Mr. SMITHEY. I do not know that you fully perceived the import of my question. What I was asking was whether or not there was any discussion of whether the area to be covered by the treaty was a proper subject for the conclusion of the treaty. That is, did it relate to the sovereign and the subject, or was it a contract between sovereign and sovereign. Mr. FAUPL. I might say that we are constantly under the impression that if the ILO adopts a convention, and it does not suit our purpose or our operation, we have the right to reject it. The convention does not become operative until it has been ratified by our own lawmaking agency which in this case means the Senate, or if the Senate decides that it is an appropriate matter for State legislation, that it is referred to the State. All nations are free to accept or reject the convention. Certainly if you have difference of opinion as to whether or not certain conditions are appropriate, we feel that we can have sufficient safeguards in our treaty-ratifying procedure. Senator DIRKSEN. Of course it involves this whole area of pressures as I pointed out. They propose now, you know, that if a country does not ratify to cite it at the bar of public opinion, as the resolution puts it. In other words, we do not go along. That certainly would put this or any other country in a bad light. In other words, here we are. For 35 years we have had membership in the ILO. The Senate fails to ratify and some pressure must be applied. This country must be cited. This is a pressure age whether we like it or not. If anybody has any doubt about it, he ought to be on the receiving end of some senatorial mail today. Mr. FAUPL. May I proceed? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. FAUPL. Mr. McGrath goes on to further testify: Also in the 1951 agenda and carried over into 1952 was a proposal masquerading under the innocuous title, "Cooperation between public authorities and employers and workers' organizations." While the purposes of this proposal were cleverly concealed in the official text submitted to the conference, some of the workers made it plain that it was designed as a step in the direction of management of industry by joint committees of workers and management. In short, the objective seemed to me the equivalent of what we in this country call codetermination and in Germany today, they call Mitbestimmungsrecht. The plan, according to its original outline, would be established in three successive steps-namely, at the company level, the industry level, and finally, the national level. For the information of the members of the committee, I would like to read the official text adopted by the conference, in which I also participated, on this issue in 1951: RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING CONSULTATION AND COOPERATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND WORKERS AT THE LEVEL OF THE UNDERTAKING The general conference of the International Labor Organization Having been convened at Geneva by the governing body of the International Labor Office, and having met in its 35th session on June 4, 1952, and Mr. SMITHEY. It appears to me there may be an inconsistency in your statement and the text. If I read your statement correctly it says "in which I also participated, on this issue in 1951." And it seems to me that may refer to the preceding phrase which says "the official text adopted by the conference." I take it this is the 1952 draft and not the 1951 draft? Mr. FAUPL. It carried over to 1952. It started out, a portion of it, in 1951 and then carried over into 1952. Mr. SMITHEY. The reason I asked that question, Mr. McGrath says at the 1952 conference, owing chiefly to the strenuous objections of the employer delegates, this whole proposal was limited to the plant level and softened to a brief recommendation, saying in effect that "cooperation is a good thing and should be encouraged." No convention or proposed international treaty was involved. Mr. FAUPL. I shall read you from the official text. What happened was this: This matter was broken down in 1950 into two sections: (1) Discussion under plant level which was acted upon and adopted in 1951. The rest of the matter was referred to the 1952 conference which I am not familiar with because I did not participate in the 1952 conference. I would like to, therefore, quote the adoption of the 1951 conference. I read from the official text: Bodies for consultation and cooperation should have the essential function of increasing understanding of each other's point of view between all parties in the undertaking on a basis of real equality of discussion and of assisting management by giving advice, information, suggestions, and in matters relating to production and the comfort and well-being of the workers. (2) In accordance with national custom or practice, such consultation and cooperation should be (a) facilitated by the encouragement of voluntary agreements between the parties, or (b) promoted by laws or regulations which would be established bodies for consultation and cooperation, and determine their scope, function, structure, and methods of operation as may be appropriate to the conditions in the various undertakings or facilitated or promoted, or by a combination of these two methods. Going back to the recommendation concerning consultation and cooperation between employers and workers at the level of the undertaking, I resume where I left off: Having decided upon the adoption of certain proposals with regard to consultation and cooperation between employers and workers at the level of the undertaking, which is included in the sixth item on the agenda of the session, and Having determined that these proposals shall take the form of recommendation designed to be implemented by the parties concerned or by the public authorities as may be appropriate under national conditions, adopts this 26th day of June of the year 1952 the following recommendation, which may be cited as the "Cooperation at the Level of the Undertaking Recommendation, 1952": 1. Appropriate steps should be taken to promote consultation and cooperation between employers and workers at the level of the undertaking on matters of mutual concern not within the scope of collective bargaining machinery, or not normally dealt with by other machinery concerned with the determination of terms and conditions of employment. 