

    Mr.  Palmer.  Certainly  not.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Now,  you  have  refused,  have  you  not,  to  sign  the
    affidavits  required  as  a  condition  precedent  to  bargaining  required
    by  the  Taft-Hartley  Act,  as  a  condition  precedent  to  collective
    bargaining.

    Mr.  Palmer.  May  I  understand  the  question  clearly,  Mr.  Chairman  ?
    Mr.  Hoffman.  All  right,  we  will  start  over  again.
    You  understand  that  if  you  want  to  force  an  employer  to  bargain
    under  the  Taft-Hartley  Act,  that  the  officers  of  the  union  must  sign
    certain  affidavits  set  forth  on  page  12  of  Public  Law  101.
    Mr.  Palmer.  I  don't  understand,
    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  show  you  this  section  B.
    Mr.  Palmer.  I  am  acquainted  with  it,
    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  are  familiar  with  it?

    Mr.  Palmer.  I  don't  understand  that  such  qualifications  and  con-
    ditions can  be  imposed  upon  a  bargaining  agent  by  an  employer  for
    the  purpose  of  collective  bargaining.    That  is  not  the  law,

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  to  say  the  employer  may,  if  he  wishes,  bar-
    gain with  a  bargaining  agent,  even  though  the  officers  of  that  union
    have  not  signed  these  affidavits,

    Mr.  Palmer.  Under  the  present  law.

    Mr.  Hoft'man.  Yes ;  that  is  right.

    Mr.  Palmer.  The  obligation  of  the  employer  to  bargain  is  the  same

    as  it  was  under  the  Wagner  Act.    It  is  an

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Wait  a  moment.    We  agi'ee  with  you.
    Mr.  Palmer.  It  is  an  unfair  labor  practice  for  an  employer  to  refuse
    to  bargain  under  the  present  law  with  the  duly  elected  representative
    of  his  employees,  of  its  employees,

    Mv.  Hoffman.  But  only  if  the  employees  union's  officers  have  com-
    plied with  the  Taft-Hartley  Act.
    Mr.  Palmer.  That  is  not  the  law.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Well,  you  may  be  mistaken  again  about  that.  Will
    you  read  .  ubdivision  (b)  here  to  us?

    Well,  I  made  a  mistake.    I  will  give  you  wdiat  is  underscored  here.
    Mr.  Palmer.  I  have  it  in  front  of  me,
    Mr,  PIoFFMAN.  Read  wdiat  is  underscored.

    Mr.  Palmer.  You  want  me — what  vou  want  me  to  read  is  section
    9  (h),  is  that  it?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  On  page  12,  section  (h).
    Mr.  Palmer.  Okay.

    INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE  171

    Mr.  HoFFMAX.  I  don't  care  about  the  first  part.
    Mr.  Palmer.  You  just  want  what  is  underscored.
    Mr.  Hoffman.  Just  begin  down  there,  read  (h) ,  if  you  will.    Strike
    out  all  of  the  rest  of  it.
    Mr.  Palmer  (reading)  :

    No  investigation  shall  be  made  by  the  Board  of  any-  question  affecting  com-
    merce concerning  the  representation  of  employees  raised  by  a  labor  organiza-
    tion under  subsection  (c)  of  this  section.  No  petition  under  section  9  (e)  shall
    be  entertained  and  no  complaints  shall  be  issued  pursuant  to  a  charge  made  by  a
    labor  organization  under  subsection  (b)  of  section  10,  unless  there  is  on  file
    with  the  Board  an  affidavit  executed  contemporaneously  or  within  the  preceding
    12-month  period  by  each  officer  of  such  labor  organization  and  the  officers  of  any
    national  or  international  labor  organization  of  which  it  is  an  affiliate  or  con-
    stituent unit,  that  he  is  not  a  member  of  the  Communist  Party,  or  affiliated  with
    such  party,  and  that  he  does  not  believe  in  and  is  not  a  member  of  or  supports
    any  organization  that  believes  in  or  teaches  the  overthrow  of  the  United  States
    Government  by  force  or  by  any  illegal  or  unconstitutional  methods.  The  pro-
    visions of  section  35  (a)  of  the  Criminal  Code  shall  be  applicable  in  respect  to
    such  affidavits.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  as  an  officer  of  this  471  refuse  to  sign  an  affi-
    davit that  you  do  not  believe  in,  and  that  you  are  not  a  member  of,  and
    that  you  do  not  support  any  organization  that  believes  in  or  teaches
    the  overthrow  of  the  United  States  Government  by  force,  do  you  not?

    Mr.  Palmer.  Let  me  state

    Mr.  Hoffman.  No,  no ;  that  is  another  question  that  you  can  easily
    answer.     You  refused  to  sign  such  an  affidavit,  have  you  not?

    Mr.  Palmer.  That  is  inaccurate.  The  question  is  inaccurate  and
    it  is  not  applicable  to  the — not  applicable  to  the  situation.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Have  you  not  refused  to  sign  such  an  affidavit  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  The  question

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Listen.  Did  you  ever  learn  that  you  could  answer
    a  question  sometimes  by  yes  or  no?

    Mr.  Palmer.  Well,  in  this  instance  I  would  like — —

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Did  you  ever  get  hungry  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  I  would  like  to  explain.  We  all  do.  And  they  are —
    we  all  do.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  know,  do  you  not,  that  if  you  want  to  force  the
    GSI  to  bargain  with  your  union  you  will  have  to  sign  one  of  these
    affidavits?

    Mr.  Palmer.  No,  I  don't  know  that,  because  I  dont'  know

    Ml-.  Hoffman.  You  do  not  know  that ;  you  will  learn  that  before  you
    get  tlirough,  I  think,  and  it  is  too  bad  that  because  of  your  position  on
    that  the  members  of  your  union  have  lost  their  jobs.

    Mr.  Palmer.  My  position

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Yes.

    Mr.  Palmer.  That  is  an  inaccurate  statement.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Yes,  I  know.

    Mr.  Palmer.  And  it  can't  be  correct.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Any  way

    Mr.  Palmer.  It  can't  be  correct.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  How  many  of  the  members  of  471  are  now  out  of
    jobs,  not  working?

    Mr.  Palmer.  A  number  of  members  that  are  on  strike.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  How  many?

    Mr.  Palmer.  Approximately  I  would  say  12  or  13  hundred  people.

    172  INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI   STRIKE

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Former  employees  of  GSI.

    Mr.  Palmer.  Not  former  employees,  employees  of  GSI.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  All  right,  we  will  not  quibble  about  that.  But  there
    are  approximately  12  or  13  hundred  members  of  your  union  who,  you
    say,  are  employees  of  GSI,  are  not  now  working  in  these  cafeterias,
    are  they  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  They  are  on  strike.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  say  they  are — can  you  not  answer  that  question  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  On  strike  means  that  they  would  not  be  in  the  cafeteria
    working.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  So  the  answer  is  that  they  are  not  working,  is  it  not?
    Wliy  can  you  not  be  friendly  and  agreeable,  and  when  there  is  a  simple
    question,  answer  it.

    Mr.  Palmer.  I  can't  be  friendly  and  agi'eeable  when  you  are  trying
    to  persecute  1,500  colored  workers,  and  deny  them  the  right  to  have  a
    union.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Nobody

    Mr.  Palmer.  And  that  is  the  purpose  of  this,  that  is  the  purpose
    of  this,  and  the  only  purpose  of  this.

    ]Mr.  Hoffman.  Wait  a  moment.

    Mr.  Palmer.  The  question  is  do  1,500  Negro  workers  have  a  right  to
    have  a  union.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Certainly  they  do.

    Mr.  Palmer.  John  L.  Lewis  did  the  same,  took  the  same  action.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Forget  it.

    Mr.  Palmer.  You  didn't  bring  them  up  here.  You  brought  us  up
    here  because  we  are  Negroes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  are  mistaken  as  you  can  be.

    Mr.  Palmer.  You  brought  them  up  because  we  are  Negroes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  remember  what  I  told  you  about  applause-
    Mr.  Palmer.  You  want  to  smash  the  Negro  union.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Wait  a  moment.  Once  more.  I  only  want  to  repeat,
    you  folks  are  here  just  through  the  courtesy  of  the  committee.  That
    is  twice,  three  times.  You  know,  we  used  to  say  when  we  were  kids,
    three  times,  and  out.  That  is  not  a  threat.  That  is  just  a  promise  of
    what  is  going  to  happen  if  the  disturbance  continues.  You  talk  about
    persecuting  these  people  because  they  are  Negroes.  Do  you  not  know
    that  some  1.300  other  Negroes  are  now  working  where  the  members
    of  your  union  formerly  worked.

    Mr.  Palmer.  I  know  no

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  know  that  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  I  know  this

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  know  that  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  I  know  this

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Well,  now

    Mr.  Palmer.  That  1.300  probably  strikebreakers  have  been  taken
    into  the  cafeterias  through  this,  the  assistance  of  the  guards  and  the
    Public  Buildings,  and  the  Police  Department.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  those  workers  are  colored  people,  are  they  not?

    Mr.  Palmer.  I  don't  know  all  of  them  that  are  in  there.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  No,  no.  Do  you  not  know  that  the  majority  are
    colored  people?

    Mr.  Palmer.  I  assume  that  the  majority  are.

    INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI    STRIKE  173

    Mr.  Hoffman.  So  that  you  are  charging  that  the  discrimination  is
    against  them  because  of  their  color  is  not  true.

    Mr.  Palmer.  It  is  true  to  my  way  of  thinking.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Yes,  to  your  way  of  thinking.

    Mr.  Palmer.  It  is  true  to  your  way  of  thinking,  if  it  is  fair  thinking.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Now  these  people  are  out  of  their  jobs.  One  reason
    is  because  you  as  an  officer  of  their  union  would  not  sign  the  necessary
    affidavits,  which  would  have  enabled  you  to  have  made  a  complaint
    before  the  Labor  Board,  and  forced  GSI  to  bargain,  are  they  not?

    Mr.  Palmer.  That  is  incorrect.    The  situation  so  far  as — — -

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Never  mind.  I  did  not  ask  you  for  anything  there.
    You  are  through  on  that  question.

