NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS,
Des Moines, Iowa, February 11, 1954.

Mr. JOHN C. GETREU,
Director, 10th Region, National Labor Relations Board,

Atlanta, Ga.

DEAR MR. GETREU: Our union, the National Brotherhood of Packinghouse Workers, is presently engaged in an organizational campaign among packinghouse workers, food handlers, distributors, and processors and neighboring or related industries in your region. In some cases other unions will be involved.

We are, therefore, interested in knowing the names and related information in your files concerning officers and other official representatives of the United Packinghouse Workers of America, CIO, who have filed non-Communist affidavits at the regional level in your area.

Your kind attention and early reply with respect to this matter will be very greatly appreciated.

Yours very truly,

Mr. DON MAHON,

DON MAHON, President.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 10TH REGION,
Atlanta, Ga., December 9, 1953.

Executive Secretary, National Independent Union Council,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. MAHON: This is to confirm the information that was orally given to you on December 8 by Field Examiner A. C. Joy to the effect that your organization may neither be furnished with a list of all persons who have filed with this office non-Communist affidavits pursuant to section 9 (h) of the National Labor Relations Act nor permitted to examine such documents. This also constitutes confirmation of Mr. Joy's oral word to the effect that, if desired, such rulings may be appealed to the Board's General Counsel. Such appeal, if filed, must give the reasons for your request.

Very truly yours,

JOHN C. GETREU, Regional Director.

Mr. MAHON. Our union and its officers have been discriminated against from the standpoint, we believe, of equal treatment by the National Labor Relations Board in the handling of cases. We have cited at various times cases where the facts were exactly or almost identical and the decision that comes out for us is exactly the opposite to what comes out when the union that we have cited here as being mentioned as one of those that is Communist dominated by various Government agencies gets a different answer. We have cases pending right now where that is the situation.

We believe that the agency that is set up to carry out any law that may be enacted by this committee should contain some more effective guaranties against this type of dual treatment. Section 7 of the existing Labor Relations Act guarantees employees the right to form, join, or assist unions of their own choosing. In order to make that part of the law effective, there must be provisions made to carry it out in the case of a local union. If that is not done, local unions will be eliminated; people will be unable to get representation in that manner if this agency that is set up to carry out the law isn't made more effective. We believe that the Senate realizes that situation. They have certainly realized it in the case of business. They have set up a special committee to look after the interests of small business who operate pretty much on a local basis. Certainly small unions should receive comparable consideration.

Mr. ARENS. Would you mind this question, sir: What is the aggregate membership of these three-hundred-odd independent unions that are allied in this association that you have mentioned?

Mr. MAHON. The ones that have endorsed our program have indicated, from the information they have provided us with, that they represent something over 500,000 people. As I say, we have no way of checking that. Of course, we don't police those unions in the same manner that some of the major federations might police theirs, but they have indicated to us that they represent that number of people. Mr. ARENS. What is the aggregate membership of the some 2,000 independent unions in the United States, would you say?

Mr. MAHON. We don't know, of course, for sure. But we have no way of knowing that. We tried to get that from the Department of Labor, the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The nearest that we can come to that is, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, I think, some 49.8 million are gainfully employed in this country, the highest point of employment. And at that time, the claim of the CIO and the A. F. of L. was that they had something around 15 or 16 million together.

As you can see, the remainder are in independent unions or unorganized. Of course, I am referring to nonagricultural workers. I have no way of knowing that. We have tried many times to get that information. The source of our information on the 2,000 unions, of course, is a mailing list that we have compiled. The majority of those unions, of course, are located a long way from Washington, and unless they have occasion to use the services of the NLRB or some agency such as that, it is pretty hard to keep track of them.

However, during wage stabilization, as a result of some of the protests we made down here of not being represented on that wage stabilization board, there was set up within the framework of the wage stabilization board an office for independent unions, which was sort of a half-way measure that they used to get around our request for equal consideration, and through that office there were handled cases involving something like, I believe, 2,300 or 2,400 different independent unions.

The independent unions we refer to do not include the so-called Commie unions that have separated from the CIO. Neither do we claim to represent such organizations as the railroad brotherhoods or the mine workers or the large ones like that. They can speak for themselves and do.

Our primary interest is with the smaller unions who ordinarily have one or more locals and usually their membership is in the hundreds and thousands, and not over a hundred thousand.

I think most of them are under that. But those are the ones we primarily refer to. There is no source that I know of where that information can be obtained.

Mr. ARENS. Do you have information to supply the committee, Mr. Mahon, with respect to a Communist-controlled union?

Mr. MAHON. The information that I refer to is with respect to the treatment received by our union when we are engaged in controversies with the union, the United Packinghouse Workers of America, that has been cited as Communist controlled. It was cited by the House Un-American Activities Committee.

