working in steel plants, and I thought then and I think now, that I know something about how the workers in steel plants feel about these matters.

My door was open for employees to come to me at any time if they had anything to say, and they did come, singly and in groups. I became acquainted with them and could call hundreds of them by name. I kept in close touch with the work of the plant and impressed upon my staff and all our superintendents and foremen the necessity and the importance of keeping alive to the needs and wishes of our employees. We never had labor troubles of any consequence, even though they were sometimes occurring in the plants of other companies, especially in 1919. I attribute this result to the direct personal contact between our management and our men.

Mr. GIRDLER. Did you ask me a question about that?
Senator LA FOLLETTE. I am about to.

Mr. GIRDLER. I beg your pardon.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Mr. Girdler, would you say or would you not say that the labor-relations policies have been formulated to any extent in Republic upon the basis of your experience at the Aliquippa plant of Jones & Laughlin?

Mr. GIRDLER. Yes, indeed. I was 14 years with Jones & Laughlin and I learned a great deal about labor policies and labor relations there-16 years, I guess.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Are the labor policies and relations that are today the policies in Republic substantially the same as, or substantially different from, those that prevailed at Aliquippa when you were there?

Mr. GIRDLER. Why, they are substantially the same except the laws have changed, and certain things that you were allowed to do in 1919 you are not allowed to do now.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. That is true. And will you tell me in what important respects there has been a modification of policies in Republic as distinguished from those that prevailed at the Aliquippa plant while you were there?

Mr. GIRDLER. Well, in 1919 you were commended if you had close relations with your men and let them tell you what they thought and you told them what you thought. Today, if you tell them anything, it is an unfair labor practice.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. In what other respects has there come a change as the result of enactment of legislation or other things?

Mr. GIRDLER. Well, if you are talking about 1919, and Jones & Laughlin, the Aliquippa works with which I was connected, I think as assistant general superintendent-yes, at that time-that plant ran full, never lost an hour on a mill, broke records all during the 1919 strike, although the Pittsburgh plant of Jones & Laughlin had labor troubles, and a great many other steel companies had labor troubles. The main reason why we did not have labor troubles at the Aliquippa plant in those days was because the men did not want to have anything to do with agitators, and they took pretty good care of that themselves, in fact they had to be restrained a little.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. During that period at Aliquippa, when you were there, was there a union in the plant that you know of?

Mr. GIRDLER. Why, there were a great many union men in the plant, men who belonged to the boilermakers and the machinists union and

the bricklayers union. I suppose there were men there that belonged to the old Amalgamated Association; I am not sure.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Did you or did you not have at the Aliquippa plant when you were there, Mr. Girdler, anything similar to or akin. to what has come to be known as the employee representation plan? Mr. GIRDLER. Well, you did not have the modern employee representation plan, although I think at that time it was in existence in a couple or three steel companies, but there was a very close relationship with your own men.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. During the time you were at Aliquippa, was there or were there any drives, organizing drives on the part of any of the what we sometimes call in this hearing-outside unions?

Mr. GIRDLER. Oh, I think the professional labor unions probably had little drives here and there. Not of any great importance as far as Aliquippa was concerned.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Do you remember any attempts made to organize a union among the Aliquippa employees?

Mr. GIRDLER. Not specifically.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. To your knowledge, did the so-called outside unions, or as you call them "professional unions," have any considerable success at Aliquippa while you were there?

Mr. GIRDLER. I would say not.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Were any steps taken to discourage their activities while you were at Aliquippa?

Mr. GIRDLER. I don't recall any steps taken to discourage their activities, except the civil liberties and the freedom of speech that we had at that time, sometimes advising a man that he was better off in attending to his own business and handling his own affairs instead of having someone else handle them for him.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Aside from the advice which you were able to give, as you stated, to your employees, was there any or was there not any concerted effort or any measures taken by the management or those who had to do with labor relations, to discourage or to hamper in any way the activities of outside unions?

Mr. GIRDLER. No; I would not say there was any concerted effort. Senator LA FOLLETTE. Did you have at Aliquippa, while you were there, an industrial police force?

Mr. GIRDLER. We had a police force; yes. We had watchmen and guards-policemen. I don't know exactly what we called them in those days. The head of that force was, I think, employed in 1914, by my superior officer, Mr. Hofnagle, who is now chairman of the board of the Crucible Steel Co. of America, and he was a corporal, I think, in the Pennsylvania State constabulary when Mr. Hofnagle engaged him.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Do you remember his name?

Mr. GIRDLER. Mauk, Harry Mauk.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. What were the duties of the industrial police or guards at Aliquippa, while you were there?

Mr. GIRDLER. Protect property and stop thievery and maintain order. Just the same as they are today.

89562-39-pt. 34

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Did they, or did they not, have any duties outside of the plant property?

Mr. GIRDLER. No; I don't think they had any duties outside of plant property.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. At that time were they in uniform or not? Mr. GIRDLER. Well, when I went there in 1914, I don't think they were in uniform. I think Captain Mauk was put in charge, and they were put in uniform similar to the Pennsylvania State constabulary. That is my recollection; I am not sure about that.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Did they carry sidearms at that time?
Mr. GIRDLER. Yes.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. To your knowledge, did the police force or did anyone else do, what we have come to call in this investigation, undercover labor espionage work?

Mr. GIRDLER. Well, I am quite sure that they tried to find out what was going on in the way of preventing sabotage or destruction of property or bribery which, if it is not carefully watched, is carried on to a great extent, such as a foreman making money on the side by preferential treatment to people who pay him, or giving jobs to relatives of people who are working for him by payment of fees, and so forth. I remember we uncovered several cases of that kind during those periods.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. As I used that phrase in my question, Mr. Girdler, the things which you have just outlined were not intended to be included by "industrial espionage" or "undercover labor work." I mean, concerted or sporadic efforts to ascertain the union affiliations or the attitude or the question of whether a man belongs to any union or not?