    Mr.  Palmer.  You  won't  let  me  answer.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  No.

    Mr.  Palmer.  You  won't  let  me  answer.  You  are  trying  to  charge
    me  for  something  in  a  very  inaccurate

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  are  responsible  for  these  people  being  out  of  a
    job,  you  and  your  felloAv  officers  of  that  union  may  not  be  guilty  of
    that  charge,  but  you  are  guilty,  according  to  the  opinion  of  most  peo-
    ple, of  aiding  the  GSI  in  its  refusal  to  bargain  with  your  union,  be-
    cause if  you  and  your  fellow  officers  had  signed  those  affidavits  you
    would  have  been  in  a  position, to  have  compelled  GSI  to  bargain  with
    you.

    Mr.  Palmer.  In  other  words

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  the  court  would  have  enforced  that.  But  you
    have  arbitrarily  and  for  yourself  decided  that  you  do  not  intend  to
    comply  with  the  law  which  Congress  passed,  which  forces  employers
    to  bargain  with  the  union.

    Mr.  Palmer.  I  resent  that,  because

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  know  you  do,  but  that  does  not  make  any  difference.

    Mr.  Palmer.  To  you  it  does  not  make  any  difference,  but  to  me  it
    does.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  All  right,  now.

    Mr.  Palmer.  Because  I  want  to  have  it  accurate.  I  want  to  have
    it  accurate,  why  affidavits  weren't  signed.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Some  people  who  stand  back  here  and  today  are  on
    the  picket  line  are  on  strike  instead  of  working,  are  going  to  learn
    that  you  and  the  other  officers  of  your  union  are  the  cause  of  the  loss
    of  their  jobs.

    Mv.  Palmer.  They  know  better.  They  know  better.  They  know
    they  make  the  laws  and  we  carry  them  out.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Mr.  Klein,  have  you  any  questions?

    Mr.  Klein.  Without  taking  any  stand  on  the  questions  that  were
    asked,  I  think  that  the  committee  is  interested  in  learning — at  least
    I  am — whv  these  affidavits  provided  by  section  9  (h)  of  the  act —
    first  let  me  ask  you  this.  Did  you  have  anything  to  do  witli  the  policy
    which  provided  that  in  your  particular  local  these  affidavits  should
    not  be  signed  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  That  policy  was  made  and  determined  by  our
    membership.

    Mr.  Klein.  Did  you  have  a  meeting  of  your  membership  at  which
    they  decided  not  to  have  these  affidavits  signed  ?

    174  INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI    STRIKE

    Mr.  Palmer.  There  weie  many  meetings  concerning  the  provisions
    of  the  Taft-Hartley  Act,  many  discussions,  executive  board  meetings,
    shop  steward  meetings,  shop  steward  council  meetings,  at  which  we
    had  attorneys,  legislative  representatives  to  discuss  the  provisions  of
    the  act.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  May  I  interrupt  you  just  a  minute  there,  Mr.  Klein.
    I  just  want,  before  I  forget  it,  local  600  of  Briggs  of  Detroit,  one  of
    the  largest  CIO  unions,  membership  voted  overwhelmingly  to  require
    their  officers  to  sign  these  affidavits,  and  one  of  them  did,  and  then
    I  wanted  to  say  to  you,  Mr.  Palmer,  that  Mr.  Klein  is  one  member
    of  the  labor  committee,  the  Committee  on  Education  and  Labor  which
    wrote  the  Taf t-Hartle}^  Act,  and  he  endeavored  in  every  possible  way,
    and  if  I  am  not  correct,  you  may  correct  me,  Mr.  Klein,  to  do  every-
    thing he  could  to  protect  and  further  the  union's  interest  in  that  bill.

    He  is  not  on  this  particular  committee  which  has  met  with  your
    disapproval.    He  is  sitting  here  as  a  member  of  the  full  committee.

    Mr.  Palmer.  Your  committee  has  not  met  with  my  disapproval.

    Mr.  Klein.  Why  do  you  not  stop  arguing  and  maybe  we  can  get
    at  the  facts  here.  That  is  the  trouble  here.  You  people  come  in  here
    and  you  want  to  make  a  speech.

    As  I  said  last  night,  I  want  to  help  you,  but  you  are  making  it  very
    difficult.

    Give  us  the  information  that  we  waiit  and  let  us  determine  what
    action  should  be  taken.

    Mr.  Palmer.  I  am  trying  to  do  that.

    Mr.  Kxein.  Will  you  tell  me  again,  you  were  telling  me  about  the
    meeting  that  was  held,  and  at  which  you  decided  or  your  local  decided
    not  to  sign  these  affidavits.

    Mr.  Palmer.  That  is  it.  And  after  discussion  on  all  provisions  of
    the  Taft-Hartley  Act,  it  was  decided  since  it  was  not  required  by  the
    act,  that  a  union  use  the  facilities  of  the  new  Taft-Hartley  board,
    that  it  was  determination  of  our  members  that  we  would  not  use  the
    Taft-Hartley  board.

    Mr.  Klein.  And  you  would  not  sign  the  affidavit  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  That  is  right.  There  was  no  necessity  then  of  signing
    affidavits.

    Mr.  Klein.  You  take  the  position,  I  believe  it  is  a  correct  one,  that
    the  failure  to  sign  these  non-Communist  affidavits  simply  has  the
    effect  of  not  permitting  you  to  use  the  jurisdiction  of  the  National
    Labor  Relations  Board,  is  th^t  correct?

    Mr.  Palmer.  Not  permitting  the  union  to  use  the  jurisdiction  of  the
    Taft-Hartley  board.

    Mr.  Klein.  And  did  your  membership  vote  at  some  time,  either
    by  ballot  or  voice  vote  in  agreement  that  you  should  not,  that  your
    local  should  not  file  these  affidavits?

    Mr.  Palmer.  They  did.

    Mr.  Klein.  Now,  Mr.  Hoffman  mentioned  a  particular  local  which
    had  voted  to  compel  the  officers  to  sign  that  affidavit.  I  assume  that
    you  read  about  that.

    Mr.  Palmer.  That  is  right.

    Mr.  Klein.  I  have  read  about  that  in  the  paper.  That  is  open  to
    this  local  as  well.

    Mr.  Palmer.  That  is  risfht.

    INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI    STRIKE  175

    Mr.  Klein.  If  they  want  to  take  that  action,  they  can  do  it  and
    you  as  an  officer  and  the  other  officers  would  have  to  follow  their  sug-
    gestion, is  that  correct  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  That  is  correct.

    Mr.  Klein,  If  that  happened,  you  would  sign  this  affidavit  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  That  is  correct.  Whatever  action  is  taken  by  the  mem-
    bership, yes,  we  conform  to  that  action.

    Mr.  Klein.  You  would  either  have  to  sign  the  affidavit  or  resign,
    is  that  correct  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  That  is  correct,  absolutely  correct.

    Mr.  Klein.  Is  that  the  only  reason  why  you  have  not  signed  the
    affidavit  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  That  is  absolutely  correct.

    Mr.  Klein.  That  is  all.

    Mr.  Smith.  You  will  sign  the  affidavit  when  your  union  votes  for
    you  to  sign  it,  will  you  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  If  our  union  votes,  Mr.  Klein,  I  just  answered  that
    question  to  him,  Mr.  Smith,  for  Mr.  Klein.  If  our  union  votes  to  use
    the  facilities  of  the  Taft-Hartley  board,  I  would  either  sign  the  affi-
    davit, or  I  would  have  to  resign  as  an  officer.

    Mr.  Smith.  Well,  I  asked  you  what  you  would  do  if  they  voted  for
    that.  You  said  now  that  you  would  either  have  to  sign  or  resign;
    which  are  you  going  to  do,  sign  or  resign  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  I  would  have  to  wait  until  they  take  that  action.

    Mr.  Smith.  And  you  could  not  tell  me  whether  you  would  sign  or
    resign  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  I  think  I  should  reserve  that  decision  to  an  act  when
    they  act.

    Mr.  Smith.  Mr.  Flaxer  said  last  night  that  these  cafeteria  workers
    are  getting  $21  a  week.     Is  that  the  correct  figure  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  Some  of  them  get  as  low  as  $16.83.

    Mr.  Smith.  What  is  the  rate  of  pay  down  there?

    Mr.  Palmer.  The  lowest  rate  of  pay  in  the  cafeteria  is  731^^  cents  an
    hour  after  the  worker  becomes  a  permanent  employee.

    Mr.  Smith.  And  they  work  40  hours  a  week  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  No,  they  are  not  guaranteed  a  40-hour  workweek,
    Their  full-time  employment  is  considered  anything  from  30  to  48  hours
    a  week.  The  over-all  study  of  the  cafeteria  workers  as  made  of  No-
    vember 1,  1941,  shows  that  in  all  classifications  where  the  rates  of  pay
    range  from  731/2  cents  an  hour  to  $1.20i/^  cents  an  hour,  that  the  aver-
    age take-home  pay  of  the  worker  is  $21.91.  Fifty  percent  of  the  work-
    ers in  the  lowest  classified  jobs.  Of  that  50  percent,  they  get  $19.25
    in  take-home  pay.  And  15  percent  of  that  number  receive  as  low
    as  $16.93  a  week  for  full  employment.

    Mr.  Smith.  Where  did  this  meeting  transpire,  where  was  it  held,
    that  your  members  of  your  union  voted  not  to  sign  this  anti-Com-
    munist affidavit  for  its  officers.

    Mr.  Palmer.  Well,  we  had  quite  a  few  meetings.

    Mr.  Smith.  Where  were  they  held?

    Mr.  Palmer.  Some  of  them  were  held  in  the  union  office,  others  were
    held,  sometimes  they  met  at  Garnet  Patterson  School,  and  they  met
    at  other  places.

    Mr.  Smith.  They  just  voted  once,  I  suppose,  on  this  particular
    thing?

