available against labor unions as is available against every other wrongdoer. Furthermore, we feel that instead of continuous supervision and contempt charges involved in the injunctive processes in strikes legal in purposes, the injunction in these cases would be completely effective and would bring an end altogether to this type of racketeering.

The amendment, furthermore, removes the protection of the Clayton Act from monopoly agreements to fix prices, allocate customers, restrict production, distribution, or competition, or impose restrictions or conditions on the purchase, sale, or use of material, machines, or equipment. While the existence of the union should not be a combination in restraint of trade, we see no reason why unions should not be subject in this field to the same restriction as are competing employers. Text of this amendment follows:

On page 54, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:

BOYCOTTS AND OTHER UNLAWFUL COMBINATIONS

SEC. 303. (a) It shall be unlawful, in an industry or activity affecting commerce, for any person to engage in, or to induce or encourage the employees of any employer to engage in, a strike or a concerted refusal to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services in the course of their employment

(1) for the purpose of forcing or requiring any employer or other person to cease using, selling, handling, transporting, or otherwise dealing in the products of any other producer, processor, or manufacturer, or to cease doing business with any other person;

(2) for the purpose of forcing or requiring any employer to recognize or bargain with a labor organization as the representative of his employees unless such labor organization has been certified as the representative of such employces under the provisions of section 9 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act;

(3) for the purpose of forcing or requiring any employer to recognize or bargain with a particular labor organization as the representative of his employees if another labor organization has been certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of section 9 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act; (4) for the purpose of forcing or requiring any employer to assign to a particular labor organization work tasks assigned by an employer to some other labor organization unless such employer is failing to conform to an order of certification of the National Labor Relations Board determining the bargaining representative for employees performing such work tasks.

Nothing contained in this subsection shall be construed to make unlawful a refusal by any person to enter upon the premises of any employer (other than his own employer), if the employees of such employer arc engaged in a strike ratified or approved by a representative of such employees whom such employer is required to recognize under the National Labor Relations Act.

(b) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction in proceedings instituted by or on behalf of the United States, or by any party suffering loss or damage or threatened with loss or damage by reason of any violation of subsection (a), to prevent and restrain violations of such subsection. It shall be the duty of the several district attorneys of the United States, in their respective districts, under the direction of the Attorney General, to institute proceedings to prevent and restrain violations of such subsection.

(c) Whoever shall be injured in his business or property by reason of any violation of subsection (a) may sue therefor in any district court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found or has an agent, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover the damages by him sustained, and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. (d) The provisions of sections 6 and 20 of the Act entitled "An Act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies, and for other purposes", approved October 15, 1914, and the provisions (except section 7, exclusive of clauses (c) and (e) and sections 11 and 12) of the Act entitled "An Act to amend the Judicial Code and to define and limit the jurisdiction of courts sitting in equity, and for other purposes", approved March 23, 1932, shall not be applicable in respect of violations of subsection (a) or in respec of any contract, combination,

or conspiracy, in restraint of commerce, to which a labor organization is a party, if one of the purposes of such contract, combination, or conspiracy is to fix prices, allocate customers, restrict production, distribution, or competition, or impose restrictions or conditions upon the purchase, sale, or use of any material, machines, or equipment.

CONCLUSION

We see no reason why any one of these four amendments should be regarded as punitive or restrictive of the legitimate rights of labor unions. They do not go beyond the general principles accepted in the committee bill, but they do fill up gaps which we feel are serious. With the amendments, we believe that most of the clear injustices which have developed in labor relations will be corrected and the field left open for the more fundamental studies proposed for the new joint committee.

ROBERT A. TAFT

JOSEPH H. BALL.
FORREST C. DONNELL.
W. E. JENNER.

I concur with my colleagues in the foregoing supplemental views, with the following reservations:

Amendment No. 2.-I approve this amendment because it leaves the issue of industry-wide bargaining to the voluntary agreement of individual employers and their employees. The amendment does not actually prohibit industry-wide bargaining. I am opposed at this time to any blanket prohibition of industry-wide bargaining because I feel the matter needs substantially more study before we adopt a national policy. This is a proper matter for the joint committee proposed in the bill to explore fully.

Amendment No. 4.-I am opposed to this amendment. While I am in entire accord that there can be no defense of secondary boycotts and jurisdictional strikes, I feel that the reported bill treating these matters as unfair labor practices is the preferable way to deal with them-putting the responsibility on the NLRB. Furthermore, I do not favor the opening up of the Norris-LaGuardia Antiinjunction Act except on petition of the Government. By treating these evils as unfair labor practices, the use of the injunction is given to the NLRB and is not open to abuse by individual employers. At least we should experiment with this procedure before adopting the more severe remedies.

H. ALEXANDER SMITH,

APRIL 22 (legislative day, APRIL 21), 1947.-Ordered to be printed

Mr. THOMAS of Utah, from the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, submitted the following

MINORITY VIEWS

[To accompany S. 1126]

INTRODUCTORY

This bill is designed to weaken the effective program of labor legislation which has been, with great pains, built up over the years. It would be destructive of much that is valuable in the prevention of labor-management conflicts. It contains many barriers, traps, and pitfalls that can only make more difficult the settlement of disputes. Its principal results would be to create musunderstanding and conflict, and to aggravate the imbalance between wages, prices, and profits which already endangers our prosperity.

The President in his state of the Union message of January 6, 1947, recommended:

We should enact legislation to correct certain abuses and to provide additional governmental assistance in bargaining. But we should also concern ourselves with the basic causes of labor-management difficulties.

