of Labor can promptly and accurately determine and announce bona fide labor disputes. In the Coachella Valley where strike activities have begun this year, ten separate labor disputes were recognized by then Secretary of Labor, Willard Wirtz. This year, however, we are confronted with the Nixon Administration which has publicly taken a stand against our organizing activities. We expected harassment and delaying tactics in strike certification by the Department of Labor in the Coachella Valley this year. Our expectations have been fulfilled. On Monday morning, May 26, I telephoned Mr. Norm Lueck, Regional Administrator of Employment Security, Federal Department of Labor, San Francisco, California. As usual, I requested investigators from the Department of Labor to be present for our picketing activities to be commenced on Wednesday, May 28. Mr. Lueck informed me that as usual two investigators would accompany our picket lines to interrogate strikers and prepare reports so that the Secretary of Labor could determine and announce the existence of labor disputes. I explained to Mr. Lueck that this process was necessary to prevent growers from illegally recruiting strike breakers in Mexicali, Mexico, ninety miles away. At 11:30 P.M. on Tuesday, May 27, 1969 I responded to an urgent call from Mr. Lueck who informed me that the Department of Labor would no longer make independent determinations on labor disputes, but instead would depend upon the recommendations of the California Department of Employment. I explained to Mr. Lueck that this was the first time we had ever been subjected to this process, and that the Department of Labor was literally turning us over to the wolves (since the State Department of Employment had already shown its bias and antagonism against the federal certified strikes). Further, I pointed out that the harvesting and picketing activities in the Coachella Valley would only last for a period of approximately six weeks, and this obvious delaying tactic would render any federal determination negative in stopping the growers from illegally recruiting strike breakers in Mexico, because the determination would come too late. This problem is compounded by the fact that most growers do not inform the Mexican strike breakers that a labor dispute is in progress, and thus most green card strike breakers become unknowing violators of their fellow farm workers' struggle. Mr. Lueck's response was that he had received orders from Washington and that he would have to abide by them. I asked him to send me in writing his Department's position regarding the entire matter. He then responded that he would have to check with Washington before he could put anything in writing. That same afternoon of May 27th, Pete Velasco (Strike Director in Coachella for UFWOC, AFL-CIO) sent the following telegram to the California Department of Employment: "We have been informed by Mr. Norm Lueck, U.S. Dept. of Labor, that certification of labor disputes by US Govt. will depend on your recommendation. Request your office immediately send investigators to the Coachella Valley for inspection of UFWOC, AFL-CIO strike activities." We received the following response from Peter Weinberger, Director, California Department of Employment: "Your telegram this date received. Calling trade dispute team to report our Indio office as soon as possible. Most of them should be there tomorrow morning. They will consult with you as to information required." On the day that the picketing activities began two observers from the Department of Labor, Mr. Mestre and Mr. Feliz, spoke with me on the picket line and said that they would not interview any workers who came out on the strike but would observe our activities. Around four hours after the picketing activities began, Mr. Jack Ward of the State Department of Employment appeared with five other men at our picket line. They refused to examine declarations signed by 100 farm workers who came out on strike that very day. Mr. Ward and his entourage also refused to interview the people who had come out on strike. Instead, they informed Ron Hosie, reporter for the Riverside Daily Enterprise, that no one seemed to be coming out on strike, and then left the picket line. Later that afternoon, Pete Velasco and I met with Mr. Ward, Mr. Charles B. Belvin, Mr. Gilbert "Gil" Kastoll and Mr. Jack A. Lewis (all representatives of the State Department of Employment). Mr. Ward and his associates requested a list of the workers who left their jobs according to employer, but were unable to guarantee that the list would not be used as a blacklist against these employees. They were unable to promise that the names would be kept confidential. They were unable to say if they had authority to have observers at the site of our strike so as to interview the workers. They were unable to tell us the time delay which their investigations would take and could make no promises as to the expediting of the certifications. Finally, I received a telephone call from Mr. Lueck that same afternoon at which time he told me that his office had checked with Washington, D.C. and that Mr. Donnachie (his superior) had instructed him not to put his verbal communications in writing. United Farm Workers Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO is prepared to present the numerous declarations signed by striking farm workers to your office for inspection since we are confident that you will guarantee that the workers' names shall not be used as a blacklist. Unfortunately, we do not have that guarantee from the Federal Department of Labor or the California State Department of Employment. Sincerely, DAVID S. AVERBUCK UNITED FARM WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, AFL-CIO, Delano, Calif., June 2, 1969. Mr. BOREN CHERTKOV, Counsel, Migratory Labor Subcommittee, Washington, D.C. DEAR BOREN: By way of a brief follow-up to my letter of May 29, 1969 please be advised as follows: On the afternoon of May 29, Jack Ward, State Department of Employment, returned with three other representatives of the Department for a second meeting. They informed me that they had discussed the situation with Sacramento and wished to advise me as follows: (1) They could not guarantee that the names of strikers, given to them by us, would not be used for a blacklist. (2) They had received orders not to interview farm workers as they came out of the fields on strike-contrary to the