mately 84.4 percent, cast valid ballots, of which 1,381,829 or 93.9 percent were in favor of union-shop conditions. Furthermore, union-shop contracts were authorized in 14,581 elections, or 96.7 percent of those conducted."

These 1949 figures led Senator Taft in 1951 to sponsor a bill repealing unionshop authorization elections. The report on this bill stated:

"The bill dispenses with the necessity for further elections under section 9(e) to authorize the making of union-shop agreements. Such elections have imposed a heavy administrative burden on the Board, have involved a large expenditure of funds, and have almost always resulted in a vote favoring the union shop *

"While discontinuing the mandatory election procedure which has proved expensive, burdensome, and unnecessary, the bill continues to safeguard employees against subjection to union-shop agreements which a majority disapproved. To accomplish this it is provided that the Board shall conduct elections on the petition of 30 percent or more of the employees in a bargaining unit to determine whether the union's authority to enter into a union-shop arrangement shall be rescinded." 18

Senator Taft's bill was passed by Congress in 1951. In so doing, Congress amended subsection (ii) of the proviso to section 8(a) (3) to read:

"(ii) unless following an election held as provided in section 9(e) within one year preceding the effective date of such agreement, the Board shall have certified that at least a majority of the employees eligible to vote in such election have voted to rescind the authority of such labor organization to make such an agreement."

No other mention was made of the requirement contained in the proviso. From this it must be assumed that Congress was aware of and approved the requirement that to rescind a union-shop agreement a majority of those eligible to cast ballots must vote for such rescission.

As the attached table shows, in each of the last 13 fiscal years, except 1953 and 1960, at least 73.7 percent of the eligible voters have voted in the deauthorization elections held by the NLRB. And while the greatest number of deauthorization elections held was 45 in 1963, at the present time there are in existence more than 100,000 union-shop contracts covering about 13 million workers. It should be noted that section 9(e)(1) of the act requires only that 30 percent or more of the employees in the bargaining unit covered by the union-shop contract need support a petition for deauthorization in order to obtain an election. This is essentially the same requirement as the showing of interest which is administratively imposed by the Board upon unions or employees seeking representation elections.

In view of the foregoing facts, I do not believe that the requirement of a majority vote of those eligible causes such an undue burden as to warrant remedial legislation at this time.

Senator KENNEDY of New York. Just one last question; in this whole area we are going to strengthen the power of unions and union officials.

What I would like to have from you is your thoughts on whether there is sufficient protection at the present time for the employee I have had a good number of complaints both from my own State, the States of New York, Illinois, and other States, that because of an arrangement that is made between an employer and union officials, and frequently I might add honest union officials, to close out perhaps an honest union and a union which was intelligently and vigorously attempting to represent the employees, that a dishonest union comes in and makes an arrangement with an employer and that their employees have no place to turn.

In your judgment is there sufficient protection now for the employees?

Secretary WIRTZ. Yes, Senator; there is. I think that most of those statements go back to a period before two things had happened: First, the unions reached the maturity which we all know and respect more than some people did before, and second, the Congress has attended to various aspects of this matter.

I call attention to the fact that in the law as it now stands and, of course, would with the repeal of section 14(b) there remains the Labor Management and Reporting Disclosures Act of 1959 which covered a good many of the points which had been the basis for earlier suggestions of lack of complete democracy and responsibility in the unions. There is also now in the National Labor Relations Act, with the amendments of 1947, a complete listing of unfair labor practices which are enjoyed.

There is also in the Corrupt Practices Act, a prohibition upon the use of union funds for political purposes, and there is now title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

My answer would be that on the basis of the increase in responsibility and the maturity of the unions and on the basis of these statutory provisions there is today complete protection against the concerns which you expressed.

Senator KENNEDY of New York. Let me say I have had some over the last 12 months, and the complaints come mainly from other unions. Mr. Van Arsdale, of New York City, constantly complains about the small unions, racket committees that come in and make arrangements for some of the smaller employees, perhaps to the detriment of the others.

I do not want to take up the committee's time, if I send you some examples on that

Secretary WIRTZ. We would welcome them.

I want to make it clear my answer does not assume complete and 100 percent effectiveness yet in the enforcement of these provisions. My answer is rather there is the basis in the statutes for whatever public action is necessary.

Because some of these are laws we administer, we would welcome the kind of information to which you refer both for the purpose of considering whether there should be any changes in those laws and for the purpose of insuring their effectiveness.

Senator KENNEDY of New York. You are satisfied with the National Labor Relations Board in this area?