The President outlined certain immediate steps to be taken: (a) Legislation to prevent jurisdictional strikes intended to compel employers to bargain with a minority union instead of the majority union in their plants; (b) legislation to provide for peaceful and binding determinations of jurisdictional disputes over which union is entitled to perform a particular work task; (c) legislation to prohibit secondary boycotts when used to further jurisdictional disputes or to compel employers to violate the National Labor Relations Act; and (d) legislation to provide for final and binding arbitration of disputes concerning the interpretation of the terms of collective-bargaining agreements. We would support legislation carrying out these recommendations. We are opposed, however, to legislation which goes beyond these recommendations and undermines the foundation laid by the Administration for the promotion of free collective bargaining. We are opposed to legislation such as is included in the committee majority

26-323 07433

bill which fails to distinguish between justifiable and unjustifiable secondary boycotts and proscribes all boycotts indiscriminately as unfair labor practices. We are also opposed to those provisions of this bill which instead of merely providing machinery for the binding determination of questions concerning the meaning of contract terms, opens the Federal courts wide to suits for breach of contract without regard to the ordinary prerequisites of Federal jurisdiction.

The President in his State of the Union message recommended as a second point in his program for dealing with labor-management controversies, the strengthening of facilities within the Department of Labor for assisting the processes of free and voluntary collective. bargaining. As he stated in his message:

* There is need for integrated governmental machinery to provide the successive steps of mediation, voluntary arbitration, and ultimately in appropriate cases-ascertainment of the facts of the dispute and the reporting of them to the public. Such machinery would facilitate and expedite the settlement of disputes.

The majority bill does not strengthen the facilities of the United States Conciliation Service in the Department of Labor as recommended by the President. On the contrary, it removes the Service from the Department of Labor and establishes a new Federal Mediation Service. This proposal violates sound principles of administration by adding to the already numerous existing agencies handling labor disputes and will promote disorder and confusion in the conduct of the Federal Government's conciliation and mediation activities.

The President also called in his message, as part of his program for dealing with labor disputes, for broadening Federal programs of social legislation to alleviate the causes of workers' insecurity. The President pointed out:

On June 11, 1946, in my message vetoing the Case bill, I made a comprehensive statement of my views concerning labor-management relations. I said then, and I repeat now, that the solution of labor-management difficulties is to be found not only in legislation dealing directly with labor relations but also in a program desigred to remove the causes of insecurity felt by many workers in our industrial society. In this connection, for example, the Congress should consider the extension and broadening of our social-security system, better housing, a comprehensive national health program, and provision for a fair minimum wage.

The problems involved in attempting to deal with the difficult and complicated labor controversies of this time are not merely matters of governmental machinery. We cannot approach these problems solely on the basis of prohibitions and restrictions on the activities of private citizens whether they be employers, labor organizations or their members. The causes of labor-management controversy lie deep in the complex industrial and financial structure.

Without attention to the problems to which the President directed attention in his message on the State of the Union such legislation as the Congress may enact may well take on unwittingly the character of "vindictive," "punitive" legislation against which the Congress has frequently been warned. Measures to extend and broaden the social security system, to provide for better housing, to establish a comprehensive national health program and to raise the minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act to a level commensurate with presentday conditions are pending before the Congress. In the absence of action on these measures by this Congress, the proposal of the majority

may well promote instead of resolve the industrial discord and strife which they, like we, wish to avoid.

The proposal of the committee majority for the formation of a joint congressional committee to study labor-management relations departs in two important respects from the recommendations of the President with respect to such a study. He proposed the establishment of a temporary joint commission composed not only of Members of Congress but of representatives of the public, labor, and management. In so recommending the President had in mind, as he said, that—

We must not, however, adopt punitive legislation. We must not, in order to punish a few labor leaders, pass vindictive laws which will restrict the proper rights of the rank and file of labor. We must not, under the stress of emotion, endanger our American freedoms by taking ill-considered action which will lead to results not anticipated or desired.

We must remember, in reviewing the record of disputes in 1946, that management shares with labor the responsibility for failure to reach agreements which would have averted strikes. For that reason we must realize that industrial peace cannot be achieved merely by laws directed against labor unions.

Accordingly, the President recommended that the commission which should study labor relations should have among its members representatives whose interests are directly involved in all labor disputes, namely, the public, management, and labor.

The President also recommended in his message that the commission which he proposed make its first report, including specific legislative recommendations, not later than March 15, 1947. The majority of the committee, however, have followed an entirely different course of action. They have attempted to deal, without prior study by a commission such as that proposed by the President, with a great variety of problems grouped together in an omnibus bill which include not only matters which can properly be dealt with at this time on the basis of presently available experience and study, but also questions which require the full study and investigation which the President felt should be referred to the proposed commission, including: (1) Nation-wide strikes in vital industries affecting the public interest; (2) methods and procedures for carrying out the collective-bargaining process; and (3) the underlying causes of labor-management disputes.

The committee has had before it since January 10, 1947, Senate Joint Resolution 22 which would create a temporary Labor Relations Commission to make a study and recommendations concerning labor relations along lines proposed by the President in his message. The undersigned believe that such a study is an essential preliminary to any Federal labor legislation designed to promote labor-management peace and stability which will be fair to the public, to management, and to labor alike. The majority have, however, proceeded without such an investigation and have in a single omnibus bill proposed legislation which will outlaw the closed shop and secondary boycotts, both justified and unjustified, provide for the establishment of a new independent Federal Mediation Service outside the Department of Labor, revive the use of labor injunctions in certain cases, establish complicated procedures for handling disputes in Nation-wide industries and authorize suits by and against labor organizations in the Federal courts without regard to the ordinary requirements of Federal jurisdiction.