Mr. TOLAND. Are any of the 17 members of your organization? Mr. GILL. No, sir; and that is one of the reasons why we went ahead.

Acting Chairman HEALEY. Now, may I just interrupt you right there to ask you if you attribute to any extent as the reasons for the growth in your membership the fact that there is a Wagner Act on the statute books?

Mr. GILL. Yes, sir; definitely, sir. The Wagner Act-these men don't have to fear of losing their jobs because they join the union, and I would say that was probably most of the reason for our success. But one of these C. I. O. organizers told me himself about going to Jackson on grievance committees. They would take 10 or 15 men, how many wanted to go along, usually, and go down and meet the representatives of the Consumiers Power Co., and they might stay a whole week on grievance procedure when they had a contract. The management would keep them there, according to their own story, until perhaps 3 o'clock in the morning, and they have built up bad taste against the C. I. O., as far as the Consumers Power is concerned. They had an agreement and it didn't seem to mean much. They had just as much trouble when they had an agreement as they had when they didn't.

We believe that with the Wagner Act they don't have to strike. We believe we can do our labor mediation across the table, and they have been trying to apply that. As public utilities go, perhaps the Consumers Power is on a par with the rest of them, but our fight hasn't been with the Consumers Power Co.; it has been with this rival union, the C. I. O.

Mr. TOLAND. Has your organization ever taken part in any strike to cause the discontinuance of service to hospitals and homes?

Mr. GILL. Do you mean Local 876? No, sir; not to my knowledge. Mr. TOLAND. Do you believe that hospitals should be deprived of the right of heat, light, and power?

Mr. GILL. No, sir; and I don't think that the citizens of Michiganthere are a lot of people in Michigan that, when you mention the strike, if you are an employee of the Consumers Power Co., they class us all as strikers. Some of them say, "Why do you want to strike? Your conditions are good," and they have classed us with the C. I. O., and it has hurt unions in general in Michigan.

Mr. TOLAND. That is all.

Mr. HALLECK. I would like to ask some questions, Mr. Chairman. Acting Chairman HEALEY. Mr. Murdock has some.

Mr. MURDOCK. I was very pleased, Mr. Gill, to hear your statement with reference to the Wagner Act. It has really been the emancipation, has it not, of labor?

Mr. GILL. Yes, sir. We believe that; in fact, we know it, and we would hate to see any change made in this Wagner Act.

Mr. MURDOCK. You want it preserved, you want it perpetuated, and

you want the gains made under it for labor continued?

Mr. GILL. That is right. I would like to say right now that our trouble has been with the National Labor Relations Board.

Mr. MURDOCK. I will get to them in just a minute. I just did want to get your reaction as to the legislation itself.

Mr. GILL. I might say that that is one of the worst things that may happen in Michigan, if this dispute causes any change in the Wagner Act. It is tough on labor.

Mr. MURDOCK. Now you realize, do you not, that the friends of labor in both political parties and in both the House and the Senate feel very much the same as you do with the Wagner Act, and that it should be continued and that nothing should be done to emasculate it. But you also realize, do you not, that when the Wagner Act was passed creating a board it provided that that board should have power to make certain rules and regulations with reference to procedure-you know the act provides that, don't you? And that any board that was set up or that is set up under the act must exercise that function in order to carry the benefits of the act to labor? Now, I know in my State and in many States the law provides that when three or four men are ambitious to go to Congress we are all placed on the original ballot in the primary, that after the primary they eliminate all but the two highest, and of course the men that are eliminated feel badly about that. They still feel that if they were given another opportunity they might be able to get a majority. But somewhere along the line somebody must be eliminated, and that procedure has been adopted.

Now, coming back to the Wagner Act, it is my understanding that the policy adopted there is that if neither union in an election receives a majority, that all are eliminated in the run-off election except the one having the plurality. That is true, isn't it? Now, in many cases the A. F. of L. has been the fortunate union and has received the plurality. Isn't that right?

Mr. GILL. I don't know, sir.

Mr. MURDOCK. You have no doubt but what that has happened? Mr. GILL. I will agree with you.

