Mr. SCHNEIDER. About how many cases did you have? In other words, did you take all these cases to court?

Mr. MADDEN. We have not yet taken any textile case to court. We have several of these decisions now awaiting compliance. We make our order and ordinarily give a period for compliance with the law. We have not taken any of these textile cases into court.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Do you recall how many compliance orders you made?

Mr. MADDEN. Not very many.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Approximately?

Mr. MADDEN. Not very many final orders; only four or five, I would say.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. After the investigation, you make an order, is that right?

Mr. MADDEN. That is right.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. And you say you made four or five orders?
Mr. MADDEN. Yes.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Have any of those been complied with by the employers?

Mr. MADDEN. Not in any of these textile cases in the Southeast. Mr. SCHNEIDER. Then, so far as your board was concerned, in trying to bring about an adjustment of this character of grievances, you have complied with the law up to the point of issuing a compliance order and the employers have not complied with that order made by your board in any case?

Mr. MADDEN. That is true. I should say this, that in quite a number of cases which workers have called to our attention, our agents have gone out and straightened the matter out without a hearing; that is, without our going through our formal procedure of complaint and hearing. We have gotten some compliance in that way. But if the employer has resisted to the extent of putting us to the formal hearing, he has, after that hearing, in no case, so far, complied with our order.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. The first procedure that you speak of, before conducting hearings, is in the nature more or less of a conciliatory procedure, in which you try to persuade the employer, by calling his attention to the case, that there should be an adjustment between the parties, by their getting together?

Mr. MADDEN. That is right.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. And in some of those cases you are able to bring about a peaceful and satisfactory condition?

Mr. MADDEN. That is true.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. But of those cases in which there was no yielding, where you were required to have a hearing, in none of those cases have the employers complied with the compliance order issued by the board?

Mr. MADDEN. That is right.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. And of those compliance orders, you say you have taken none of them into court?

Mr. MADDEN. That is right; none into the circuit court of appeals.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. And that covers the entire country, does it not? Mr. MADDEN. Yes.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. This entire industry?

Mr. MADDEN. That is right.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Does the board intend to take any of these cases to court, to get a final test on them?

Mr. MADDEN. We intend to take all of them in which we make orders and do not get compliance. It is not particularly relevant to this discussion, but it is only fair to say here that there is, among many employers in the country-there certainly is among many textile employers-a spirit of resistance to our law. Different industrial associations have advised their members that our law is unconstitutional and have put them in an attitude where they doubt our power to enforce our law.

We have not any doubt whatever that if that advice had not been given, or if that advice is proved to have been erroneous by court decisions, when we get them, we will get compliance in most cases upon making our order, and, indeed, we will get compliance long before that. We will get it at the earlier stages, when we give notice that we are going to hold a hearing.

So that we do not regard our operation as anything like the normal operation of a recognized, valid law.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Did the employers go into court in any of these cases to restrain you from enforcing the compliance order?

Mr. MADDEN. Yes, we have quite a number of those cases.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Were injunctions issued restraining you from going further?

Mr. MADDEN. In some cases. We had this experience with one employer in the Atlanta region. He went into the State court of Georgia seeking an injunction. The State court refused to grant it. He did not go into the Federal court there, as is the normal procedure, but he came to the District of Columbia here and brought his injunction suit in the Supreme Court of the District. Judge Adkins had that case and again refused to issue the injunction. Then he appealed from Judge Adkins' decision to the Court of Appeals of the District and got a stay against us, pending that appeal. So, on his third court trial, he does have us, for the time being, tied up.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. In these other class of cases, involving the right of representation of the workers-how many of those cases did you have?

Mr. MADDEN. Fourteen in textiles.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. In which the employer disputed the right of the worker to the representation that they had decided on?

Mr. MADDEN. Yes, disputed our right to go in and ascertain the facts as to what the workers desired.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. With reference to representation and organization?

Mr. MADDEN. That is right.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. And in some of those cases you conducted an election, did you?