    176  INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI    STRIKE

    Mr.  Palmer.  There  were  many  decisions.  I  mean  there  was  much,
    first  it  was  taken  up  by  the  executive  board,  discussed,  then  passed  on
    to  the  shop  stewards  council,  and  discussed,  then  discussed  two  or
    three  times  and  then  discussed  again  at  the  meetings  over  and  over
    again.  In  fact,  the  executive  board  of  the  union,  members  of  the
    executive  board  sat  in  the  Senate  Gallery  all  night  when  Senator
    Kilgore,  Senator  Pepper,  Senator  Morse,  and  Senator  Taylor  of  Idaho
    were  speaking,  trying  to  delay  a  vote  on  this  bill  by  the  Senate  after
    the  President  had  vetoed  it.

    Mr.  HoFFMAisr.  He  asked  you  where  the  meeting  was  held.  You
    testified — pardon  me,  may  I  interrupt — you  testified,  did  you  not,  in
    answer  to  Mr.  Klein,  that  the  membership  of  471  voted  on  this  issue
    as  to  whether  the  officers  should  or  should  not  sign  the  affidavits  re-
    quired by  the  Taft-Hartley  Act?

    Mr.  Palmer.  Yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  said  that  the  membership  did  vote  on  that,  did
    you  not?

    Mr.  Palmer.  Then  he  asked  me  where  the  meetings  were  held.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  He  asked  you  if  the  membership  did  not  vote  on  that
    issue,  and  you  said  thej^  did.

    Mr.  Palmer.  That  is  correct.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  When  and  where  did  the  membership  vote  on  that
    issue  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  Well,  my  answer  to  the  question  was  that  the  meet-
    ings, tliere  were  many  meetings.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  do  not  care  about  many  meetings.  I  am  asking
    about  one  specific  meeting  where  the  membership  voted  on  that  issue
    as  to  whether  the  officers  should  or  should  not  sign  those  affidavits.

    Mr.  Palmer.  I  am  sure  that  meeting  was  held  in  Garnett  Patterson
    School.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  About  when  in  the  Patterson  School  ?

    Mr.  Palinier.  Well,  I  think  at  the  time  that  that  meeting  was  held
    was  in  August,  and  I  was  not  here ;  I  ^was  away.  ^

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  were  not  there  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  Yes,  well

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Have  you  any  record  of  the  meeting  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  I  am  sure  there  is  a  record  somewhere.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Where  is  it,  and  who  would  have  it?

    Mr.  Palmer.  Well,  it  should  be,  the  record  of  the  meeting  should
    be  in  the

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Name  the  individual  who  has  the  record  of  that
    meeting.

    Mr.  Palmer.  Well,  it  should  be  in  the  files.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Yes ;  I  know  it  should  be.  What  individual  should
    have  charge  of  it  ?  Now,  we  have  been  accused  of  raiding  your  office,
    which  is  a  false  charge.  Now,  you  tell  us  where  we  can  get  the  records
    of  your  meeting.

    Mr.  Palmer.  Well,  I  mean  you  could  get  the  records.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  What  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  You  could  get  the  records  of  the  meeting.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Who  has  that  record,  sir?

    Mr.  Palmer.  Well,  they  would  be  in  the  charge  of  the  trustees  of  the
    union.

    INVESTIGATION    OF   GSI    STRIKE  177

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  name  tliem,  then,  please.  Now,  you  might  just
    as  well  come  across,  because  ultimately  I  think  you  will  be  inclined  to
    give  us  the  information.

    Mr.  Palmer.  You  can  get  that  record.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Tell  me  the  name  of  the  individual.  You  are  the
    president  of  this  local ;  are  you  not  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  No  ;  I  am  not.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  are  not  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  I  am  ]iot  the  president.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  The  business  manager.

    Mr.  Palmer.  I  am  not  the  president  of  the  union.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Who  is  ?

    Mr.  Palmer.  That  is  Mr.  Richard  Bancroft.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  will  have  him  shortly.

    You  are  familiar,  Mr.  Bancroft,  just  step  up  here,  please.

    You  solemnly  swear

    Mr.  Bancroft.  I  was  sworn  yesterday.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  do  solenndy  swear  that  in  the  testimony  you
    shall  give  before  this  committee  you  will  tell  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,
    and  nothing  but  the  truth,  so  help  you  God  ?

    Mr.  Bancroft.  I  do.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Have  a  chair  down  here  with  him.

    Mr.  Forer.  May  it  appear  that  I  am  counsel  for  Mr.  Bancroft,  too  ?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Yes.

    TESTIMONY  OF  RICHARD  A.  BANCROFT,  PRESIDENT,  LOCAL  471,
    UNITED  CAFETERIA  EMPLOYEES  UNION,  WASHINGTON,  D.  C.

    Mr.  Bancroft.  I  have  a  good  voice.     I  think  they  can  hear.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  are  president  of  local  471  ?

    Mr.  Bancroft.  That  is  right,  Mr.  Hoffman.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  say  that  the  membership  of  that  union  voted
    upon  the  issue  as  to  whether  the  officers  of  the  union  should  or  should
    not  sign  the  affidavits  required  by  the  Taft-Hartley  Act?

    Mr.  Bancroft.  That  was  not  the  issue.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  say  they  never  voted  on  that  issue  ?

    Mr.  Bancroft.  They  voted  on  the  issue  of  compliance  with  the  filing
    requirements  of  the  Taft-Hartley  law,  in  order  to  use

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  the  same.

    Mr.  Bancroft.  Not  quite  the  same  thing,  Mr.  Chairman,
    because •

    Mr.  Hoffman.  When  and  where  ?

    Mr.  Bancroft.  May  I  explain  that  a  little  ?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  No,  no.

    Mr.  Bancroft.  I  think  it  is  important  to  explain  that  part  of  the
    law.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Now,  just  a  moment.  You  answer  the  questions  and
    let  us  get  along.

    When  and  where  was  that  meeting?

    Mr.  Bancroft.  The  meeting,  as  I  recall,  was  held  at  the  Patterson
    High  School.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  At  what  time  ?

    Mr.  Bancroft.  I  am  not  certain  of  the  date.  It  was  some  time
    after  the  passage  of  the  Taft-Hartley

    178  INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Where  are  the  records  of  that  meeting,  if  you  kept
    any?

    Mr.  Bancroft.  I  presume  in  the  file.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Who  has  charge  of  them  ?

    Mr.  Bancroft.  They  would  be  in  charge  of  the  trust  board.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Wlio  are  the  members  of  that  board?

    Mr.  Bancroft.  I  don't  know  whether  I  know  all  of  their  names,  but
    I  can  provide  them  for  you.  If  I  had  a  piece  of  paper,  I  would  be
    glad  to  try  to  write  them  for  you.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  When  we  go  back  to  the  other  witness  you  may  pro-
    vide us  with  those  names.

    Mr.  Bancroft.  Yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Did  3^ou  keep  a  written  record  of  that  meeting  ?

    Mr.  Bancroft.  We  keep  records.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Did  you  keep  a  written  record  of  that  meeting  held
    at  the  Patterson  School  when  this  issue  to  which  you  refer  was  voted
    upon  ?

    Mr.  Bancroft.  I  presume  that  one  was  kept.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  know  ?

    Mr.  Bancroft.  I  am  not  certain.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Who  would  sign  the  record  if  a  record  was  kept?

    Mr.  Bancroft.  Well,  may  I  explain  that  a  little  to  you  ?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  No;  just  answer  my  question,  if  you  can.

    Mr.  Bancroft.  This  is  the  only  way  I  think  I  can  answer  this
    question.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Were  you  present  at  the  meeting?

    Mr.  Bancroft.  I  was  present.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Who  presided  ?

    Mr.  Bancroft.  I  presided  at  the  meeting.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  not  know  whether  then  a  record  was
    written  up  ?

    Mr.  Bancroft.  I  am  being  antagonistic,  but  it  is  necessary  for  me
    to  answer  this  question  in  this  manner.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  am  forgetful,  and  I  might  get  off  the  track  if  I
    did  not  go  through  with  the  thought  I  had  at  the  moment.

    Mr.  Bancroft.  All  right.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  being  the  presiding  officer  at  the  meeting  who
    was  the  secretary  and  took  minutes  of  the  meeting  is  there  was  one?

    Mr.  Bancroft.  I  do  not  know.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  do  not  remember  ?

    Mr.  Bancroft.  I  don't  recall  which  meeting  you  see,  exactly,  and
    so  on.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  recall  whether  there  was  a  written  record
    of  the  meeting?

    Mr.  Bancroft.  I  presume  that  one  was  kept.  If  you  will  let  me
    explain,  it  will  be  very  clear  to  you.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Was  there  a  ballot  prepared  for  the  membership
    to  vote  on  ?

    Mr.  Bancroft.  There  was  no  secret  ballot.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Then  the  issue  was  stated  by  whom  ?

    Mr.  Bancroft.  The  issue  was  stated  ?

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Yes.

    Mr.  Bancroft.  A  motion.

    INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE  179

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Who  made  the  motion,  then,  if  it  was  a  motion?

    Mr.  Bancroft.  It  has  been  a  long  time  ago.

    Mr,  Hoffman.  You  do  not  remember  ?

    Mr.  Bancroft.  I  don't  remember  who  made  the  motion.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Was  the  issue  presented  by  a  motion  or  a  resolution  ?

    Mr.  Bancroft.  It  was

    Mr.  Hoffman.  From  the  floor?

    Mr.  Bancroft.  I  do  not  recall  whether  it  was  a  motion  from  the
    floor  to  approve  a  recommendation  of  the  executive  board  or  whether
    it  was  an  independent  action  by  motion  from  the  floor.

    Mr,  Hoffman.  Your  best  judgment  is  that  it  was  some  motiop  made
    to  approve  the  action  of  the  executive  board  ?

    Mr.  Bancroft.  Either  that  or  an  independent  motion.  There    agreement."

    Mr.  Strong.  JY'es,  sir.    The  union  was  agreeable  to  sign  that.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  said  GSI  was  agreeable?

    Mr.  Strong.  No.    GSI  wanted  it  changed  to

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Did  you  not  say  GSI  agreed  to  No.  3  ?

    Mr.  Strong.  No,  sir.     Agreed  to  No.  4.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Then  GSI  never  agreed  to  No.  3  ?

    Mr.  Strong.  That  is  right,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  But  the  union  did.