2. In accordance with national custom or practice, such consultation and cooperation should be (a) facilitated by the encouragement of voluntary agreements between the parties, or (b) promoted by laws or regulations which would establish bodies for consultation and cooperation and determine their scope. functions, structure and methods of operation as may be appropriate to the conditions in the various undertakings, or (c) facilitated or promoted by a combination of these methods. Mr. McGrath construes this as a design to take over management and, therefore, calls it codetermination or "mitbestimmungsrecht"a term used by German workers in their demand for a voice in industry. Senator DIRKSEN. That word "mitbestimmungsrecht" means a little more than that, does it not? Mr. FAUPL. Á little more than that. Senator DIRKSEN. Than just a mere voice? Mr. FAUPL. It means participation on management and industry level by the German worker. Senator DIRKSEN. It goes a little further than that. That word "recht" means "right." Mr. FAUPL. That is right. Senator DIRKSEN. And "mitbestimmungsrecht" means concurrence, right to concur. Mr. FAUPL. May I proceed? Senator DIRKSEN. Yes; but have you any comment to make? Senator DIRKSEN. Very well. Mr. FAUPL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I worked with the German labor movement, and believe that I know something about codetermination. I wish to make it plain that if I were a member of the German labor movement in Germany, I would be all for codetermination. Yet, I realize, also, that it is not practical for American industrial relations, and, therefore, I would not want any part of it in America. One might also ask just how badly have some American employers suffered as a result of ILO activities. Perhaps the answer to this question, in part at least, is furnished by J. S. Armstrong, financial editor of the Baltimore Sun on February 25, in a report on the sales and operation of McCormick & Co., Inc., whose president was chairman of the employer's delegation, which I would like to quote for the information of the committee: Net sales of McCormick & Co., Inc., for the fiscal year ended November 30, 1952, amounted to $37,868,602 only slightly changed from $37,812,987 for the previous year, according to the annual report of Charles P. McCormick, president. Net income after provision for taxes rose to $710,178 or $2.98 a share on 217,649 outstanding common shares from $628,634 or $2.61 a share for the preceding year, after adjustment for a 20-percent stock dividend paid March 10, 1952. In addition to the tangible results shown in the report, the management devoted substantial effort and funds for the further development of foreign markets, it was stated. This project included those countries in which the company is now buying or selling products which it needs or produces, as well as new markets for the company. Some of the contacts made in foreign lands were the result of inquiries stimulated by the work of the company's president during the 4 years he represented the employers of the United States as their delegate to the International Labor Organization conferences at Geneva, Switzerland. Senator DIRKSEN. Are you going to leave that stand as is? Senator DIRKSEN. What was the purpose of putting that in your statement? Mr. FAUPL. Because it specifically points out because of Mr. McCormick's activities on the ILO they have benefited as an institution. Senator DIRKSEN. My dear sir, are you trying to impeach the credibility or character of Mr. McCormick because he met the representatives of other countries, 60 other countries, over there and found he could send them a letter later and they knew who he was and probably established a trade contact? Is there something wrong with it? Mr. FAUPL. I let the record speak for itself. Senator DIRKSEN. I am just curious as to why you put it in there. If it is to impeach the credibility and character of Mr. McCormick, then it is in bad taste and out of place, because certainly our friend from Cincinnati did not reflect upon the integrity or character of anybody else. The CHAIRMAN. I would like the letter read to this committee from Mr. McCormick: Mr. SMITHEY (reading): DEAR SENATOR LANGER: As a citizen and voter, I am convinced that an appropriate constitutional amendment should be passed to protect American rights and American independence from being undermined and engulfed by the vast body of proposed treaty law affecting our internal social, business, and economic affairs. Please permit me to register my reasons for supporting the Bricker amendment. During the past 4 years, under Presidential appointment, I have been the United States employer delegate to the International Labor Organization con'ferences in Geneva, Switzerland. The ILO, as you well know, is the only remaining agency of the original League of Nations. Under our current international setup, the ILO is an affiliate of the United Nations. The primary purpose of the