FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT

LEGISLATION

TUESDAY, MAY 21, 1974

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANPOWER AND CIVIL SERVICE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m. in room 210, Cannon House Office Building, David N. Henderson (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. HENDERSON. The subcommittee will come to order.

The Subcommittee on Manpower and Civil Service is opening hearings today on legislation to cover labor-management relations for the Federal service. It has been the long standing policy of the Government, since the 1930's that employees in the private sector have the right to be represented by labor organizations which bargain with employers on wages, hours, and working conditions. The Congress extended this same concept to employees in the Postal Service when it passed the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970.

At the close of 1973 nearly 1.1 million civilian employees of the executive agencies of the Federal Government were represented by labor organizations. This has come about during the past 12 years largely as the result of relationships gained by both Federal agency officials and labor organization representatives during this period and the viability of those relationships, I now believe that it is fitting that legislation be enacted. This legislation will place the two parties on an equal footing when dealing with each other both at the negotiating table and when appearing before third parties envisaged by the bills before us. I believe it is also of importance that employees and their representatives have access to the judicial process when they have exhausted whatever administrative machinery is established. Access to the courts is rather tenuous under Executive order. It is now timely, in my opinion, to consider legislation which will permit Federal employees to join the great majority of American workers, both in industry and the Postal Service, in the enjoyment of well-earned rights and benefits under a Federal Service Labor Management Act. However, I believe that matters affecting pay rates, retirement benefits, health insurance, and similar benefits should remain in the domain of the Congress.

Among other things, necessity for these hearings is attested to by the fact that more than 25 bills on Federal labor relations have been introduced during the 93d Congress. Two of my colleagues on the committee, Mr. Ford and Mr. Brasco, have also introduced labor legislation, H.R. 9784 and H.R. 13, repectively.

(1)

At the time Chairman Dulski and I introduced H.R. 10700 last fall, I indicated that these hearings would be held so that labor organizations, the executive branch, and interested persons would have an opportunity to present their views and positions on the many concepts embodied in these bills. I believe that labor-management relations not only must consider the relationship between the parties and employees but the broader public interest as well. I had this in mind when I chose the title of "Federal Service Labor Management Act of 1973." We hope that these hearings will provide a forum for a thorough review by the executive branch of Government.

There are some principals which, as the result of societal progress made in this country. should no longer be subject to question; these include the right of employees to freely join or refrain from joining labor organizations and the right of these organizations to participate on behalf of the employees they represent in the process of establishing personnel policies, practices and matters affecting working conditions.

In the several bills we are considering. I am pleased to find that there are significant concepts in common. Each bill provides for the establishment of a full-time independent body to administer the act. I believe this to be proper because of the size and importance of the program as well as the need for a full-time and objective body which will be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Additionally, the bills all provide for grievance machinery \ terminating in arbitration and for "make whole" remedies for employees. I also realize that there are provisions in the bills before the subcommittee that treat a number of concepts differently and that many of the proposals may not be fully acceptable to both labor organizations and the administration. For these reasons I am hopeful and anticipate that the hearings will focus on such issues as: the kinds and types of employees and agencies that should be covered; the place of supervisors in labor-management relations, and whether labor-management relations legislation should speak to agency relationships with its own supervisors and managers; whether the bill should provide detailed specific on such matters as appropriate units, unfair labor practices, steps in impasse settlement or, instead, general guidelines permitting such matters to be handled by those responsible under the bill for its overall administration, such as the Federal Labor Relations Authority proposed in both H.R. 13 and 10700; the sphere or scope of bargaining; and the relationship between this proposed legislation and laws now in force, as well as the relationship among the executive branch, labor organizations, and the Congress on labormanagement matters.

At this time I would yield to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Ford, for any comments that he would like to make on the subject of labor-management relations before us this morning and any specific remarks he might like to direct to his bill, H.R. 9784 which was introduced by him on August 1, 1973.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM D. FORD

Mr. FORD. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

First, on behalf of all the Members of Congress who are interested in this legislation, I would like to thank you for under

taking these hearings. I apologize, in advance, that I will be in and out of these first hearings because there are 120 local officials in town from my district who are going to require my time and assistance.

During my tenure here-and before coming here for that matterI have had more than passing interest in the unusual phenomena that has developed within our States and within our Federal Government as to how a governmental agency deals, as management. with its employees, as labor. I have had an interest in some kind of structure where the rules of the game are written, well-understood; based on a regular legislative process, and administered in a way so that everybody can understand where their rights lie and how they are to be enforced.

I think that during the next 5 years, and hopefully it's 5 years— some people are saying 10-that the next big historical development in the condition of working people in this country is going to be in public employment. In the last few years we have seen the phenomena of the public employees' strike grow throughout the United States to the point where in the past 3 years, just with school teachers alone, there have been 6 million man-days of work lost through strikes.

I might say almost all of them were technically illegal because they occurred in States like my own where it is illegal for teachers to strike; however, 20 percent of all the teacher strikes in the country in the last 4 years have occurred in my State. Nobody has ever gone to jail for it and they always worked. So it seems to me a little bit silly that we're still trying to solve these problems with the old method.

When I first came here, the public employees were operating under Executive order which had mixed reviews depending on who looked at that Executive order, and things have not improved greatly. I have seen Federal administrators attempting to deal with the Executive order. I am convinced, Mr. Chairman, that we have reached a state where legislation is necessary so we can really define labormanagement relations for public employees.