practice of the Department of Labor in the past. (3) That they did not recognize The Desert Grape Growers League at the present time as the bargaining representative for the growers in the Coachella Valley. They informed me that they would not be able to recognize The Desert Grape Growers League as bargaining representative for our opposition until their lawyers could make a complete determination and investigation which would take some time. Despite the fact that demands have been made on The Desert Grape Growers League as well as on individual growers, the Department of Employment is not going to certify any strikes against members of the League until the question of its status as a bargaining representative for its members is cleared up. Jack Ward did volunteer that he and his cohorts have spent a great deal of time with the grape growers and, more particularly, with Mike Bosick, President of The Desert Grape Growers League. When I asked Mr. Ward why he selected Mike Bosick as the party with whom he should deal in this dispute. if he did not recognize the League of which Mr. Bosick is president as a bargaining agent, he replied only that this was a matter of his personal choice. Despite the fact that Mr. Ward and his assistants spent 45 minutes in the field talking to the grape growers, he refuses to talk to any one of the dozens of individual farm workers who come out on the strike. On June 2, 1969, A. M. Parker, of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, informed Frank Denison, a volunteer attorney for the Union during the strike, that it was his understanding that the Department of Labor was also contemplating decertifying the strikes which were certified last year if and when the California Department of Employment requests that the Department of Labor so act. Sincerely, DAVID S. AVERBUCK. Hon. JOHN N. MITCHELL, (Western Union Telegram) Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, JUNE 4, 1969. Recent hearings of the Subcommittee on Migratory Labor revealed how the massive influx of commuters across the Mexican-United States border depresses the living and working conditions of the migrant and seasonal farmworkers who are ligitimate residents of this country. They revealed how questionable birth and baptismal certificates, and green cards issued on an unverified assumption of permanent and stable employment in the United States are used by alien strikebreakers to circumvent the intent of our immigration and labor laws. In the interests of justice and law and order, I call upon you to do everything within your power to require the Immigration and Naturalization Service to more vigorously and effectively enforce the existing laws and regulations regarding border crossings along the U.S.-Mexican border. Sincerely, WALTER F. MONDALE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senatc. (Western Union Telegram) JUNE 4, 1969. Hon. GEORGE P. SHULTZ, Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor, Recent hearing of the Subcommittee on Migratory Labor has revealed the critical importance of preventing holders of greencards from acting as strikebreakers during labor disputes affecting migrant and seasonal farmworkers. Existing regulations prohibit the employment of greencard holders where a labor dispute has been certified. The effectiveness of this regulation depends on the prompt certification of labor disputes by the U.S. Department of Labor wherever they exist. I am extremely disturbed to learn that you have broken precedent in this area and ruled that the U.S. Department of Labor will no longer make independent determinations on agricultural labor disputes in the State of California, but instead will depend upon the decision of the State of California. The significance of this retreat is evident from a review of the facts-last year the U.S. Department of Labor certified 45 disputes on California ranches, while the State found that only a few certified disputes existed. I urge you to reconsider this decision and return complete and direct responsibility for certifying labor disputes as they affect federal regulations on the employment of greencard holders to the U.S. Department of Labor. Sincerely, WALTER F. MONDALE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., June 11, 1969. Hon. WALTER F. MONDALE, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MONDALE: I am writing in reply to your telegram of June 4, 1969, expressing concern over the possibility of green card holders serving as strike breakers during the California farm labor disputes. As you know, a number of disputes have occurred in California since 1965. The Department's policy during these previous disputes has been to allow the State of California to make a determination as to whether a dispute actually exists in accordance with the requirements of the Wagner-Peyser Act. The Department of Labor also has a responsibility under the Wagner-Peyser Act to review the State's determination and, where necessary, independently determine that a labor dispute exists. This Federal responsibility is presently being carried out by our Regional Manpower Administrator in San Francisco. During the past few years the following determinations of farm labor disputes have been made in California : 1967 1 determination by the State of California. 1 determination by the Department of Labor. 1968 21 disputes were found to exist by the State of California. 23 additional disputes were found to exist by the Department of Labor. 