Mr. MADDEN. We have conducted four elections with the consent of employers.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Was that in the southeastern part of the country? Mr. MADDEN. Three of them were in the Southeast; one was in the Middle West.

In addition to those consent elections, I think that last week we succeeded in holding one ordered election. I mean to say that we moved rather promptly in that case. We made the order. Our

agent went out and held the election quickly and so the intent, which we rather thought was there, to get us enjoined, was not carried out. Mr. SCHNEIDER. Were you enjoined in some cases?

Mr. MADDEN. In election cases?

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Yes.

Mr. MADDEN. Yes. The case that I spoke of, which came to the District here before Judge Adkins, in which we are now tied up by a stay pending an appeal, involved, as I recall it, both things; that is, it was both a complaint and a representation case.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. But that order of the court prevents the board from conducting an election to determine whom the workers desire as their representative?

Mr. MADDEN. That is right. This argument is made to us very regularly: None of these workers want a union; they are all sick of unions. If there was to be an election they would vote almost unanimously against the union. But we will not let you have an election. Mr. SCHNEIDER. They would have you believe and have the public believe that all the workers are in favor of these good-will clubs? Mr. MADDEN. That is the argument which is made.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. The good-will clubs are largely, if not wholly, a company-union instrument, are they not?

Mr. MADDEN. We really cannot say in many of these cases that they have been propagated by the employer. In most cases they are very welcome to the employer and the attitude of the employer toward them is that the workman is not endangering his job by membership or activity in the good-will association. But I cannot say to you that in all cases these clubs have been propagated by the employer.

Mr. SCHNEIDER. It would be hard, of course, for anyone on the outside to determine that because of the fact that the agents and foremen and other officials of the company could easily influence the organization of such a club by various methods through their supervision and control over the employees.

Mr. MADDEN. You are right. It is difficult to ascertain those things.

Mr. Wood. What period of time does your testimony cover-that is, the experience of the new board?

Mr. MADDEN. The period from the beginning of our activities.
Mr. WOOD. When were those activities begun?

Mr. MADDEN. We held our first hearing in October of 1935, and these figures which I gave come down to January 18 of this year.

Mr. WooD. In the discussion on the appropriation items for the National Labor Relations Board the other day, it was stated that you handled 151 cases and that there are yet pending 178 cases before your board.

Mr. MADDEN. Well, we have handled

Mr. WOOD. That is the total number, all those that have been dealt with in any way?

Mr. WOOD. Well, that was not accurate. We have almost 500 cases in our different offices.

Mr. WOOD. In your opinion, is it necessary for the board to have any additional power or authority to enforce its decisions? In other words, do you think the law is sufficient?

Mr. MADDEN. Yes; if our constituents recognized that we have the powers which the language of the statute seems to give us, we would get along very well.

Mr. WOOD. Of course, there is no way by which you can forestall the power of the courts to issue restraining orders or injunctions against the Board.

Do you think the collective bargaining feature in the Ellenbogen bill would carry out the purpose of it?

Mr. MADDEN. My understanding is that the collective bargaining features of this bill are identical with those of our law.

Mr. Wood. It would carry out the purpose of the Labor Relations Act, then?

Mr. MADDEN. Yes.

Mr. WOOD. Would it not tend to strengthen the hand of the Board?

Mr. MADDEN. Of our Board?

Mr. WOOD. Yes.

Mr. MADDEN. Well, so far as the particular labor features of this bill are concerned, I cannot say that they would add anything in particular to it.

Mr. WOOD. They would neither interfere with nor add to it?

Mr. MADDEN. That is right. As I read it, it does not trespass at all upon our powers.

Mr. WOOD. You spoke a while ago about the difficulties in the textile industry in 1934 and you said something about there being a gesture on the part of the workers in many instances who had become desperate and who desired peace; what were you referring to there? What sort of peace? You mean to be relieved of their burdens in their employment?