I serve on three subcommittees that are now considering this question one way or another: one subcommittee on this committee and two subcommittees on the Education and Labor Committee. Before Mr. Thompson's committee, we are considering the general question of all public employees being covered under the National Labor Relations Act, and we have the Clay bill before the second committee. On this committee we are considering some changes in the Labor-Management Relations Act for postal employees to provide for the right to strike, and my proposal before this committee for all Federal employees includes the right to strike because I am absolutely convinced that we are wasting our time by trying to create a totally different model for labor-management relations than that which is working successfully and has worked successfully throughout our private enterprise system.

I might say, Mr. Chairman, in closing, I think the experience we have had with the new Postal Corporation should be a warning to us that we need a new system patterned on a workable and working

system and not a new hybrid. We made a bad mistake it seems to me in not more closely paralleling the labor-management provisions of the Postal Service to that which we understand and is in existence. And people in labor-management relations in the private sector say, in attempting to set up a hybrid system, what we have actually done is create a situation where even the most minor differences between labor and management are now becoming a subject of longdrawn-out arguments. They are arguing about what is and what is not negotiable. They are arguing about what is a proper subject for them to bring to us for legislative attention and what is a subject that becomes off limits because of some possibility that it might be negotiated.

I certainly hope that in enacting legislation we will try as best we can to follow the patterns that have been proven as workable in the major industries in this country and not launch off again into an experiment with a hybrid or new model which goads the people who work under that model to a good deal of disagreement over trivial matters sometimes in an attempt to develop a new base.

The National Labor Relations Act will be 40 years old next year and for 40 years the courts and parties-labor and managementhave been interpreting the provision of that act. Its only had four major amendments in the full 40 years; three of them are fairly recent. Probably the most dramatic was the Taft-Hartley Act. But in 40 years it has served extremely well and that's not to say that everybody has been happy with it, but we have developed a 40-year history of law that would be very useful to us to the extent that it can be used in this legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you, Mr. Ford.

Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, one more thing, I think for the Vice President's peace of mind, I should say this: Somehow the story got out that H.R. 9784 was introduced by the other Congressman Ford before he was appointed Vice President, and knowing the differences that he and I have experienced over labor-management relations, I can't imagine that that could be anything but embarrassing for him. But I want the record to show that this is my bill and not his.

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Brasco has had a longtime interest in this subject. He introduced the first bill that was assigned to our subcommittee, H.R. 13. I am delighted to recognize him at this time. Mr. BRASCO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have had a strong interest for a number of years in the problem of effective labor-management relations in government. During this time I followed very closely the experience through the Executive order. I have also read happily the many letters I have received from rank and file Federal employees on this subject. The experience gained by all parties has been valuable.

The issues are better defined and understood today. Some progress and improvements have been achieved. Perhaps we will see some further advances as a result of the recent hearings held by the Federal Labor Relations Council on possible revisions in Executive order practices.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, I believe that two things are now evident that first, a truly fair, stable, and effective system of labormanagement relations in government must be based and founded in law; second, that we now have sufficient practical experience to write a sound, workable statute.

These are the reasons why I introduced H.R. 13 which was designed to provide such a system this year.

One key provision of H.R. 13 is for the establishment of an independent and full-time Federal Labor Relations Authority, with three members to be appointed by the President and subject to Senate confirmation.

H.R. 13 also provides for the principle of binding arbitration of grievances and disputes. It provides, too, for the payment of fees by members of a unit who benefit from representation by the union. but are not dues-paying union members. Together, these two provisions do a little to redress the great imbalance which now exists at the bargaining table because of the prohibition against strikes by Federal employees.

H.R. 13 extends the scope of collective bargaining beyond the arbitrarily narrow limits now possible under the Executive orderit provides bargaining rights to all employees of all agencies of the Federal Government except in certain cases where the denial of such rights is clearly justified because of the conflicts-of-interest that would otherwise result-and it makes possible the establishment of bargaining units of appropriate size, in order both to recognize the true communities of interest among Federal employees and to deliver management from the present need to negotiate the same issue over and over again with a multitude of small units.

I think H.R. 13 provides a sound and moderate approach to this whole problem, one that is fair to management, fair to employees, and-above all-fair to the citizens of the United States.

I congratulate Congressman Henderson and this committee for holding these hearings. They are responding to a real need at a time when interest and desire for action in this area are high. I hope that the hearings will be most productive and that from them will come a statute that will provide the base for the kind of equitable, stable, and effective labor-management relations I think we all want to see in the Federal Government.

Mr. Chairman, I see that there are many witnesses here, and perhaps some on the firing line already, just anxious to testify on behalf of this bill; is that correct

Mr. HAMPTON. Mr. Brasco, I think what you will hear me say is that there are a lot of factors here. I think I'm going to raise more questions for you than I'm going to answer.

Mr. BRASCO. In any event, Mr. Chairman, I think that everyone knows specifically where I stand with respect to this and I certainly want to commend the chairman for calling the hearings today so that we could get on about the work of considering all of the pieces of legislation advanced before this committee and hopefully come up with a system that's fair to the employee, fair to management, and above all, fair to the American citizens. I thank you for the time.