that contracts shall be awarded and employees hired without regard to race or color. Obtaining compliance with Executive Order 11246 is the function of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance, in the United States Department of Labor.

*

*

*

*

*

The construction contract for work on the Visitors Center, a feature of the Arch, was entered into on October 19, 1965, between the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and Hoel-Steffen, the successful bidder. The awarding of the contract to Hoel-Steffen, and the awarding by Hoel-Steffen of subcontracts, was delayed, however, because of the difficulty in convincing the Office of Contract Compliance that work on the Arch would be performed without discrimination, in conformity with Executive Order 11246. On November 15, at the urging of Bi-State Development Company which was to operate the train to be installed in the legs of the Arch, a meeting was convened in the office of Leroy Brown, superintendent of the Park Service, attended by Brown, W. W. Zenfell, area coordinator for the contract compliance section, Robert Hoel, president of Hoel-Steffen, Joseph Cousin, secretary-treasurer of Building and Construction Trades Council of St. Louis, and others.

At the meeting Zenfell explained that Executive Order 11246 required that the general contractor, in this instance Hoel-Steffen, take "affirmative action" to insure equal employment opportunity for work on the Arch. This, according to Zenfell, had not been done. A discussion followed as to the categories of work at which Negro workers might be employed, and E. Smith Plumbing Company, a small company owned by a Negro and employing Negro plumbers, was sug. gested. It was recognized by those present that Smith's plumbers were not members of Plumbers Local 562, affiliated with the AFL-CIO, one of the Respondent's herein, but, perversely, were members of Local 99, affiliated with the Congress of Independent Unions, one of the Chagging Parties. Boyajean, deputy compliance officer for the Department of Interior, asked Cousin, "Will the AFL people work with a CIU plumber if he is employed on the job?" Cousin's answer was, "No, definitely not." With that, the meeting broke up.

Two or three weeks after this meeting Hoel-Steffen subcontracted the plumbing work in the Visitors Center at the Arch to Smith, who, along with his other two plumbers, the first part of December began preliminary work on the jobsite. This immediately came to Cousin's attention, and on December 21, he talked with Zenfell and told him that, as a result of awarding the plumbing subcontract to Smith, "there might be some trouble down on the project," that the Building and Trades Council was "unhappy" about it, and he reminded Zenfell of his, Cousin's, declaration at the November meeting that the AFL-CIO union members would not work alongside Smith's employees. He asked Zenfell to see Superintendent Brown and persuade him to get Smith to surrender his contract. This, Cousin said, would "solve the situation." Zenfell refused. Two days later Cousin got in touch with James Brotherton, administrative officer for the Memorial, employed by the National Park Service, and told him that he was "concerned" that Hoel-Steffen had awarded the plumbing subcontract to a "CIU outfit," and asked "if there was anything the National Park Service could do to get Smith to withdraw from the contract, or to get Hoel-Steffen to prevail upon Smith to do so." Brotherton said there was not, and reminded Cousin of Executive Order 11246.

Thus rebuffed, but rallying, the Building and Construction Trades Council on December 27 drafted the following statement of policy:

"STATEMENT OF POLICY ADOPTED BY THE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS

"Since the inception of the Building and Construction Trades Council of St. Louis, an affiliate of the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, and its affiliated local unions and their members have adhered to the policy and practice of not working on construction projects unless the journeymen workers, apprentices and their helpers employed thereon are 100% AFL-CIO....

"It has now come to the attention of the affiliated membership of the Council that the interior work on the Gateway Arch will not be entirely performed by workers who are AFL-CIO.

"As a consequence, the Building and Construction Trades Council of St. Louis announces that the rank and file members of its affiliated local unions do not desire to accept employment on the Gateway Arch interior finishing project, and hereby informs the general contractor, sub-contractors and all others concerned with the finishing of the Arch's interior that they should make arrangements to perform the work in question by construction workers they can obtain from any other available source.

"This announcement is being made by the undersigned in accordance with the instructions and orders given them as the officers of the Building and Construction Trades Council of St. Louis by the unanimous vote of the delegates of its affiliated local unions at a special meeting of said Council held on December 21, 1965."1

The Statement of Policy was mailed to Hoel-Steffen, the National Park Service and various subcontractors on the Arch project, and widely disseminated on radio and television, by Arthur Hunn, president of the Council.

The success of the Council, representating the several crafts who are Respondents is this case, and of the agents of the crafts themselves in their joint effort to boycott agencies of the United States Government, the general contractor and the subcontractors on the Arch, became apparent on January 7, 1966. Donald Schubert, project manager for Hoel-Steffen, the general contractor, arrived at the jobsite early that morning after having notified St. Louis Sheet Metal Company, which had the sheet metal contract, and Lorain Engineering Company, which had a plumbing contract, to have workers on the job that day. Observing that there were no lights in the underground area of the Arch where Hoel's work on the Visitors Center was to be performed, Schubert asked one Dilge, general foreman for Sachs who had the electrical subcontract, and Sparks, an employee of Sachs, to turn the switch so that the sheet metal workers and the plumbers could see to do their work, and continue with the installation of temporary lighting. Both refused, Dilge stating that he would "just as soon not work with a contractor [Smith] who was not a member of the Building Trades Council." Both these electricians, however, performed electrical work on the jobsite that day for other contractors who employed members of AFL-CIO crafts.