1969 1 dispute has been found to exist by the Department of Labor (as of June 6, 1969). In 1968, my predecessor, W. Willard Wirtz, decided that it was necessary to depart from the usual procedure of allowing the State of California the first opportunity to determine whether or not a farm labor dispute existed. He sent a team of Department officials to California to make on-site inspections of those California farms where labor disputes were alleged to exist. In late May of this year our San Francisco Regional Office was notified by the American Farm Workers of California, headed by Mr. Ceasar Chavez, that it was their intention to strike the grape growers in the Cochella area of California. The Department of Labor notified the State of California of this proposed activity. Anticipating the need to immediately certify whether or not labor disputes existed, the State of California dispatched investigative teams to make the necessary determinations. These determinations will be carefully scrutinized by the Department's Regional Manpower Administrator. Representatives of the State of California have asked Mr. Averbuck, an attorney representing Mr. Chavez, to furnish the State with names of workers, allegedly leaving the farms because of a labor dispute. Mr. Averbuck stated that he could not furnish the names of the workers unless authorized to do so by Mr. Chavez. At this point, the State is awaiting a reply from Mr. Chavez which would enable their investigators to make the necessary determination as to whether a labor dispute exists. The Department of Labor fully intends to meet its obligation under the Wagner-Peyser Act to certify that a farm labor dispute exists whenever the facts support such an allegation. Meeting this obligation includes both the careful review of State determinations of alleged labor disputes and the taking of independent action where necessary. This responsibility, of course, includes prompt notification of the Immigration and Naturalization Service when a labor dispute does exist. I hope that the above information will be helpful to you and the members of the Subcommittee on Migratory Labor. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, GEORGE P. SHULTZ, Secretary of Labor. Regional memorandum No. 1334. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, From: Robert C. Goodwin, Administrator. Subject: Revised instructions concerning holders of forms I-151. References: 8 CFR part 211.1. Purpose: To provide a revised procedure for processing requests for issuance of determination of the existence of a labor dispute in which holders of form I-151 are, or may become, involved. The Department of Justice has revised 8 CFR 211.1 to provide: "When the Secretary of Labor determines and announces that a labor dispute involving a work stoppage or layoff of employees is in progress at a named place of employment, Form I-151 shall be invalid when presented in lieu of an immigrant visa or reentry permit by an alien who has departed for and seeks reentry from any foreign place and who, prior to his departure or during his temporary absence abroad has in any manner entered into an arangement to return to the United States for the primary purpose, or seeks reentry with the intention, of accepting employment at the place where the Secretary of Labor has determined that a labor dispute exists, or of continuing employment which commenced at such place subsequent to the date of the Secretary of Labor's determination. "The basis and purpose of the above prescribed rule is to preclude the use of Form I-151 by a lawful permanent resident alien in lieu of his obtaining a returning resident immigrant visa or, prior to departure, of his obtaining a reentry permit, when such use would adversely affect a domestic labor dispute." Below are instructions for processing requests for the issuance of a determination of the existence of a labor dispute involving a work stoppage or layoff of employees when such a dispute involves, or may involve, holders of Form I-151. This may include labor disputes at places of employment in an area beyond commuting distance of the border (over 100 miles from the border) when there is an indication that the employer is seeking to employ holders of Form I-151. These instructions supersede any previously issued instructions on the subject. The effectiveness of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (I&NS) regulation will depend greatly on the speed with which the Secretary of Labor is able to determine and announce the existence of a labor dispute in which holders of Form I-151 are, or may become, involved. Request for Determination of Existence of Dispute The Secretary of Labor, on its own initiative or upon request, will consider the appropriateness of issuing a determination pursuant to 8 CFR 211.1 that a labor dispute involving a work stoppage or layoff of employees is in progress at a named place of employment. The request may be oral or written. It may be made to the Secretary of Labor or his designated representative in Washington, D.C.; to a BES regional administrator who has jurisdiction over the location where the dispute is reportedly in progress; or to the director of a State employment service or his designated representative who has jurisdiction over the area where the dispute is reportedly in progress. If such a request is made to a director of the State employment service or his designated representative, the director should communicate immediately, by teletype, all available information concerning the alleged dispute to the BES regional administrator having jurisdiction over the area where the dispute is reportedly in progress. The request may be made by any interested party, such as a representative of a labor union or other organization, or a representative of workers. The person or organization making the request should supply as much of the following information as possible: 1. The name, address, and telephone number of the employer involved, and the location of the alleged dispute. 2. The date the dispute began; the date and place of any alleged work stoppage or layoff; the number of employees involved in any such work stoppage or layoff, and their identities. 3. A brief summary of the issues involved in the dispute. 4. The identity of the labor union involved, if any. 5. The name, address, and telephone number of the person or organization requesting the issuance of a determination pursuant to 8 CFR 211.1. 6. If the dispute is beyond commuting distance (over 100 miles from the border), the basis for believing that holders of Form 1-151 will be or are involved. Confirmation of Existence or Non-Existence of Dispute The BES regional administrator having jurisdiction over the area where a labor dispute involving a work stoppage or layoff of employees is reportedly in progress will take the following action when a request for the issuance of a determination pursuant to 8 CFR 211.1 has been made: 1. Contact the employer involved in the alleged dispute, by telephone or telegram, if possible, and furnish him the information which the regional administrator has received concerning the alleged dispute. Request the employer to comment on the accuracy of this information and to provide any additional information which will aid in determining whether or not a labor dispute involving a work stoppage or layoff of employees is in progress. |