    Mr.  Strong.  Yes,  sir.  Then  No.  4  came  along,  and  we  changed
    "there  will  be  negotiated"  to  "there  will  be  discussed";  the  union
    agreed  to  that.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  The  union  agreed  to  talk.

    Mr.  Strong.  First  it  was  to  be  negotiated.  They  agreed  to  that.
    Then  GSI  wanted  it  changed  to  "there  will  be  discussed"  and  the
    union  agreed  to  that.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  the  GSI  agreed  that  the  approval  of  it  did
    not  bind  them?

    Mr.  Strong.  That  was  in  No.  3,  too.    The  union  agreed  to  that.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  to  say,  under  both  3  and  4,  GSI  only  agreed
    that  it  would  not  negotiate  or  sign.

    Mr.  Strong.  That  is  right.    That  was  understood  all  along.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Seven  does  not  mean  a  thing,  does  it,  except  talk?

    Mr.  Strong.  I  don't  think  the  changes  amount  to  very  much,  but
    Mr.  Cross  probably  would  disagree  with  me.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Then,  do  you  know  in  9  of  No.  4,  it  reads  that —

    there  shall  be  no  strikes,  slowdowns  or  work  stoppages  as  long  as  this  memo-
    randum shall  be  in  effect  and  George  E.  Strong  shall  be  neither  negotiator  or  ad-
    ministrator of  them,  with  power  to  adjust  or  return  to  work  and  decide  ques-
    tions between  old  emploj^ees  and  those  employed  since  December  31,  1947,  or  any
    disputes  between  employees  singly  or  in  group  as  well  as  to  interpret  this
    memorandum.

    Except  that  any  dispute  arising  out  of     *     *     *.

    Mr.  Strong.  Beginning  there,  sir,  that  is  the  language  the  GSI
    wanted,  where  it  says  "except."  They  are  substantially  the  same
    until  you  get  to  the  language  you  are  now  quoting,  which  begins  with
    "except."  That  is  what  GSI  wanted  and  what  the  union  would  not
    agree  to.  That  is  the  only  thing  they  are  apart  on  at  the  present
    time.

    Mr.  Hoffman  (reading)  :

    Except  that  any  dispute  arising  out  of  determination  of  the  relative  efficiency
    of  employees  on  the  rolls  prior  to  December  31  and  those  employees  employed
    since  that  date  shall  be  submitted  to  an  arbitrator  or  arbitrators  from  the  Amer-
    ican Arbitration  Association.

    That  would  take  you  out  of  the  picture.
    Mr.  Strong.  Yes;  and  I  would  be  very  agreeable  to  that.
    ]\Ir.  Hoffman.  But  your  union  will  not  agree  to  that.
    Mr.  Strong.  The  union  won't  agree  to  that.     They  said  it  would
    just  cause  a  lot  more  delay.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  think  that  is  all.
    Mr.  Strong,  Thank  you.

    INVESTIGATIOlSr   OF   GSI   STRIKE  339

    TESTIMONY  OF  MAJ.  GEN.  U.  S.  GRANT  3d,  JOHN  W.  CROSS,  AND
    R.  R.  AYERS— Recalled

    Mr.  Hoffman.  General  Grant,  I  want  to  ask  you  a  few  questions
    about  this  thing.  You  have  been  very  helpful  before.  I  want  to  ask
    about  this  meeting.  You  see,  from  some  source,  we  get  reports  on
    these  diiferent  meetings.  We  have  no  way  of  testing  their  accuracy.
    With  reference  to  this  meeting  held  Thursday,  the  first  meeting  was
    in  the  afternoon,  was  it?

    General  Grant.  Yes,  sir ;  at  4 :  30.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  At  that  meeting  all  the  managers,  supervisors,  and
    assistant  managers  of  all  the  GSI  cafeterias  were  present  ?

    General  Grant.  We  did  not  call  the  roll  but  they  were  substantially
    all  there,  I  think.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Was  Colonel  Strong  there?

    General  Grant.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Why  was  he  there?

    First,  what  was  the  meeting  for,  and  then,  why  was  he  there?

    General  Grant.  We  had  a  copy  of  wdiat  is  No.  3,  which  he  had
    given  us.  I  thought  it  would  be  very  desirable,  before  the  board  of
    trustees  met  and  acted  on  that,  if  I  got  in  the  supervisors  and  told
    them  what  was  in  the  minds,  more  or  less,  and  took  them  into  our  con-
    fidence, and  tried  to  get  their  reaction  as  far  as  I  could  to  the  sugges-
    tions that  had  been  made  and  as  to  how  it  would  work  out,  whether
    it  was  workable  or  not.  I  asked  Colonel  Strong  to  come  in  with  two
    ideas  in  mind.  One  was  that  there  might  be  some  questions  asked
    as  to  how  he  proposed  to  administer  this  arrangement  which  they
    would  do  better  to  get  from  him  than  my  interpretation  of  how  we
    would  administer  it.

    The  other  reason  was  that  I  thought  it  would  be  well  for  him  to
    see  our  supervisors  and  what  kind  of  people  they  were  and  sense  di-
    rectly from  them  any  difficulties  there  would  be  in  administering  the
    proposal  he  was  making.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  How  long  was  Strong  to  remain  in  this  picture  ?

    General  Grant.  That  was  a  period  of  time,  sir,  that  I  do  not  think
    anybody  could  foresee.  It  would  be  a  question  of  until  the  matter
    was  settled  by  the  union,  either  the  local  disengaging  itself  from  its
    association  with  UPWA,  or  the  UPWA  complying  with  the  require-
    ments so  that  the  union  could  be  certified.  Or  perhaps  there  was  the
    possibility  of  course  that  the  proposal  if  it  was  accepted,  and  I  like
    to  emphasize  "if  it  was  accepted,"  because  as  I  told  you  last  time,  when
    I  was  up  here,  any  such  arrangement  would  have  to  be  accepted  by
    the  board  of  trustees,  that  it  was  accepted  and  it  was  administered
    to  the  satisfaction  of  the  two  parties,  it  might  be  perfectly  satisfactory
    in  a  period  of  a  couple  of  months  or  so.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  It  is  only  repetition,  but  it  might  be  well  to  put  it
    in  the  record  here  again.  GSI  has  always  been  willing  and  is  now
    willing  to  bargain  with  any  union  which  will  qualify  under  the  Taft-
    Hartley  Act,

    General  Grant.  Yes,  sir.     We  would  feel  obliged  to  do  that.

    Mr.  HoFFFMAN.  Did  you,  at  that  time,  tell  your  managers  or  the
    supervisors  in  substance  that  the  striking 'employees  are  to  be  taken
    back  as  rapidly  as  possible?

    340  INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE

    General  Grant.  I,  frankly,  Mr.  Chairman,  don't  remember  whether
    I  used  any  such  termg  as  that,  certainly  not  to  mean  that  the  other
    employees  were  to  be  displaced  in  order  to  take  them  back,  but  that
    is  was  our  purpose  in  order  to  get  these  people  off  the  streets  who  I
    think  you,  yourself,  acknowledged  and  were  probably  not  individually
    responsible  for  the  situation,  that  we  would  try  to  get  them  back  as
    rapidly  as  we  could.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  As  rapidly  as  vacancies  occurred  and  you  could,  in
    in  the  normal  course  of  your  business,  get  them  back  ?

    General  Grant.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  HoFFMx^N.  But  that  you  were  not  to  displace  any  of  those  who
    were  serving  satisfactorily  and  who  had  been  hired  since  the  inception
    of  the  strike  ?

    General  Grant.  That  was  certainly  in  my  mind,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  the  way  I  understood  it.

    General  Grant.  If  it  was  something  that  was  misunderstood,  it  was
    unintentional.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  No,  no.  You  also  stated,  in  substance,  that  vacan-
    cies which  occurred  were  to  be  filled  from  the  list  of  the  strikers.

    General  Grant.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  So  that  much  of  our  information  as  to  what  hap-
    pened there  is  correct.

    General  Grant.  That  is,  if  this  agreement  was  approved  by  the
    board.

    Mr.  HoFFFMAN.  Then  we  have  this  statement,  and  I  am  not  stating
    that  any  weight  should  be  given  to  it  or  should  not  be  given  to  it.
    It  is  reportecl  that  you  said,  and  were  very  emphatic  about  it — and,
    some  of  them  thought,  in  an  almost  menacing  tone — if  there  was
    any  discrimination  of  any  nature  whatsoever  on  the  part  of  any  man-
    ager or  supervisor  toward  any  striker  who  was  reemployed,  the  man-
    ager or  supervisor  would  be  instantly  and  summarily  fired.

    General  Grant.  No,  sir,  I  certainly  did  not  say  that.

    Mr.  HoFFFMAN.  You  see  how  susceptible  what  anyone  says  is  to
    misconstruction.

    General  Grant.  I  said  if  it  was  adopted  by  the  board,  it  would  be
    necessary  for  the  supervisors  to  be  very  careful  not  to  show  discrimina-
    tion between  the  people  who  had  been  on  strike  and  the  people  who
    were  there.  That,  of  course,  is  psychologically  necessary  in  order
    not  to  have  trouble  in  the  cafeteria  itself.

    Mr.  HoFFFMAN.  I  guess  everyone  would  understand  that  there  would
    be  some  degree  of  disagreement  between  the  old  employees  and  the  new
    ones  who  came  back  and  who  were  strikers.

    General  Grant.  But  there  was  nothing  said  about  disciplining  the
    supervisors  in  the  matter  at  all  that  I  can  remember  by  anybody  there.
    I  have  always  tried  to  handle  my  command  on  the  basis  of  their  think-
    ing that  I  had  confidence  in  them  that  they  would  do  what  I  expected
    them  to  do.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Then  there  was  a  charge  by  some  folks  who  were
    there  who  thought  that  what  had  been  said  might  mean  they  would
    lose  their  jobs.

    General  Grant.  I  don't  remember  anything  that  was  said  that
    could  have  imjDlied  that.     I  did  say  very  definitely  that  in  order  to

    INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE  341

    make  it  work  they  would  have  to  be  very  careful  and  convince  the
    jDeople  that  there  was  no  discrimination.