Later the same morning Gene Korn, employed by St. Louis Sheet Metal, arrived, as did Jim Roach and Elmer Gibling, plumbers employed by Lorain Engineering Company. All three men told Schubert that they

The above findings of fact are based upon the credited, uncontroverted testimony of witnesses called by the General Counsel, and documentary evidence sponsored by them, as well as upon stipulations of fact by counsel. No witnesses were called by the Respondents.

3

The record leaves no doubt, indeed it proclaims, that immediately it became known that some of the work on the Arch would have to be performed by a subcontractor employing Negro workers, to demonstrate compliance, even though only a token compliance, with Executive Order 11246, and that these workers would not be affiliated with the AFL-CIO representatives of the AFL-CIO crafts, including officers of the Building and Construction Trades Council of St. Louis, made known their determination to frustrate such an outcome, Executive Order 11246 to the contrary not withstanding. And, it may be added, regardless of the proscriptions of the National Labor Relations Act.

When Hoel-Steffen subcontracted the plumbing work to E. Smith Plumbing Company with its three Negro plumbers, representatives of Respondent lost no time in bringing pressure to bear on the National Park Service, an agency of the United States Government, and on Hoel-Steffen, Sachs Electric, St. Louis Sheet Metal, and Lorain Engineering, to force them to cease doing business with Smith, though Respondents had no labor dispute with these companies. Cousin, acting for the Council and its affiliated craft members, at the meeting on November 15, 1965, flatly warned that members of these crafts would "definitely" not work with any CIU plumber. On December 21, Cousin threatened Zenfell with "trouble" because of the award of the plumbing contract to Smith. On Decem

ber 27, in a letter to the craft unions in question and to the various subcontractors, the Council even more explicitly threatened to strike unless the work at the Visitors Center was "entirely performed" by members of the AFL-CIO. Widespread publicity was given this decision in the newspapers, and, on television and radio for the evident purpose of alerting every craftsman in the area not to accept work at the Visitors Center so long as Smith was employed there. When on January 7, Smith and one of his employees showed up at the jobsite, the other employees, electricians, plumbers, sheet metal workers, and laborers, made good this threat and struck.

I find that the above-described activities of Respondents had the purpose and effect of threatening the employees of the employers herein, and forcing them to cease doing business with E. Smith Plumbing Company. Such activities are clearly interdicted by Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act.

*

*

**

THE REMEDY

**

Having found that Respondents have violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.

1. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1, Pipefitters Local 562, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 42, Laborers International Union of North America and Building and Construction Trades Council of St. Louis, all affiliated with AFL-CIO are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.

2. Smith, Hoel-Steffen, Sachs, Sheet Metal Company, and Lorain are employers engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.

3. By (a) engaging in a strike, and inducing and encouraging employees, of Smith, Hoel-Steffen, Sachs, Sheet Metal Company, Lorain, and other employers to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to perform services for their respective employers, and (b) threatening, coercing, or restraining Hoel-Steffen, Sachs, Sheet Metal Company, and Lorain with an object of forcing or requiring these employers to cease doing business with Smith, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices comprehended by Section 8(c) (4) (i) and (ii) (B) of the Act.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record, it is recommended that Local 36, Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local 1, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Pipefitters Local 562, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 42, Laborers' International Union of North America, and Building and Construction Trades Council of St. Louis, their officers, agents, representatives, successors, and assigns, shall:

1. Cease and desist from:

(a) Engaging in, or inducing or encouraging the employees of the abovenamed employers to engage in, a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to perform services for their respective employers, and (b) threatening, coercing, or restraining these employers, or any other person or employer, where in either case an object thereof is to force or require them to cease doing business with E. Smith Plumbing Company.

2. Take the following affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act:

Mr. JAMES W. HUNT.

U.S. SENATE.

COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE

May 19, 1967

U.8. Chamber of Commerce,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. HUNT: I am sorry that I was unable to attend the hearing of the Subcommittee on Employment. Manpower and Poverty of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare on S. 1308 and S. 1667 on May 5, 1967 until you had completed your testimony. There were several questions which I had hoped to ask you with reference to the position of the Chamber of Commerce but, unfortunately, you had left the hearing room by the time I arrived. I would appreciate it, therefore, if you would answer on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, the following questions:

1. Approximately thirty-eight states presently have laws against discrimination in employment on account of race, creed, national origin or religion. In thirtyone of those thirty-eight states, the law is enforced by a state agency which has cease and desist order powers similar to those which S. 1308 and S. 1667 would confer upon the EEOC. Does the experience in the thirty-one states in which the enforcement agencies have been given cease and desist order powers, as compared to the seven states in which the agencies have not been given such powers, support the Chamber's contention that cease and desist powers impede voluntary compliance with the law or cause greater delay than would otherwise exist in the handling of cases?