ILO is to deal with social and labor legislation on a worldwide basis, and it has been enlarging its activities and encroaching upon fields which were not intended under its original bylaws. It is my sincere belief that, because of its present setup and the manner in which representatives are chosen to speak for our country, that it has become a serious threat to many of our national domestic policies. During the 4 years I attended these conferences, the employers of our Nation were outvoted on each and every occasion on a 3-to-1 basis-1 vote for labor and 2 for Government. The thinking emanating from these conferences has been predominantly socialistic and prounion, in view of the fact that unorganized labor has not been adequately represented. I urge you to read the testimony presented by Mr. William L. McGrath, president of the Williamson Heater Co., Cincinnati, Ohio, before the Senate Judiciary subcommittee which is considering the Bricker amendment. Mr. McGrath served as vice chairman of the employer delegation to the ILO for 3 of the last 4 years. You will find in his testimony details clearly outlined as to why we employer delegates are concerned with the infiltration of legislation contrary to our American way of life in the form of conventions which have the same effect as a treaty. During my tenure of service as the employer delegate a convention was brought before the conference which, if ratified by the United States, would have outlawed the Taft-Hartley Act and forced a closed shop upon us. This is only one of the numerous proposed conventions which are entirely foreign to our American viewpoint. I can think of nothing more un-American or more unconstitutional than an insidious effort to force upon our people legislation conceived and generated by minds unfamiliar with and unfriendly to the free competitive enterprise system. And it is my belief that this can be done under the guise of social or labor reform unless machinery is set up to guard against it by a measure such as the Senator Bricker proposal. I remind you that all of us would like to know what happened at Yalta. As United States employers, we are in favor of the nations of the world mak ing laws to fit the needs of their own country and their own people but we are strongly opposed to any possibility of introducing legislation into our economy when it is entirely contrary to our American way of life. I am convinced of the need for an appropriate constitutional amendment to protect American liberty and American independence from being undermined by treaty law emanating from international meetings. Sincerely yours, CHARLES P. MCCORMICK. I just Senator DIRKSEN. I have no controversy with Mr. Faupl. resent the old technique of using somebody as a whipping boy on a personal basis when it does not go to the controversy that is involved here. Whether Mr. McCormick made any contact in the world that furthered the trade relations of his company should have no bearing here. What is more, that item in the statement should not be left to stand alone to impeach his credibility or seemingly his character and make it appear that in his public international service he was only selfish about it. Mr. FARPL. I have nothing further to say on that point. I would like to make a concluding statement, if I may. One of the strongest supporters and founders of the ILO was Samuel Gompers, the founder of the American Federation of Labor. No man has ever successfully challenged the loyalty and devotion of Samuel Gompers to the American institution. The ILO today is the same institution it was during Mr. Gompers' lifetime and his participation in its activities. Mr. Gompers' worthy successors, President Green and President Meany, have wholeheartedly supported the activities of the ILO. I wish to join them in behalf of the International Association of Machinists in supporting the ILO in its activities in opposing The CHAIRMAN. When was the last time Mr. Gompers attended a meeting of the ILO? Mr. FAUPL. To the best of my recollection, in 1923, sir. Mr. FAUPL. Yes, sir. Senator DIRKSEN. I was only going to say that I think Sam Gompers was a great character and a great labor leader, and when he and Mr. Stresser finally organized the American Federation of Labor their concepts were a little different from what the concepts are today. They made every effort to keep it out of politics and keep all political considerations out. Mr. FAUPL. I am finished, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SMITHEY. May I ask the witness a few questions before he is excused? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. SMITHEY. Would you explain to the committee how the delegates to the ILO representing the labor unions are chosen? Mr. FAUPL. To the best of my knowledge the recommendations are made by the American Federation of Labor to the Department of Labor and the President, and from there on the appointments are made. I had been recommended by the American Federation of Labor to the 1951 Congress. Mr. SMITHEY. Had you attended any prior to that time or any since? Mr. FAUPL. No. I have subsequently attended the 1952 conference in an advisory capacity to the secretary-general of the International Metalworkers Federation and also attended, last December, as one of the American labor representatives on the productivity conference. Mr. SMITHEY. Would you tell the comittee whether there has been any formal action taken by the International Association of Machinists on the resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 1? Mr. FAUPL. By formal action you mean what? Mr. SMITHEY. By resolution of the convention of the International Association of Machinists. |