Title I Bill of Rights of Members of Labor Organizations. 71 Title II -Reporting by Labor Organizations, Officers, and Title VI -Miscellaneous Provisions 82 101 I INTRODUCTION ON SEPTEMBER 14, 1959, President Eisenhower signed into law the Landrum-Griffin Act, formally labeled the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. It marked the first major revision of the 12-year-old National Labor-Management Relations Act (Taft-Hartley). For the first time, certain internal affairs of labor unions were subjected to the watchful eye of the federal government. Although the new legislation makes many highly important changes in the present Taft-Hartley Act, it is primarily a reporting and disclosure statute. It requires unions, union officers, labor consultants, employers, and employer organizatons to file reports with the Secretary of Labor concerning union elections, operational procedures, and financial arrangements, to name a few. Six of the law's seven titles are largely devoted to the internal activities of unions or to reporting requirements of unions and employers. The seventh title embodies the major Taft-Hartley changes which curb certain unfair labor practices and which, in some instances, grant even greater power to professional unionists. During the Congressional debate, the latter provisions were referred to as union "sweeteners"measures designed to win the support of unionists for a piece of legislation to which they were philosophically opposed. The battle against labor abuses and encroachments on individual rights is a continuing one. The new law represents a significant step in the right direction. Unfortunately, however, it does not provide complete relief from all unfair labor practices; it does not ban compulsory unionism; nor will it insure vigorous enforcement of state and local anti-violence statutes. Perhaps the coming years will witness the end of the legislative double-standard now existing in favor of union officials. The following pages provide a brief study of the legislative development of the Landrum-Griffin Act, a summary of its provisions, a critical analysis of those provisions with references to the appropriate legislative history, and the full text of the new statute. Labor Relations and Legal Department Chamber of Commerce of the United States January, 1960 LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENT OF CONGRESSIONAL ACTION on a new labor law was years in developing. As decisions by the National Labor Relations Board and some of the courts poked legal loopholes in the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, a cry for new legislation began to reach Washington. It came from the victims of union secondary boycotts, from the thousands of rank-and-file workingmen who were forced to join unions because of economic pressure exerted upon their employers via picket lines, and from the scores of small business firms who were caught in the United States Supreme Court's creation of a "no-man's land" where no relief from union oppression could be obtained. The clamor for labor reform increased. To these voices were added the hundreds and hundreds of complaints by average dues-paying union members. There were complaints of stolen union money, embezzlement of union funds, use of dues money for political purposes and support of "high living" union leaders. McClellan Committee Provides Impetus Undoubtedly, the greatest impetus for labor reform legislation sprang from the revelations of Senator McClellan's Select Committee on Improper Activities in the Labor or Management Field. That such legislation was successfully enacted into law in the 86th Congress in September, 1959, is a tribute to the efforts of conscientious legislators who realized that the taint of corruption and racketeering in the labor-management field must be wiped out by federal law. On February 1, 1957, Senator McClellan's eight-man Committee began its investigations. Its first two years of operation produced 36,000 pages of testimony from more than 1,000 witnesses in more than 200 days of open hearings. On March 24, 1958, the McClellan Committee issued its first Interim Report.1 The findings of the Committee2 in that report may be summarized as follows: (1) There has been a significant lack of democratic procedures in the unions studied. (2) The international unions surveyed by this committee have flagrantly abused their power to place local unions under trusteeship or supervisorship. (3) Certain managements have extensively engaged in collusion with unions. (4) There has been widespread misuse of union funds in the unions studied. (5) Violence in labor-management disputes, widely regarded as a relic of the organizing era of the thirties, still exists to an extent where it may be justifiably labeled a crime against the community. (6) Certain managements and their agents have engaged in a number of illegal and improper activities in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended in 1947 (the Taft-Hartley Law). (7) The weapon of organizational picketing has been abused by some of the unions studied. (8) Gangsters and hoodlums have successfully infiltrated some labor unions, sometimes at high levels. (9) An extensive "no-man's land” in labor-management relations has been uncovered by committee testimony. (10) Law-enforcement officers have been lax in investigating and prosecuting acts of violence resulting from labor-management disputes. (11) Members of the legal profession have played a dubious role in their relationships with officials of some unions. After detailing the nature and extent of corrupt practices over 450 pages, the McClellan Committee made its recommendations for remedial legislation to curb abuses uncovered during its first year of hearings; These recommendations were for legislation —to regulate and control pension, health and welfare funds; -to regulate and control union funds; -to insure union democracy; -to curb activities of middlemen in labor-management disputes; -to clarify the "no-man's land" in labor-management relations. 1 Senate Report No. 1417, 85th Congress, 2d Session. 2 See page 233 for the full text of these findings. See page 235 for the full text of these recommendations. Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act Passed The first of these recommendations was implemented in 1958 with the passage of the Welfare and Pension Plan Disclosure Act. When this law was pending as S. 2888 in the Senate in April, 1958, Senator Knowland (R.-Cal.) offered several amendments to regulate certain internal affairs of labor organizations by providing procedures and processes for insuring democratic control of unions by the rank-and-file membership. Most of the amendments offered by Senator Knowland were contained in his bill, S. 3068, that had been before the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee since January 23, 1958. Largely because of commitments made by Senator Kennedy (D.Mass.) and the majority leader, Senator Johnson (D.-Tex.) to bring a labor reform bill before the Senate by June 10, 1958, the Knowland amendments were rejected. Kennedy-Ives Bill Passes Senate No single bill before the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee in 1958 was utilized as the pattern for drafting the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1958. Primary authorship credit was given to Senators Kennedy and Ives (R.-N.Y.) for S. 3974, reported by the full Senate Labor Committee on June 10, 1958. Because some of the language in the Landrum-Griffin Act of 1959 can be traced to the Kennedy-Ives bill of 1958, consideration must be given to the latter proposal and statements concerning it. For all practical purposes, the legislative history of the Landrum-Griffin Act begins with the KennedyIves bill. On June 12, 1958, the Senate began debate on the Kennedy-Ives bill. Thirty-one amendments were adopted, some adding and some deleting language. The bill which passed the Senate on June 17 by a vote of 88 to 1, however, contained the same general provisions on reporting and disclosure, trusteeships, elections, codes of ethical practices, definitions and miscellaneous, and amendments to the TaftHartley Act. House Rejects Kennedy-Ives Bill Instead of referring the Senate-passed bill immediately to the House Committee on Education and Labor, Speaker Rayburn (D.-Tex.) of the House held the measure on his desk for 40 days. Public Law 85-836 |