Mr. MURDOCK. And you have no doubt but what in those cases the National Labor Relations Board has excluded the C. I. O. union, has excluded all other unions, and has put the A. F. of L. union on the ballot all to itself. You have no doubt about that, have you, that that has happened many times?

Mr. GILL. Yes; I have some doubt about that. I may be wrong, but there is some doubt.

Mr. MURDOCK. Do you have any doubt that it has happened?
Mr. GILL. Yes.

Mr. MURDOCK. Would you say that you doubt that that has ever happened?

Mr. GILL. What I mean to say-I may be wrong-is that before this election we tried to determine the policy of this Board in regard to this run-off election. We realized that even though we thought we would be high man and gain a majority, there was a possibility that we wouldn't, and we realized that there was a three-way game being played there, and there was a possibility of it. We could be eliminated on the first ballot if the rules weren't laid down; we could be eliminated on the second ballot. At least the C. I. O. had every opportunity if they had a drag with the board. Why, if that was true, couldn't we know before this election whether it would be between the two high unions, which is democratic and I think is a heritage of this country, or what the condition should be.

Don't you think we should have known ahead of time?

Mr. MURDOCK. I think this, that the rules of the Board had already been laid down, their policy was well known, and that elections similar to the one that was held there had been held many times, and that if you had taken the time to investigate you would find that in a great many instances the A. F. of L. union had been kept on the ballot in the run-off and the C. I. O. union excluded.

Now I find, and I have read recently, a lot of complaints from the C. I. O. about the Board. I think that it is only natural that there will be complaints from the C. I. O. and that there will be complaints from the A. F. of L., until the differences between these two great labor organizations are settled, but when you talk about what is fair and what is democratic I believe that you will agree with me, will you not, that in a democracy the majority must rule. Isn't that right?

(The witness nodded in agreement.)

Acting Chairman HEALEY. What was the answer? You just shook your head. Mr. GILL. Yes, sir.

Acting Chairman HEALEY. We can't make a note of that in the record.

Mr. MURDOCK. There is no question in this country but what the majority should rule.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. Mr. Chairman, I do believe the witness wished to make an explanation of his answer.

Acting Chairman HEALEY. Did you?

Mr. GILL. I think in the primaries we don't take the high man and the low man. We take the high men, and let the public decide, and in this case there are 2,250 men who want one or the other union. It depends on whether it is the purpose of this Board to further labor. In that case I think they should decide that if there are a group of men on this property who want an organization; in that case we know that there are 2,250 or thereabouts, so then, if the Board is for labor and for advancing labor-I don't know as they are, but if they are-and not in favor of the C. I. O., then why shouldn't we decide? Those men up in Michigan want to know which union the majority on that property want. We know that the majority do not want neither union. We know that 2,250 of them want a union, and we know between what unions.

We are asking all along for an election to decide between these two unions, and if we are in the minority I don't think you will have much more trouble with us. But until we are proven in the minority we are going to be in the picture.

Mr. MURDOCK. But in the original picture you were both on the ballot?

Mr. GILL. That is right.

Mr. MURDOCK. And you both had the same chances so far as the Board was concerned to get all the votes you could in the election. Isn't that true?

Mr. GILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. MURDOCK. And the C. I. O. mustered 1,164 votes against your 1,072. Now, do you think you both should remain on the ballot again in the run-off?

Mr. GILL. I do not wish to get into an argument. I don't wish to leave the wrong impression.

Mr. MURDOCK. I don't want you to.

Acting Chairman HEALEY. He has just asked you a question.

Mr. HALLECK. I think he has answered that question. He says he thinks the two high ought to be on the ballot.

Mr. GILL. It is a problem, gentlemen. Don't you think it is a problem up there? The people of Michigan are asking for this. They don't want, when they come in in the morning to fry their eggs, to find the current cut off because of a couple of rival unions arguing.

Mr. MURDOCK. My question is a simple one. Do you think, after you have had the original election, then in the run-off election both unions should still continue on the ballot?

Mr. GILL. Yes, sir; in this case I do.

Mr. MURDOCK. All right. Suppose we have a second run-off election.

Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I don't like to interrupt. The witness is not a lawyer, and I called these witnesses for the purpose of showing the condition that arises out of the action of the Board. I have shown Dr. Leiserson's view, I have shown Mr. Madden's view, and I have offered the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Now, the testimony of the witness is offered first to show that strikes took place in public utilities; secondly, that there is no right of review in R cases under the present act. I think the problem is the problem of the committee, and based upon the factual testimony of the witness, that the committee should determine whether Congress, at the time it enacted this statute, intended that this Board should invent a run-off policy that it did invent, and whether this Board should deprive this union, and these men, of the right to cast their votes to elect representatives.

Acting Chairman HEALEY. All right, Mr. Toland. We understand that that is the purpose that you placed this witness on the stand for. But certainly a member of this committee is entitled to certain prerogatives, and he feels that he has an obligation and a duty to carry them out, and I certainly haven't felt at this time that there should be any reason to interrupt the questioning of my colleague from Utah, and I think he should be allowed to go on without interruption until he is interrupted by the committee themselves, or the majority of the members of the committee.

Mr. MURDOCK. And I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I am not so much interested in what Dr. Leiserson says or in what Chairman Madden of the Board says. I am not so much interested in what John L. Lewis or what William Green says. But I am intensely interested, Mr. Gill, in what men like you say. What I want to find out, if I can, is, what does the rank and file of labor in the United States think about this act, and if they have any suggestions as to how it should be amended or how the procedure of the Board should be amended, and I would like to find out directly from you.

My question now is, if there isn't some process of elimination in these elections, it seems to me that they would go on interminably and we never would arrive at the proper agency or the proper union to do the collective bargaining for the employees.

Now what I would like you to tell me, Mr. Gill, is this, if you know of a better system than the one that is now in vogue in determining elections, I wish you would tell it to me at this time.

Mr. GILL. I think we have the system. In this particular case, I will leave it to your fairness. You are interested in the minimum of strife in this country. I know you are.

Mr. MURDOCK. There is no question about that.

Mr. GILL. After all, we have two rival organizations, and supposedly we have an umpire in the National Labor Relations Board. In a ball game, we have one, two or three umpires. We have that here. We have you gentlemen above this National Labor Relations Board, and to me you appear to be very much in the picture right at the moment. You are checking up this umpire, and I believe we have further, perhaps our courts might even enter into this-at least the Congress of the United States is interested-and I think that you can agree with me that when there are 2,250 men-now this you may not be able to set down a flat policy and say, "We will do it this way every time"-I think maybe that has to be left up to the judgment of the Board, and then if they go wrong maybe you gentlemen have to straighten it out.

Mr. MURDOCK Have you any system now you would substitute at this time, after your experience with the election that has been held, for the procedure of the Board, so far as run-off elections are concerned?

Mr. GILL. Well, with 2.250 men involved out of 2,800, I see no other possible way of making everybody happy, and letting everyone think that he has a choice on deciding. This is just a little more than a case of electing someone.

Mr. MURDOCK. Well, I don't wont to prolong the examination, but I do want, if you can tell me, Mr. Gill, at what point in these elections you would eliminate somebody from the ballot, if at all.

Mr. GILL. Well, if the union gained the majority there wouldn't be a run-off election.

Mr. MURDOCK. We are assuming now that neither union gets the majority.

Mr. GILL. If we assume that one union is the minority instead of neither, then I would say "yes" or "no"; that definitely is the wish of the employees.

Mr. MURDOCK. Didn't the votes in this election now determine that you were in the minority as compared with the C. I. O.?

Mr. GILL. Not very much in minority.

Mr. MURDOCK. No: I know, but there were about 90 votes. They got 90 votes more than you, and the Board eliminated you in this instance and kept the C. I. O. Now, if the rule of the game is established before the game is played, or if in this case the rule is established before the election is held, and the policy of the Board is well known, that the union receiving the plurality, if not the majority, will be kept on in the run-off and all other unions excluded, is there anything unfair about that?

Mr. GILL. Well, we didn't have that. We weren't assured of that. We tried to find it out and we tried to get it in writing. I didn't, of course, but Mr. Petty-that is one of the thing you run across. We realize we should know that.