2. In six of the thirty-one states where the enforcement agencies presently have cease and desist order powers, namely, Kansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, Iowa and New Mexico, the enforcement agencies originally did not have this power; it was added only recently. Did the U.S. or local Chambers of Commerce support or oppose the change in any of these six states, and if so, on what grounds?

3. In warning of the delay which would occur were the EEOC given cease and desist order powers, your prepared statement notes (p. 3) that it takes approximately twelve months before the average case is processed through the NLRB. Under the present Civil Rights Act, if the EEOC's voluntary compliance efforts are unsuccessful, the complainant must bring a civil action. Is it the Chamber's contention that the time that would elapse in the average litigated case between the filing of a charge with the EEOC and the entry of a final judgment in a district court would be less than the time that would elapse between the filing of a charge and an entry of an order by the EEOC if the EEOC were given cease and desist order powers?

4. In your testimony, you also warned that giving the EEOC cease and desist order powers would "virtually destroy the conciliatory approach, a proven method of operation", because employers would "immediately adopt a defensive and wary position which, as experience with the NLRB has demonstrated, often results in prolonged public hearings and litigation taking years to settle." Why are not employers similarly reluctant to cooperate under existing law, in view of the fact that private civil actions may be brought against them? Moreover, why are employers not fully protected against disclosure of information obtained by the Commission during conciliation attempts by the flat prohibition against such disclosures now contained in Section 706 (a) which would be retained in exactly the same language, in Section 706(b), under S. 1308? Finally, is the fact that the NLRB disposes of over 90% of its cases prior to the entry of a final order by the Board (see the Thirtieth Annual Report of the NLRB), consistent with the Chamber's position that NLRB type enforcement discourages voluntary settlements?

I would appreciate your early response to these questions.

With best wishes,

Sincerely,

JACOB K. JAVITS, U.S. Senator.

Hon. JACOB K. JAVITS,
United States Senate,
Washington, D.C.

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES,
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT GROUP,
Washington, D.C., June 5, 1967.

DEAR SENATOR JAVITS: I appreciate the opportunity to reply to the questions that you raise in your letter of May 19 concerning the Chamber's testimony on S. 1308 and S. 1667 on May 5, 1967.

1. The reporting services on state fair employment practice agencies (e.g., Bureau of National Affairs) do not disclose the time that it takes for state agencies to act on charges of employment discrimination. Experience with the NLRB, however, which is a federal agency having power comparable to that proposed for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, shows that the average time to dispose of a case under a cease and desist procedure is twelve months.

2. The Chamber is an organization concerned with national issues. We did not, therefore, take a position on legislation concerning state fair employment practice laws.

3. If the Commission is unable to resolve a charge of discrimination within 60 days under existing law, the aggrieved individual, or the Attorney General, may bring an action in a federal district court. S. 1308, on the other hand, does not place any similar time limitation on the Commission. Before an individual can get to court, he must first exhaust administrative procedures. Again using the NLRB as an example, the NLRB takes almost two months just to issue a complaint and twelve months to process a case. There is little reason to believe that the Commission, which is already burdened with a large caseload, can process cases any faster than the NLRB-if, indeed, it can process them as fast.

4. The Chamber's testimony did not object to effective enforcement power by the government. (See pages 7 and 8.) The objection is to the concentration of the power of the conciliator with that of a prosecutor in the same agency. This is a contradiction of functions which will impede rather than promote a swift resolution of a charge.

It is true, as you point out, that under S. 1308 the Commission cannot disclose in an adversary proceeding the information it obtained in the conciliation process. However, there is nothing to prevent the charging party, a labor union, or other group from disclosing such information to the Commission during the adversary proceeding.

Finally, of the 90 percent of the cases that the NLRB disposed of before final order, only 25 percent are settled by the parties. Twenty-eight percent are dismissed by the NLRB because the charges lack merit and 37 percent are withdrawn by the charging party. The NLRB Annual Report does not claim that any cases were dismissed, settled, or withdrawn because of any conciliation efforts by the NLRB.

Sincerely,

Hon. JOSEPH CLARK,

Subcommittee on Employment and Manpower,
Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee,
Washington, D.C.

JAMES W. HUNT, Labor Relations Manager.

SUMTER, S.C., May 15, 1967.

DEAR SENATOR: We strongly support all affirmative action in your committee toward the passage of bill S. 1308.

We also support the substance of the resolution on equal opportunity in employment by the Department of Social Justice, National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.

Rev. F. C. JAMES,

Director, Commission on Social Action,
The African Methodist Episcopal Church.