Mr. MADDEN. I meant the peace of having any kind of a job that the employer would give them at whatever wages he would pay, rather than of being out with all of the hardships of strike conditions and with apparently very discouraging prospects of success.

Mr. WOOD. When you said the workers made this gesture, did you mean that the workers went back to work or desisted from the strike because they wanted peace, or what was it you had in mind? I did not exactly get the drift of your statement.

Mr. MADDEN. That, of course, is just a matter of history; but, as I understand it, that is what happened. That is, they would drift back. The strike ended. I made that statement in connection with the formation of these good-will clubs, that they were a gesture in that direction.

Mr. Wood. In other words, they thought that if they would form these mutual admiration societies or good-will clubs, it would please the employer and it would probably insure their peaceful employment.

Mr. MADDEN. Very often, upon the formation of the good-will clubs, and the presentation of the petition, the mill opened after it had been closed for a good while.

Mr. Wood. Of course, that is the main reason for employees joining these mutual admiration societies; they think that probably they will incur the good will of the employer, not having in mind improvement of working conditions, increase of wages or shortening of hours, but merely an improvement in the sureness of their employment. Mr. MADDEN. I think that statement is correct.

Mr. WOOD. Others, of course, join because they are compelled to join; they know that it is dangerous not to join. Mr. MADDEN. That has certainly happened. Mr. WOOD. That is all.

Mr. HARTLEY. Did I understand you to say that none of the employers, guilty of a violation of the Wagner-Connery Act, have com plied after the Board had ordered them to comply?

Mr. MADDEN. That is correct.

Mr. HARTLEY. Does that indicate to you that the act is not accomplishing the ends that it set out to accomplish?

Mr. MADDEN. It is not accomplishing its ends. As I suggested, I think that our activities and our experiences are not at all normal. I think that all of this advice which has gone out, with reference to the unconstitutionality of the act, has built up a resistance there which ordinarily you do not meet in the application of a law. I think that in spite of the fact that the Congress has spoken and the President has signed the bill, we are still in the lawmaking stage; namely, waiting for the word of the courts as to whether this law is law.

Mr. HARTLEY. You do not feel, as far as legislation is concerned, that it requires any more authority than is now granted under the act, do you?

Mr. MADDEN. No; for very useful work, it would not require any more authority. We could think of some things, perhaps broader powers of investigation, or something like that, which might be useful. But I cannot say now that it is necessary.

Mr. HARTLEY. Up to the moment, it has been more or less ineffective because of the resistance that has been built up; is that the idea? Mr. MADDEN. That is right.

Mr. HARTLEY. You said something before about 13,000 employees involved in these different complaint cases that came before your board. How many mills does that involve?

Mr. MADDEN. There are 62 separate cases and that would ordinarily mean 62 separate mills.

Mr. HARTLEY. That would be 62 mills out of how many?

Mr. MADDEN. I am ashamed to say, I do not know how many textile mills there are.

Mr. HARTLEY. I believe there are about 1,200 are there not?
Mr. MADDEN. I do not know.

Mr. HARTLEY. Do you think generally the industry has resisted the right to organize for the purpose of bargaining?

Mr. MADDEN. That would be my impression.

Mr. Wood. Is it not the purpose of the National Labor Relations Act to avoid strikes and industrial unrest, and make collective bargaining a reality in industry?

Mr. MADDEN. Yes; and we have in many directions had very gratifying success in doing so.

Mr. Wood. These cases that Congressman Hartley asked you. about, in which you had finally made a decision; I think you said there were four or five cases in which you had finally made a decision? Mr. MADDEN. Yes.

Mr. WOOD. And the employers complied with that decision?

Mr. MADDEN. No.

Mr. HARTLEY. He said that they resisted them.

Mr. Wood. Oh, they resisted; I thought it was rather unusual that they should comply with them.

Mr. MADDEN. I said

Mr. Wood. In no case they have complied with your decisions, so far?