Secretary WIRTZ. Yes, I am. I think there are some questions we would all have about the time factor which is involved in the Board's handling of the "C" cases or complaint cases under the present law. That is a problem of which they are very conscious, too, but subject to that point my answer is, yes, I would be satisfied. Thank you. Senator MCNAMARA. Is the Chair to assume, Senator Kennedy, that these questions and answers will be submitted for the record? Senator KENNEDY of New York. If that is all right, Mr. Chairman. Senator MCNAMARA. Yes, without objection they will be submitted for the record.

Senator MCNAMARA. Senator Prouty?

Senator PROUTY. Mr. Secretary, I think in elections to invalidate security agreements the statute states quite specifically that the Board is held to have certificated that at least a majority of the employees eligible to vote in such elections have voted to rescind the authority of such labor organizations to make such an agreement.

Secretary WIRTZ. On the basis of the question, Senators Javits and Prouty have asked, Mr. Chairman, and on the basis of my own general knowledge, I suggest that the record stand, that it is a requirement that there be a majority of votes of all employees qualified to vote and I will correct the record if it is any different.

I think that is correct.

Senator PROUTY. Thank you.

Mr. Secretary, are you or would you be in favor of legislation permitting union security authority to be rescinded upon the same basis as it is initially obtained in Board elections by a majority of employees who actually vote?

Secretary WIRTZ. That would mean an amendment of section 9(e) to that effect. This carries beyond the question of what the law ought to be, my answer, Mr. Chairman, again, would be subject to supplementation of the written record because it is a question that comes up here for the first time.

I would have, personally, a feeling of no concern whatsoever about that change. I would have, quite strongly, the feeling that it is of a vastly different magnitude of the importance of the question of section 14(b) and should be separated out quite definitely from the two. Senator PROUTY. I think that would be an amendment to the first proviso of section 8(a)3.

Secretary WIRTZ. Section 8(a)3 is the provision for the unfair labor practice of the employer, and section 8(b)2 would be the comparable provision for the unfair labor practice of the union, and I suppose it is right that the interrelationship between those sections and section 9(e) is such that if any thing were done about section 9(e) it would have to trace back.

I would have to follow that on through; it gets pretty complicated. Senator PROUTY. Mr. Secretary, both in States which permit union shops and those in which open shops are mandatory, a union must. obtain a majority vote in an election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board in order to obtain the status of exclusive bargaining representation for the union and employees involved.

In view of this fact, do you agree with the asserted claims of many labor organizations that the repeal of section 14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act will make their ability to organize in States

with mandatory open shops easier, and if you do agree with that position would you please give your reason.

Secretary WIRTZ. I am sorry, I did not hear all of the statement, the original premise, the first part of it: Any question I would have would be about that

Senator PROUTY. In the States which have union shops.

Secretary WIRTZ. In the States having union shops

Senator PROUTY. In both States which do and do not, and States in which open shops are mandatory, in order to obtain the majority vote in an election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board, that is correct, is it not?

Secretary WIRTZ. I am not sure it is, that was my reason for questioning.

We would almost have to take that piece by piece.

Senator PROUTY. Let me hand you the statement.

Secretary WIRTZ. All right, I think it raises among other things this question of recognition in the absence of certification, I would like to be careful about the answer.

On the point of the question as to whether this does increase the strength of the unions I have no difficulty about that part of the question, I think it certainly does.

The difficulty I have with the statement is it starts out, Senator Prouty, in those States which permit union shops and those in which open shops are mandatory. I assume that is the reference to the "right-to-work" States.

It goes on to say a union must obtain a majority vote in an election conducted by the NLRB. That would not be right. It would all depend-that is this question which had come up before whether there has to be an election in every case, or whether there can sometimes be a national labor relations board of recognition, so that I would have to take exception to that statement.

It goes on to state "or an uncoerced majority of employees in the unit for voluntary recognition," the premise I cannot accept in that

next one.

The question goes on to say: Do I "agree with the asserted claims of many labor organizations that the repeal of section 14(b) of the National Labor Relations Act would make their ability to organize in States with mandatory open shops easier." I answer categorically, "Yes, that would be the effect of the repeal of section 14(b) to make the ability to organize in the right-to-work States, the 19 States, easier"; no question about that.

Senator PROUTY. Mr. Chairman, could I have a member of the minority staff ask the Secretary a question?

Senator MCNAMARA. Unless there is an objection on the part of the subcommittee.

Secretary WIRTZ. I should supplement my last answer to this extent, it would not by law, and that is the trouble with the premise here, it would not by law have any larger effect on the organizing ability.

I am simply answering in the broad terms that there would be more effective, as a practical matter, union organization, but not as a matter of law.

Senator MCNAMARA. Will you identify yourself for the record. Mr. BENEDICT. Peter Benedict, I am a member of the minority professional staff of the committee.