We have a copy of a resignation from one of their officials, a resignation from his office, before the signing of the non-Communist affidavits took place in order that their union might meet in compliance. Since that time, we established by sworn testimony of another of their executive officers in an NLRB hearing that this man was still active in their organization in that he was a delegate to the convention and active in the convention which, according to their constitution, is a policymaking body of that organization. That case that I refer to is NLRB 18-RC-1570.

The document that I have here is a sample of the tactics used to discredit our organization or any organization, or any Senator or any Congressman, who sees fit to propose legislation to eliminate Communists from the labor movement.

Mr. ARENS. What is that document that you have, specifically? Mr. MAHON. This document that I have here is called the Blade, issued by District Council 3 of the United Packinghouse Workers of America, CIO. In bold headlines it declares on the outside that the "Butler Law Crushes Local, Other Locals Gear for Big Fight." In the article on page 4, it explains the alleged effects of the Butler bill which, according to this article, are very detrimental to organized labor and this union in particular. After going through this article and making these allegations, at the end they have a statement that says, "That is quite a story, isn't it? It is not true."

Nevertheless, this paper was distributed through the mails to thousands of people, I believe at least I know that it was received by some-and of course it had the effect of creating in the minds of those people, and many of them, of course, are people who we hope to organize into our union, the thought that this type of legislation was detrimental to labor and that we were in favor of it.

Mr. ARENS. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest that the document which Mr. Mahon is referring to be incorporated by reference in the record and filed with the committee.

Senator WELKER. It is so ordered.

(The document referred to was filed with the committee.)

Mr. ARENS. Is there anything else that you wanted to bring to the attention of the committee, Mr. Mahon?

Mr. MAHON. I believe that most of our position is covered by our

statement.

Mr. ARENS. And which the chairman has already ordered to be incorporated into the record.

Mr. MAHON. Yes. Our feeling is that the solution to this problem is greater publicity, and the making available of the information that the Government has concerning these subversives in the labor movement or any place else a matter of public record.

Mr. ARENS. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. ARENS. Mr. Mahon, does your organization, both the packinghouse organization, the National Brotherhood of Packinghouse Workers, and the National Independent Union Council, endorse the principles involved in the three bills currently pending before the subcommittee?

Mr. MAHON. We certainly do, most wholeheartedly endorse the principle of the elimination of Communists from the American labor

43903-54 19

movement, and we don't believe that that limitation should be restricted to labor organizations alone. We think it should be applied equally to business concerns, to all other organizations in our society. We trust that this committee in drafting legislation will not put in a boomerang such as the signing of the non-Communist affidavit in the Taft-Hartley Act by only one party.

Mr. ARENS. So that our record is clear, do you endorse the principles of this legislation?

Mr. MAHON. Yes, we do.

Mr. ARENS. Is there anything else, Mr. Mahon, that you wanted to bring to the attention of the committee?

Mr. MAHON. I believe that the documents that I have introduced along with this statement are sufficient.

Mr. ARENS. Well, the committee, then, thanks you for your testimony. We appreciate very much indeed your courtesy in appearing today and in waiting so long today, patiently, to appear. We have had two other witnesses with extensive testimony on this record today. We want to thank you for your kindness and courtesy and patience with the committee.

Mr. MAHON. I appreciate that, and I will be pleased to cooperate in any way possible to give you further assistance.

Senator WELKER. The subcommittee will be in recess, subject to the call of the chairman.

(Whereupon, at 4:57 the hearing was recessed, subject to the call of the chairman.)

SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCE IN CERTAIN LABOR

ORGANIZATIONS

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 1954

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE ADMINISTRATION
OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT AND OTHER INTERNAL
SECURITY LAWS, OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, D. C.

The task force of the subcommittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to call, in room 457, Senate Office Building, Senator John M. Butler (chairman of the task force) presiding.

Present: Senators Butler, Hendrickson, and Eastland.

Present also: Richard Arens, special counsel; Frank Schoeder and Edward Duffy, professional staff members.

Senator BUTLER. The subcommittee will come to order.

Mr. Arens, will you call the first witness?

Mr. ARENS. The first witness, sir, will be Mr. Boulware.
Will you kindly come forward?

Senator BUTLER. Will you hold up your right hand, please? In the presence of Almighty God, do you solemnly swear that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. BOULWARE. I do.

Senator BUTLER. The witness is sworn, Counsel.

TESTIMONY OF LEMUEL R. BOULWARE, VICE PRESIDENT, GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM J. BARRON, LABOR RELATIONS COUNSEL, GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.

Mr. ARENS. Kindly identify yourself by name, residence, and occupation.

Mr. BOULWARE. My name is Lemuel R. Boulware. I am a resident of New York City. I am vice president of the General Electric Co. My associate is Mr. William J. Barron, who will also testify, our company's labor counsel.

Mr. ARENS. Were you sworn?

Mr. BARRON. No, I was not.

Senator BUTLER. In the presence of Almighty God, do you solemnly promise and declare that the evidence you will give to this task force will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. BARRON. Yes, sir.

287