Montana labor news., 1937-01-07
Steel COMPANY PLAN ON SPOT;
EMPLOYEES FORM {. |. 0. COUNCIL
Employer Domination of Com
pany Unions Exposed at Labor
Board Hearing.
BY WIN SWEENEY

BY WIN SWEENEY
WASHINGTON (UNS)-With rec
ords and testimony, the story of the
imposition of company unions and
their complete domination by the
management of Carnegie-Illinois
Steel Corp. and U. S. Steel, has been
laid before the National Labor Re
lations Board.
Only three Workmen took the
stand, supplemented by testimony
Of Philip Murray, chairman of the
Steel Workers Organizing Com
mittee, in the first three days of the
hearing. But in that time there has
been written a record that far over
shadows the testimony previously
given in company unions of the In
ternational Harvester Co.-the mod
ell for all others.
In that case the labor board or
dered the company unions disband-
ed. And while there will be add
tional testimony early in January
and the company will have a chance
to present its case, observers here see
little else for the board to do but
order company unions in steel dis
solved.
Company Imposed Plan
Elmer J. Maloy, of the Duquesne
works, Carnegie-Illinois on the stano
for two days, showed how the com
pany unions plan had been imposed
on the workmen. He read a letter
signed by l. Lamont Hughes, former
president of the steel concern, dated
June Z, 1888, in which management
announced it was installing the plan
Other testimony showed that L
H. Burnett, vice-president of Car
negie-Illinois, virtually admitted, {
few years later, that company union;
were started to prevent the mel
joining outside organizations.
At no time, Maloy testified, were
the men given a chance to vote OF
whether they wanted company UNI
ions or an outside union. The orgi.
nal balloting in 1888 and ever since
has been to elect representative,
only.
Pay to Representatives
AS to financial domination of The
plant by management, Maloy, Joh1
J. Kane, also of Duquesne, and vii
liam Clarity, of Edgar Thomson
works in Braddock, told of the pay
ments they had received for theil
work. Maloy said that at least fivt
times last year he had drawn $10I
for his service as a representative
in addition to his regular pay.
This is specifically forbidden unde.
the National Labor Relations Act.
The pay-plan is to give the repre-
sentative $3.50 a meeting and ex
penses. When they attend meeting
during working hours they also ge
their regularly hourly rate, evidence
shows.
Efforts of the company union mer
to gain some independence in The
plan by establishing a Central Com.
mittee were traced by the witnesses
-,
The Central Committee was not rec.
ognized until last summer, just wher
steel management wanted to give ;
pay increase, under the guise Of 'col.
%lective bargaining with the repre-.
sentatives.
No Collective Bargaining
"Was there any collective bargain.
ing with the Central Committee
about that pay raiser" Maloy wa,
asked.
Absolutely none,' he replied.
Kane also recited a wage increase
granted in July, 1888, a month after
the plan was imposed. He said the
company union on that occasion was
used merely to announce the in.
crease and had had no collective bar.
gaining sessions with management
previously. But management in these
instances, and all others, tried to ere,
ate the impression that the wage
raises came as a result of bargaining
Various acts of intimidation are
also in the record, such as the man
agement forbidding company unioI
representatives to attend a meeting
under c. l. o. sponsorship; a letter
from Pres. B. F. Fairless warning
against the S. w. 0. c.; threats by
management of reprisals if the repre-
sentatives took adverse actor
against the company union.
Threats of No Pay Increase
There was also threats by manage.
-.