    Mr.  HoFFMAX.  Here  is  something  again,  now.  There  may  or  may
    not  be  anything  to  this,  that  yon  had  been  told  by  Strong  or  by  Steel-
    man  or  Schwellenbach  that,  if  a  contract  was  not  made  shortly  with
    the  striking  union,  your  contract  to  run  the  cafeteria  would  be  can-
    celed.    Did  you  make  any  such  statement  as  that?

    General  Grant.  I  am  sure  I  never  made  that  statement  on  that  occa-
    sion at  all,  sir.

    Mr.  HoFFFMAN.  Were  you  ever  told  that  the  cafeteria  in  Langston
    Hall  must  be  opened  ?

    General  Grant.  I  have  been  told  that  it  could  be  opened  again,  sir.

    Mr.  HorF3iAN.  Who  told  you  that?

    General  Grant.  Mr.  Rejmolds.  He  is  the  Commissioner  of  Public
    Buildings  Administration.    That  was  some  time  ago.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  lost  money  up  there,  did  you  not  ?

    General  Grant.  I  don't  think  so.  Mr.  Ayers  will  have  to  answer
    that.

    Mr.  Ayers.  No,  sir ;  I  don't  believe  the}'  lost  money  over  a  period  of
    time.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  see.    All  right.

    General  Grant.  That  was  closed  because  of  some  defect  in  the  build-
    ing, as  I  remember  it.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  not  associated  with  the  Government?

    General  Grant.  It  is  a  public  building  project;  yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Ayers.  Yes,  it  is.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  to  saj^,  it  is  a  Negro  residential  housing  devel-
    opment.

    Mr.  Ayers.  It  comes  under  FWA.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  were  told  by  Mr.  Reynolds  that  you  could  reopen
    that  one  ?

    General  Grant.  Yes,,sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Were  you  told  you  could  reopen  the  one  in  the  Su-
    preme Court  Building  or  the  Labor  Department?

    General  Grant.  Not  yet,  sir ;  but  we  assume  that  if  the  pickets  were
    taken  off  we  could  reopen  them.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Surely.  Was  there  any  intimation  that  if  you  do  not
    soon  settle  this  strike  the  rug  was  to  be  jerked  out  from  under -GSI?

    General  Gr=vnt.  I  never  heard  that.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  know  you  did  tell  us  when  you  were  here  before
    that  there  were  some  things  that  led  to  the  thought  that  if  you  did
    not  do  business  with  this  union  you  would  be  out  ?

    General  Grant.  If  we  did  not  find  some  way  oi  settling  this,  that
    might  occur;  yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  a  rival  company  would  be  given  the  contracts.

    General  Grant.  I  don't  know  what  the  solution  would  be  given  the
    situation,  sir.  AVe  do  not  feel  we  have  any  rival  companies.  We  are
    organized  just  to  give  services  for  the  Government  and  its  employees,
    and  we  never  endeavor  to  enter  into  any  competitve  bidding  or  any-
    ,  thing  of  that  kind  because  we  are  not  competing  with  anyone  else.
    Someone  else,  if  they  can  do  the  job  better,  can  do  it,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  A  final  question.  Has  this  matter  been  settled?
    Have  you  reached  an  agreement  with  the  union  ?

    342  INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE

    General  Grant,  No,  sir.  My  understanding  of  the  situation  is  that
    at  the  conckision  of  our  meeting  of  the  board  of  trustees,  we  gave  to
    Mr.  Strong  what  is  your  No.  4  here  and  told  him  that  with  those
    alterations  we  would  go  along  with  his  proposal.  I  have  not  heard
    of  anj^thing  happening  since  then.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  No.  3  has,  in  substance,  been  the  proposition  that  you
    have  always  been  willing  to  agree  to,  has  it  not?

    General  Grant.  No.  3  ?    Not  quite,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  The  only  thing  in  there  that  has  not  been  in  your
    proposition,  at  least  as  I  got  it,  was  this  matter  of  the  umpire  or  Mr.
    Strong.  That  is  to  say — if  I  am  not  right,  correct  me — heretofore
    you  have  always  been  ready  to  bargain  collectively  with  any  union,
    and  that  includes  local  471,  if  and  when  it  complied  with  the  provi-
    sions of  the  Taft-Hartley  Act  and  made  itself  eligible  as  a  bargaining
    agent.    That  is  true,  is  it  not  ?

    General  Grant.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  since  the  strike  you  have  been  willing  to  take
    back  the  striking  employees  if  and  when  vacancies  occurred!

    General  Grant.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  In  j^our  present  force  ?

    General  Grant.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  to  give  them  preference  over  people  who  never
    did  belong  to  the  union.

    General  Grant.  Yes,  sir.

    ]Mr.  Hoffman.  I  do  not  see  anything  in  No.  3,  except  this  negotiator
    business  of  Colonel  Strong  in  addition  to  what  you  have  always  stood
    for.

    General  Grant.  May  I  explain  the  reasons  the  board  of  trustees
    accepted  No.  4  and  not  No.  3  ?

    Paragraph  7  said  there  that  we  would  negotiate  an  agreement.

    ]\Ir.  Hoffman.  Yes.

    General  Grant.  I  think  it  was  the  feeling  of  the  majority  of  the
    board  who  voted  for  the  change  that  has  been  made  in  that  paragraph
    in  No.  4,  that  changed  the  word  "negotiate"  to  "discuss,"  it  was  their
    view  that  they  were  committing  us  a  little  more  to  a  formal  agree-
    ment with  "negotiate,"  than  would  "discussion."

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  to  say,  if  you  took  No.  3  and  if  the  con-
    struction that  some  feared  might  be-  given  was  given  to  the  word
    "negotiate,"  you  might  find  j^ourself  up  against  the  proposition  where
    you  would  have  to  sign  up  with  this  particular  union  which  had  not
    complied  with  the  law.     Is  that  not  it  'i

    General  Grant.  We  were  fearful  that  that  might  be  misunderstood.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  If  you  want  your  lawyer  to  help  you,  it  is  all  right.

    Is  Mr.  Cross  here  ?

    Mr.  Cross.  Yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  If  you  want  to  come  up  and  explain  the  legal  aspect
    of  it,  it  is  all  right.

    General  Grant.  We  felt  that  was  a  little  more  of  a  commitment
    than  we  wanted  to  make,  because  it  might  be  interpreted  as  a  com-
    mitment to  open  negotiations  with  the  union  before  it  was  so  certified. ,

    Mr.  HoFF^iAN.  Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  last  sentence  of
    that  particular  paragraph  said  you  were  not  bound  to  sign.

    General  Grant.  That  is  true.

    INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE  343

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Having  in  mind  perhaps  the  Supreme  Court  decision
    which  said  that  after  you  reached  an  agreement  you  would  have  to
    sign.     Did  you  w^ant  to  say  something  ?
    •  Mr.  Cross.  No.

    Genera]  Grant.  I  would  like  to  point  out  we  thought  there  would
    be  a  manifest  advantage  if  during  this  period  that  we  were  waiting
    for  the  union  to  find  some  way  of  disentangling  itself  with  its  pre-
    dominating association,  there  might  be  advantage  in  such  a  discussion
    which  would  outline  the  general  terms  of  the  agreement  that  we  would
    enter  into  after  they  were  certified,  because  if  we  did  not  do  that  in
    advance  of  their  certification  we  would  have  to  do  it  after  they  were
    certified,  and  you  would  have  a  period  there  of  unsettlement  again,
    which  would  not  be  good  either  for  our  patrons  or  for  the  business.

    The  other  change  that  the  board  made  as  a  condition  to  its  acceptance
    of  the  plan  was  the  excepting  the  settlement  from  the  other  things
    which  were  going  to  be  administered  presumably  by  Colonel  Strong,
    if  a  discussion  came  up  or  a  difference  of  opinion  arose,  as  to  relative
    efficienc}^,  somebody,  an  arbitrator,  would  be  appointed  to  settle  those
    from  the  Association  of  Arbitratoi'S.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  a  nationally  known  organization,  is  it  not ?

    General  Grant.  I  believe  so,  sir.  The  reason  for  that  was  that
    the  board  felt  that  they  had  committed  themselves  to  not  dismissing
    the  present  emplo3'ees  merely  to  make  j^lace  for  the  people  who  had
    gone  on  strike,  and  we  felt  that  we  would  not  be  doing  anything  but
    what  was  good  administration  if  we  displaced  less  efficient  people
    who  had  been  with  us  only  k  couple  of  months  to  put  in  people  who
    had  been  with  us  for  many  years,  and  who  would  be  more  efficient,
    if  it  was  based  on  bona  fide  efficiency  questions.

    But  we  did  not  want  to  take  any  chance  that  in  some  cases  this
    might,  due  to  circumstances  or  the  slowness  with  which  progress  was
    made  or  something  else,  the  desire  to  get  thte  strikers  back  in  to  the
    organization,  we  did  not  want  that  question  of  efficiency  to  be  open
    to  hastening  the  dismissal  of  people  who  were  satisfactory,  in  our
    opinion.  We  realized  that  if  we  left  that  entirely  to  management  the
    union  would  say  that  was  just  a  subterfuge  and  management  would
    not  actually  recognize  the  difference  in  efficiency  if  we  were  psycho-
    logically in  favor  of  holding  onto  the  present  emploj'^ees  whom  they
    looked  upon  as  strikebreakers.

    So  we  thought  it  was  important  to  put  that  condition  in  there  to
    safeguard  the  speed  with  which,  or  let  us  say  not  the  speed,  because
    we  are  glad  to  go  ahead  with  it  as  fast  as  it  works  out,  but  to  safe-
    guard the  fact  that  it  would  be  on  a  fair  basis  of  efficiency,  and
    efficiency  of  the  organization  and  of  the  service  rendered  and  not
    merely  that  a  lot  of  people  would  be  pushed  out  in  order  to  make  room
    to  put  the  strikers  back.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Of  course,  if  you  had  a  question  involving  the  dis-
    charge of  an  employee  who  was  a  nonstriker,  who  came  to  the  job
    since  the  strike,  and  taking  in  his  place  one  who  was  a  striker,  and
    you  had  knowledge  that  the  one  who  was  a  striker  had  been  a  striker,'
    and  who  was  seeking  this  job,  was  affiliated  with  an  organization  which
    believed  in  the  overthrow  of  the  Government,  you  might  by  the  choice
    of  an  administrator  be  required  to  accept  that  man  who  held  the  same

    72913—48 23

    344  INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE

    political,  if  you  wish  to  call  it  that,  beliefs  as  did  the  union  official
    who  refused  to  sign  the  affidavit.

