[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