    Do  you  see  what  I  mean  ?

    General  Grant.  I  see  the  possibility  of  that.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  If  Mr.  Smith  here  came  to  the  job  since  the  strike,
    and  I  was  one  of  those  who  was  a  former  employee  and  was  on  strike
    and  a  member  of  the  union,  affiliated  with  the  union  whose  officers  had
    refused  to  sign  these  affidavits,  it  might  be  that  I  held  the  same  belief  as
    the  officers,  and  if  you  left  this  thing  to  an  umpire  or  an  administrator
    here,  he  might  say,  "Here  is  the  question  of  efficiency,  but  I  guess  you
    will  take  Hoffman,  even  though  he  adheres  to  these  other  political
    beliefs."

    General  Grant.  Of  course,  under  No.  3,  sir,  that  would  have  been
    decided  by  Colonel  Strong.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  right.

    General  Grant.  In  his  general  administration.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  He  said  here  he  had  no  aversion  to  sitting  down  and
    dealing  with  a  man  who  will  not  sign  one  of  those  affidavits.

    General  Grant.  Under  No.  3  that  would  have  been  settled  by  him
    when  he  was  in  the  midst  of  settling  all  these  other  questions.

    JNIr.  Hoffman.  Let  me  correct  that  statement.  I  said  "No  aversion."
    He  has  an  aversion,  but  he  still  will  do  it.

    General  Grant.  We  thought  that  if  those  cases  came  up,  and  I  don't
    know  that  there  would  be  very  many  of  them,  cases  where  management
    felt  that  the  person  in  there  was  more  efficient  than  somebody  who  had
    gone  out  on  strike,  then  those  €ases  woulcl  come  up  before  somebody
    who  had  no  other  interest  in  the  matter  except  to  settle  that  question  of
    efficiency.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Like  a  member  of  the  arbitration  association.

    General  Grant.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  all  I  have.  Did  you  want  to  say  what  you
    had  in  mind  ?

    Mr.  Cross.  No,  I  believe  not,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  have  any  questions,  Mr.  Smith  ?

    Mr.  Smith.  Yes,  I  have.

    General,  since  you  were  here  the  last  time,  have  you  received  any
    word,  direct  or  implied,  from  the  so-called  White  House  source,
    through  General  Fleming  or  any  other  person,  as  to  the  advisability  of
    GSI's  settling  this  strike?

    General  Grant.  No,  sir;  I  had  a  telephone  message  from  General
    Fleming  the  day  before  the  meeting.  No,  it  was  yesterday  morning.
    Yes,  yesterday  morning,  about  noon,  saying  that  Colonel  Strong  had
    showed  him  this  formula  of  agreement  No.  3,  in  order  to  make  the
    record  straight,  and  that  he  had  told  him  that  the  union  had  accepted
    that  and  that  he  understood  that  the  board  of  trustees  had  not  acceped
    it  the  night  before.  I  told  him  that  the  board  of  trustees  had  accepted
    it  with  two  exceptions,  or  changes.

    He  then  asked  me  if  I  could  find  out  whether  they  would  reconsider
    it  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  union  had  accepted,  and  we  took  a  vote
    by  telephone  and  the  majority  of  the  board  stuck  by  what  they  had
    done  the  night  before.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  think  if  you  called  a  couple  of  times  more  you
    might  get  some  more  votes  in  favor  of  accepting  it  ?

    INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE  345

    General  Grant.  I  don't  know.  We  did  not  call  any  more,  sir.  I  was
    up  before  a  Senate  committee  yesterday  afternoon.  I  did  not  do  the
    calling  *myself.  I  just  make  that  statement  because  that  is  the  only
    communication  I  have  had,  and  General  Fleming  asked  me  if  I  could
    get  the  information  yesterdaj'^  afternoon,  if  possible.

    I  don't  think  that  that  was  even  an  implied  pressure,  excepting  as  to
    perhaps  the  time.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Just  a  request  for  information.

    General  Grant.  It  was  a  request  that  I  take  it  up  with  the  board
    again  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  union  had  agreed  to  it,  which  we  did
    not  know  the  night  before  when  we  acted  on  it.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Of  course,  when  you  acted  on  it  the  night  before  and
    put  it  out,  you  put  it  out  in  good  faith,  intending  to  stand  by  it  if  the
    union  accepted  it,  did  you  not?

    General  Grant.  We  didn't  accept  it.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Oh,  I  see.

    General  Grant.  We  accepted  it  with  two  changes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  remember  now.

    General  Grant.  Which  we  felt  were  essential.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  was  under  a  misapprehension.

    General  Grant.  The  telephone  call  was  an  inquiry  in  view  of  the
    fact  that  the  union  had  accepted  it,  of  "Do  you  wish  to  reconsider  it  or
    do  you  stand  by  what  you  agreed  to  last  night  ?"

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  to  say,  you  had  rejected  it  once ;  had  you  not  ?

    General  Grant.  We  had  rejected  it  as  written.

    Mr,  Hoffman.  Yes,  and  made  a  counterproposal.  Then  the  union
    turned  down  your  counterproposal.

    General  Grant.  That  I  didn't  know  until  I  heard  it  today.

    Mr.  Hoffmann.  Until  you  heard  from  General  Fleming?

    General  Grant.  No,  sir ;  until  I  heard  it  today  I  did  not  know  that
    that  had  been  up.  General  Fleming  didn't  say  anything  about  that
    and  I  didn't  think  he  knew.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  How  did  he  know  that  you  would  reconsider  if  he
    didn't  know  what  the  union  had  done?

    General  Grant.  That  I  don't  know,  sir.  He  simply  said  the  union
    had  accepted  the  No.  3  and  would  I  fijicl  out  if  the  trustees  would  recon-
    sider it  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  union  had  accepted  it  and  there
    might  be  a  settlement  now.

    Mr.  Smith.  Has  anyone  called  you  with  reference  to  opening  up  the
    cafeteria  in  the  Labor  Department  or  the  Supreme  Court  or  Langston
    Hall?

    General  GuiiNT,  No.  sir;  the  only  thing  is,  as  I  have  already  said,
    some  weeks  ago  Mr.  Reynolds  said  that  we  could  open  up  the  Lang-
    ston Hall  cafeteria  again  and  he  would  be  glad  to  have  us  do  it.  That
    was  not  in  connection  with  the  strike  situation,  but  we  have  not
    opened  it  up  because  it  means  one  more  job  to  do  in  the  midst  of  this
    rather  difficult  situation.

    Mr.  Smith.  I  want  some  members  of  GST  to  tell  me  about  this
    Langston  Hall,  where  it  is  located,  and  the  why's  and  wherefore's  of  it.

    Mr.  Cross.  That  would  be  Mr.  Ayers.  I  think.

    Mr.  Ayers.  Langston  Hall  is  at  Oklahoma  and  Nebraska  Avenue
    NE.  It  is  a  colored  dormitory  affair  that  is  operated  by  the  Federal
    Works  Agency.    The  cafeteria  is  located  in  those  dormitories.    We

    346  INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE

    have  operated  it  under  our  general  contract  with  PBA,  as  we  do  the
    majority  of  our  units.

    Mr.  Smith.  How  long  have  you  operated  it?

    Mr.  Ayers.  It  was  started  during  the  war  about  the  same  time  that
    Arlington  Farms  was  started.

    Mr.  Smith.  Are  the  people  out  there  all  Government  employees  ?

    Mr.  Aters.  You  mean  the  occupants  of  the  dormitories  ?

    Mr.  Smith.  Yes.

    Mr.  Aters.  No,  I  don't  believe  so.    I  don't  know.

    Mr.  Smith.  They  have  no  connection  with  the  Government  except
    that  the  Government  owns  the  building.    Is  that  all  ?

    Mr.  Ayers.  I  really  can't  tell  you.  The  only  one  fact  that  I  know,
    I  believe  that  some  of  them  are  Howard  University  students.  Wheth-
    er they  are  veterans  and  are  receiving  veterans'  subsistence,  I  don't
    know.

    Mr.  Smith.  How  long  has  it  been  closed  ?

    Mr.  Ayers.  It  has  been  closed  since  just  prior  to  Christmas,  about
    the  22d  of  December.

    Mr.  Smith.  Can  anybody  go  in  there  and  eat?

    Mr.  Ayers.  I  think  that  is  primarily  there  for  the  occupants  of
    the  dormitories.    I  would  say  that  no  one  would  be  refused.

    Mr.  Smith.  Is  is  a  large  or  small  operation  ?

    Mr.  Ayers.  I  would  say  it  is  small.

    Mr.  Smith.  But  the  place  has  no  connection  with  the  Government
    in  any  way  except  that  the  Government  furnished  the  money  to  build
    the  building  ?

    Mr.  Ayers.  It  is  my  understanding  that  the  Government  operates
    the  dormitories  and  that  the  cafeteria  is  part  of  that  whole  set-up
    there.    For  what  purpose  it  is  operated,  I  am  not  sure.

    General  Grant.  I  think  it  was  built  for  war  workers  and  now  it  is
    being  used  for  veterans  and  other  Government  employees.  Of  course,
    some  of  the  war  workers  who  have  gone  on  continuing  in  the  Gov-
    ernment service.  ,

    Mr.  Smith.  Are  the  same  prices  in  vogue  out  there  as  down  here  ?

    Mr.  Ayers.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Smith.  That  is  all.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Tlie  Government  gets  a  share  in  the  profit  if  there
    is  any  ?

    General  Grant.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  understand,  do  you  not,  General,  if  you  are  will-
    ing to  negotiate  with  this  union  which  is  affiliated  with  a  union  whose
    officere  refuse  to  sign  anti-Communist  affidavits  you  would  settle  this
    strike  right  off,  do  you  not  ?  With  one  qualification,  except  as  your
    present  employees  might  bring  action  against  you.

    General  Grant.  Yes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  think  that  is  all.

    General  Grant.  I  think  we  have  not  actually  negotiated  with  them,
    sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  all.    Thank  you  very  much.

    At  the  moment,  the  matter  will  stand  where  it  did  Thursday  ?

    General  Grant.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Very  well.

    We  will  adjourn  now.

    (Wliereupon,  at  4  p.  m.,  the  subcommittee  adjourned,  subject  to  the
    call  of  the  Chair.)

    INVESTIGATION  OF  GSI  STRIKE

    MONDAY,   MARCH   8,    1948

    House  of  Representatives,
    Special  Subcommittee  of  the
    Committee  on  Education  and  Labor,

    Washington,  D.  C.

    The  subcommittee  met,  pursuant  to  call,  at  7  p.  m.,  in  room  429,  Old
    House  Office  Building,  the  Honorable  Clare  E.  Hoflfman  (chairman
    of  the  subcommittee)  presiding.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  The  committee  will  come  to  order.

    Is  John  R.  Steelman  in  the  room?  John  R.  Steelman?  John  R.
    Steelman  ?

    (There  was  no  response.)

    Mr.  Hoffman.  We  will  offer  in  evidence  first  a  subpena  dated  March
    6,  calling  for  the  apj^earance  of  John  R.  Steelman  before  this  com-
    mittee on  Saturday,  March  6,  1948,  at  the  hour  of  2  p.  m.,  with  the
    endorsement  on  the  back :

    Personally  served  copy  of  the  within  on  John  R.  Steelman,  on  March  6,  1948,
    W.  B  Matthews,  United  States  marshal,  in  and  for  the  District  of  Columbia,
    by  William  T.  Smith,  deputy  United  States  marshal —

    and  what  I  take  to  be  an  identifying  initial  below.    I  do  not  know  what
    it  is.

    Second,  a  subpena  issued  on  the  8th  day  of  March  1948  calling  for  the
    appearance  of  John  R.  Steelman  before  this  committee  at  this  room,
    as  did  the  other  one,  on  Monda}^,  March  8, 1948,  at  the  hour  of  7  p.  m. ;
    and  on  the  back —

    Personally  served  copy  of  the  within  on  John  R.  Steelman,  March  8,  1948,
    W.  B.  Matthews,  United  States  marshal,  in  and  for  the  District  of  Columbia,
    by  William  T.  Smith,  deputy  United  States  marshal —

    and  apparently  the  same  initials.

    Now,  we  have  called  for  the  deputy  marshall  to  ascertain  whether  or
    not,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  subpenas  were  served  on  Mr.  Steelman,
    who,  I  understand  from  the  committee  staff,  advised  on  both  occasions
    that  he  would  be  here  at  the  appointed  time,  but  so  far  has  not  ap-
    peared, neither  Saturday  nor  today.

    We  did  not  anticipate  taking  any  other  testimony,  and  we  will  wait
    a  while  for  Mr.  Steelman.

    Wliile  we  are  waiting,  inasmuch  as  the  committee  has  learned  that
    there  was  a  meeting  of  the  trustees  this  afternoon :

    Are  any  of  the  trustees  of  GSI  here?

    Will  you  come  forward,  please  ?

    You  were  sworn  the  other  day,  and  that  holds  good  at  this  hearing;
    and  if  you  will  give  your  name  and  address  to  this  stenographer,  who
    was  not  here  the  other  day,  we  would  appreciate  it.

    347

    348  INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE

    TESTIMONY  OF  J.  S.  DAVITT— RecaUed

    Mr.  Davitt.  J.  S.  Davitt.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  understand  that  the  trustees  of  GSI  were  called
    together  this  afternoon,  or  today.

    Mr.  Davitt.  They  were.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  by  whom  were  you  called ;  and  what  happened  ?

    Mr.  Davitt.  We  were  called  together  by  the  president,  General
    Grant.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  how  many  of  the  trustees  were  present?

    Mr.  Davitt.  There  were  eight  of  us,  including  the  general.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is,  all  but  one  ?

    Mr.  Davitt.  All  but  one.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  what,  if  any,  matter  came  before  you,  and  what
    action  did  you  take  ?

    Mr.  Davitt.  We  were  asked,  Mr.  Chairman,  only  to  reconsider  the
    action  that  was  taken  on  Thursday  evening.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Of  last  week?

    Mr.  Davitt.  Of  last  week;  when  we  submitted  our  proposal  to  the
    union.  And  the  board  reaffirmed  its  action  of  that  date.  In  other
    words,  we  made  no  change  in  our  previous  submission  to  the  union  of
    the  proposal  of  Mr.  Strong.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  of  the  eight  who  were  present,  was  there  any
    dissenting  vote,  or  was  it  unanimous  ?

    Mr.  Davitt.  There  were  dissenting  votes.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  tliink  that  is  all  I  care  to  ask.

    Mr.  Smith.  Was  there  anyone  there  present  besides  the  trustees?

    Mr.  Davitt.  Only  our  staff,  Mr.  Smith;  the  general  counsel,  the
    general  manager,  and  our  personnel  man.  No  one  presented  anything
    except  General  Grant.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  think  that  is  all.  We  have  been  over  the  other
    issues  with  you.

    Mr.  Davitt.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Thank  you  for  coming  up  here  tonight.  You  were
    not  subpenaed.

    Mr.  Davitt.  That  is  correct.  I  came  up  because  I  was  interested
    in  what  was  going  on.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  may  sit  right  there,  Mr.  Reiman.  You  were
    sworn  the  other  day  ?

    Mr.  Reiman.  I  have  never  been  sworn  in  this  hearing.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Will  you  solemnly  swear  that  the  testimony  which
    you  shall  give  will  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the
    truth,  so  help  you  God  ?

    Mr.  Reiman.  I  do.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  are  on  the  committee  staff  are  you,  Mr.  Reiman?

    TESTIMONY  OF  F.  ALBEET  REIMAN,  MEMBER  OF  STAFF,  HOUSE
    COMMITTEE  ON  EDUCATION  AND  LABOR,  WASHINGTON,  D.  C.

    Mr.  Reiman.  I  am,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  what,  if  anything,  did  you  do  with  reference
    to  the  serving  of  a  subpena  on  John  R.  Steelman  ?

    Mr.  Reiman.  I  took  the  subpena  which  I  liold  in  my  hand

    Mr.  Hoffman.  The  one  for  today,  or  Saturday  ?

    INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE  349

    Mr.  Reiman.  This  one  calls  for  his  appearance  before  the  Special
    Committee  of  the  Ediication  and  Labor  Committee  of  the  House  of
    Representatives,  of  wliicli  the  Honorable  Clare  E.  Hoffman  is  chair-
    man, in  room  429  of  the  House  Office  Building,  Monday,  October  8,
    1948,  at  the  hour  of  7  p.  m.,  and  it  is  signed  by  Clare  E.  Hoffman,
    designated  by  the  chairman,  and  attested  to  by  John  Andrews,  Clerk
    of  the  House,  with  the  seal  affixed.

    I  took  this  subpena  to  the  United  States  Marshal's  office  this  morn-
    ing. I  was  accompanying  a  deputy  marshal  by  the  name  of  William
    T.  Smith.

    We  went  to  the  White  House  offices,  where  we  were  received  in  the
    outer  office,  and,  after  waiting  for  a  few  moments,  they  called  for
    Marshal  Smith  to  come  inside,  where  Mr.  Steelman  was  supposed
    to  be ;  and  it  was  understood  that  Mr.  Steelman  would  receive  service
    of  this  subpena.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  say  "it  was  understood."  How  did  you  get  that
    understanding  ?

    Mr.  Reiman.  The  understanding  was  by  telephone  from  the  outside
    office  to  the  inside  office.  He  called  to  the  outside  office  and  said,  "Send
    the  Marshal  in  now,  and  I  will  accept  service."

    When  the  Marshal  returned  from  the  inside  office  to  the  outer  office,
    where  I  was  waiting,  the  first  question  I  asked  was,  "Did  you  serve
    the  subpena  on  Mr.  Steelman?"

    Mr.  HoFFMAX.  I  realize  that  is  all  hearsay,  but  it  is  the  best  we  have
    until  we  can  get  something  better.

    Mr.  Reiman.  He  said,  "I  did."  Then  we  returned  to  the  United
    States  Marshal's  office  down  at  the  courthouse  and  had  the  stamp
    "Personally  served"  placed  on  here,  with  Mr.  Smith's  signature,  who
    made  his  report  as  having  given  personal  service.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Will  you  have  the  deputy  United  States  marshal
    here  tomorrow  morning  at  9  o'clock  to  complete  the  record,  to  learn
    whether  or  not  the  subpena  was  actually  served  on  Mr.  Steelman?

    Mr.  Reiman.  I  will  do  that,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  wdll  be  first-hand  evidence.

    Mr.  Reiman.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  presume  this  is  prima  facie  evidence  of  that,  but
    we  want  the  actual  evidence.

    Mr.  Reiman.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Will  the  gentleman  who  just  contacted  Mr.  Steel-
    man's  office  now  come  in  and  give  us  his  testimony  ?

    Have  you  been  sworn  in  this  matter?

    Mr.  McArthur.   No;  I  haven't.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Do  you  solemnly  swear  that  the  testimony  which  you
    shall  give  will  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,
    so  help  you  God?

    Mr.  McAethur.  I  do.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Wliat  is  your  position  with  the  Committee  on  Edu-
    cation and  Labor?

    TESTIMONY  OF  FRANK  S.  McARTHUR— Recalled

    Mr.  McArther.  Professional  staff.
    Mr.  Hoffman.   Of  the  House?
    Mr.  McArthur.  That  is  right.

    350  INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  your  name  ?

    Mr.  McArthur.  Frank  S.  McArthur.

    Mr.  Hoffman.   Your  address?

    Mr.  McArthur.  3200  Sixteenth  Street  NW.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Now,  have  you  just  made  an  effort  to  get  in  contact
    with  Mr.  John  R.  Steelman?

    Mr.  McArthur.   I  did.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  what  did  you  learn  ?

    Mr.  McArthur.  I  called  his  office  a  few  minutes  ago.

    Mr.  Hoffman.   His  office  where?

    Mr.  McArthur.  In  the  White  House.  Some  secretary  answered  up
    there,  and  said

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Did  you  get  her  name  ?

    Mr.  McArthur.  No  ;  I  didn't.  She  was  just  covering  the  telephone
    calls  coming  in  at  night.

    And  I  asked  if  Mr.  Steelman  was  there.  She  said.  No,  he  wasn't.  I
    asked  if  she  could  get  in  touch  with  him.  She  said  she  didn't  know ;
    that  he  had  left  the  office,  and  she  was  the  only  one  who  was  there.
    And  she  said  that  she  would  try  to  find  out  where  he  was  and  call  me.
    I  told  her  why  I  wanted  him ;  that  he  was  expected  down  here,  and  we
    wondered  if  he  had  left  for  this  hearing.

    Well,  she  didn't  know  about  that  herself,  she  said,  and  she  would
    find  out  and  call  me  back.

    Ten  or  fifteen  minutes  later  she  did  call  back  and  said  that  Mr.
    Steelman  had  called  in  from  the  outside  about  some  other  matter,  and
    while  he  was  talking  she  asked  him  was  he  going  to  attend  this  meeting
    here  tonight.     He  said.  No,  he  wasn't.

    I  asked  if  he  gave  any  reason.  She  said  he  didn't  give  any  reason
    whatever.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Of  course,  that  testimony  is  hearsay,  and  all  the  com-
    mittee can  do  aiKl  all  it  will  do,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  is  to  bring
    the  matter  to  the  attention  of  the  Attorney  General  and  to  the  at-
    tention of  the  full  committee,  and  learn  whether  or  not  the  statute
    which  requires  witnesses  to  appear  when  subpenaed  applies  to  the
    case  of  Mr.  Steelman,  if  he  was  subpenaed;  and  if  he  was  not  per-
    sonally served  with  a  subpena,  we  will  continue  our  efforts  until  we
    do  get  personal  service.

    Those  are  the  instructions  of  the  subcommittee  to  you  gentlemen
    of  the  staff :  to  have  other  subpenas  issued,  and  if  necessary,  post  your
    selves  at  the  residence  of  Mr.  Steelman  and,  if  you  cannot  locate  him,
    start  in  and  subpena  whoever  may  be  there,  until  we  follow  down  the
    line  and  finally  reach  Mr.  Steelman.  Then  we  can  ask,  or  learn,  per-
    haps whether  the  law  applies.

    Is  he  a  member  of  the  Cabinet  ?

    Mr.  Reiman.  He  is  a  Presidential  adviser.

    Mr.  HoFFiMAN.  Find  out  whether  the  statute  applies  to  a  Presiden-
    tial adviser,  or  whether  they  are  exempt  from  the  statutes  requiring
    the  average  ordinary  citizen  to  appear.

    So,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  that  is  all  we  have  tonight.  Later  you
    will  know  whether  the  Government  can  coinmand  the  attendance  of
    individuals  who  happen  to  be  advisers  to  the  President.

    ( Wliereupon,  at  7 :  30  p.  m.,  an  adjournment  was  taken,  to  recon-
    vene at  9  a.  m.,  Tuesday,  March  9, 1948.)

    INVESTIGATION  OF  GSI  STRIKE

    TUESDAY,   MARCH  9,    1948

    House  of  Representatives,
    Special  Subcommittee  of  the
    Committee  on  Education  and  Labor,

    Washington,  D.  O.
    The  subcommittee  met,  pursuant  to  adjournment,  at  9  a.  m.,  in
    room  429,  Old  House  Office  Building,  the  Honorable  Clare  E.  Hoff-
    man (chairman  of  the  subcommittee)  presiding.
    Mr.  Hoffman.  The  committee  will  come  to  order.
    Mr.  Smith,  do  you  solemnly  swear  that  the  testimony  that  you  shall
    give  will  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  so
    help  you  God  ?

    Mr.  William  T.  Smith.  I  do.

    TESTIMONY   OF  WILLIAM    T.    SMITH,    DEPUTY    UNITED   STATES

    MAESHAL

    Mr.  Hoffman.  What  is  your  name  ?

    Mr.  William  T.  Smith.  William  T.  Smith.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  your  business?

    Mr.  W^illiam  T.  Smith.  I  am  a  deputy  United  States  marshal.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  I  show  you  a  subpena  issued  by  the  subcommittee
    calling  for  the  appearance  of  John  R.  Steelman  on  March  6,  1948,  at
    2  p.  m.,  and  ask  you  whether  or  not  you  served  that  subpena?  If  you
    did,  what  was  the  manner  of  the  service  ?

    Mr.  William  T.  Smith.  This  is  the  original.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  The  first  one?

    Mr.  William  T.  Smith.  Yes.  This  is  the  original.  I  served  a
    copy  of  this.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Of  that  ?

    Mr.  William  T.  Smith.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  How  did  you  serve  it,  and  when  ?

    Mr.  William  T.  Smith.  As  a  personal  service.  I  served  it  at  11 :  45
    on  the  6th ;  11 :  45  a.m.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  was  last  Saturday  ?

    Mr.  William  T.  Smith.  Last  Saturday.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  How  did  you  serve  it?    Did  you  see  Mr.  Steelman?

    Mr.  William  T.  Smith.  "Handed  it  him  personally ;  yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  What  if  anything,  did  he  say  ?

    Mr.  William  T.  Smith.  He  did  not  have  much  to  say.  He  just  took
    it  and  said  he  was  busy.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  served  a  copy  of  that  subpena  on  him  ?

    35t

    352  INVESTIGATION   OF   GSI   STRIKE

    Mr.  William  T.  Smitii.  A  copy  of  this  subpena.

    Mr,  Hoffman.  Did  you  show  him  the  original  and  the  seal  ?

    Mr.  William  T.  Smith.  No,  sir.  I  did  not  have  the  original.  The
    original  was  kept  in  our  office.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Is  it  always  kept  in  your  office  ?

    Mr.  William  T.  Smith.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  The  copy  of  the  seal  was  on  the  original?

    Mr.  William  T.  Smith.  Well,  I  did  not  see  the  original.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  have  it  in  front  of  you.

    Mr.  William  T.  Smith.  The  seal  is  on  this  oiriginal ;  yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  What  do  you  say  about  this  one  dated  March  8,  call-
    ing for  his  appearance  March  8  at  7  p.  m.,  1948  ?

    Mr.  William  T.  Smith.  I  served  a  copy  of  this  at  11

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Let  us  go  back  a  moment.

    Where  was  it  that  you  served  the  one  calling  for  his  appearance
    on  the  6th?

    Mr.  William  T.  Smith.  In  his  office,  in  the  east  wing  of  the  Whit€
    House.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  here  in  Washington?

    Mr.  William  T.  Smith.  Washington.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Where  were  you  when  you  served  the  other  one  and
    where  was  Mr.  Steelman  ?

    Mr.  WiLLiA3i  T.  Smith.  At  the  same  time,  in  his  office,  the  east  wing
    of  the  Wliite  House.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  you  handed  the  copy  to  him  ?

    Mr.  William  T.  Smith.  Handed  to  him  personally.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  was  a  copy  of  the  original  which  you  hold  in
    your  hand  ?

    JMr.  William  T.  Smith.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  a  copy  of  the  seal  was  impressed  on  it  ?

    Mr.  William  T.  Smith.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  the  copy  was  signed  by  the  chairman  of  the
    subcommittee  designated  by  the  chairman  of  the  full  committee  ?

    Mr.  William  T.  Smith.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Any  doubt  about  this  now  ?

    Mr.  William  T.  Smith.  Not  in  my  mind ;  no,  sir.

    ]\Ir.  WiNT  Smith.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Steelman  ?

    Mr.  William  T.  Smith.  No,  sir.  I  do  not.  I  have  never  seen  him
    before.  Appointment  was  made  for  me  by  my  superior,  Mr.  Henry,
    who  made  the  call  to  the  White  House,  and  Mr.  Steelman  said  he  would
    accept  it  at  11 :  45.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  have  seen  his  picture  ?

    Mr.  William  T.  Smith.  I  saw  his  picture  this  morning.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  You  identify  it  as  the  man  you  served  on,  Mr.
    Steelman  ?

    Mr.  William  T.  Smith.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  He  answered  to  the  name  when  you  inquired  for  Mr.
    Steelman  ?

    Mr.  William  T.  Smith.  Yes,  sir.     I  was  introduced  to  him.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  He  acknowledged  the  introduction?

    Mr.  William  T.  Smith.  Yes,  sir,

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Any  doubt  at  all  about  you  having  the  right  man  ?

    Mr.  William  T.  Smith.  No,  sir.     Not  to  my  mind.

    INVESTIGATION   OF  GSI   STRIKE  353

    Mr.  Hoffman.  And  this  was  in  the  Executive  Office  of  the  White
    House  in  Washington  ?

    Mr.  William  T.  Sjiiith.  Yes,  sir.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  That  is  all  I  have.

    ]Mr.  WiNT  Smith.  That  is  all  I  have.

    Mr.  Fisher.  That  is  all  I  have.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  Thank  you  very  much.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  What  if  any  action  does  the  subcommittee  wish  to
    take?

    Ai^j  motion,  Mr.  Fisher?     Or  Mr,  Smith?     Any  suggestion?

    Mr.  Fisher.  I  think  we  ought  to  discuss  that  in  executive  session.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  If  you  wish.

    Is  that  what  you  would  like  to  do  ?

    Mr.  Fisher.  Well,  if  you  would  like  to  go  into  a  matter  of  what  the
    committee  does,  of  what  action  the  committee  might  take,  we  should
    do  that  in  executive  session.

    Mr.  Hoffman.  The  only  thing  I  know  that  is  left  for  us  to  do  is  to
    refer  to  the  full  committee  and  let  the  full  committee  take  action.  Mr.
    Hartlej'^  will  be  herfi  today.

    The  committee  will  go  into  executive  session.

    (Whereupon,  at  9 :  05  a.  m.,  the  hearings  in  the  above  matter  were
    closed  and  the  committee  went  into  executive  session.)

    X

    BOSTON  PUBLIC  LIBRARY

    lilillilililiiiil
    3  9999  05442  1944

    1