Mr. GIRDLER. I don't remember specifically whether there was anything in connection with whether a man belonged to a union or not. I think there was quite a bit of checking up to see whether people were agitators or troublemakers or disrupters of order, and so forth.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Do you mean by "agitators," men who were agitating for sabotage and things of that kind, or do you mean men who were agitating or endeavoring to get men in the plant to join a union?

Mr. GIRDLER. I would say agitating trouble.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Well, am I to assume from your answer that you regard anyone who attempts, or that you did regard at that time, anyone who attempted to persuade the men to join a union, as men who were agitating trouble?

Mr. GIRDLER. No; you are not to assume that, unless the man was neglecting his work and spending his time that he was being paid for so much an hour to run a lathe, soliciting membership in the machinists' union or something of that kind.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Would you say, then, that the employees at Aliquippa while you were there were free to join or organize a union of their own choosing without coercion from any company source or official or employee?

Mr. GIRDLER. Absolutely free, but, of course, perhaps we ought to dwell on coercion at this time. It did not used to be called "coercion." If you said to a man, "Bill, I don't think it is a good thing for you to join the machinists' union, you are probably better off if you don't," or "Tom, I don't think it is a good thing for you to join the bricklayers' union because, although the bricklayers' union has a certain set of rates, most of the men that are members of the bricklayers' union only work so many days a year, while you have steady work in the plant," and so forth-we did not call those things coercion in those days.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Taking your own definition of "coercion," Mr. Girdler, as at that time, was there any coercion of any kind aside from what might be called persuasion?

Mr. GIRDLER. Not to my knowledge; no.
Senator LA FOLLETTE. Mr. McCulloch.

I want to once more request the audience, insofar as humanly possible, not to engage in conversation.

TESTIMONY OF SPENCER R. McCULLOCH

(The witness was sworn by Senator La Follotte.)
Senator LA FOLLETTE. What is your full name, please?
Mr. McCULLOCH. Spencer R. McCulloch.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. How do you spell your last name?
Mr. McCULLOCH. M-c-C-u-1-1-o-c-h.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. What is your occupation?

Mr. McCULLOCH. Reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Senator LA FOLLETTE. How long have you held that position? Mr. McCULLOCH. Since 1929.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. I show you and offer a photostatic copy of a newspaper article appearing in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on June 29, 1937, and ask you if you can identify it?

(The document was marked "Exhibit 5211" and appears in the appendix on pp. 13903–13908.)

Mr. McCULLOCH. Yes, sir.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Did you write that article?
Mr. McCULLOCH. Yes, sir.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. From what sources did you obtain the material from which this article was written?

Mr. MCCULLOCH. From former employees, business and personal associates of Mr. Girdler in Pittsburgh and Aliquippa.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Did you or did you not at any time discuss the contents of this article, prior to its publication, with Mr. Girdler? Mr. McCULLOCH. Yes, sir; as I recall, on June 26 in his office in Cleveland. It was a few days before the publication of the article. Senator LA FOLLETTE. That was 3 days before the article was published?

Mr. McCULLOCH. Approximately.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. What were your reasons for interviewing Mr. Girdler about it?

Mr. McCULLOCH. I wanted, in the interests of accuracy, to tell Mr. Girdler what I had learned and invite his comment.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. How fully did you discuss with him at this time what you had learned and what you proposed to write in your article?

Mr. McCULLOCH. Substantially the contents of the article.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. Did you go over it with him in detail?

Mr. McCULLOCH. I went over the main points with him verbally. The article was not at that time written.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. What, if any, comment or correction did Mr. Girdler make?

Mr. McCULLOCH. He did not make any correction.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. What comment did he offer upon this material, which you went over with him verbally, which was to be the contents of your article?

Mr. McCULLOCH. As I recall, he said substantially that it was a God-damned-near-perfect picture.

[Laughter.]

Senator LA FOLLETTE. I offered it for the record, and the article and it may be printed in full.

Did Mr. Girdler make any further comment?

Mr. McCULLOCH. He said that on one occasion someone had referred to Aliquippa, speaking of its industrial employee and employer relationships as "the Siberia of the industry," and observed that from the standpoint of the labor union, that that is probably what it was.

Senator LA FOLLETTE. This is a sheet from the editorial page of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. [Reading:]

CAREER OF TOM GIRDLER, STEEL'S NO. 1 STRIKEBREAKER

Foe of Unionism, He Made Aliquippa Model Company Town-But all That Is Changed Now.

Workers Picture Him as an Iron-Handed Ruler who Meets Them Man to Man and Whose Eye Sees all.

By Spencer R. McCulloch, A Staff Correspondent of the Post-Dispatch.

Cleveland, O.-Fighting it out on the picket line with John L. Lewis and the C. I. O. is nothing new for Tom M. Girdler of Republic Steel. He has been battling against unionism ever since he entered the steel industry 35 years ago.

Hard-boiled, baldheaded Tom Girdler got his start in a meteoric career, which has netted him riches and reputation by keeping the unions out of Aliquippa, site of the principal mills of Jones & Laughlin. He left that town and the corporation of which he had become president, in 1920, to become chairman of the board of Republic. ** **

Long before the Committee for Industrial Organization was ever heard of, Girdler was a foe of professional unionism. He was basically opposed to any agreement with William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor, as he is to making terms today with Lewis. * * *

For ten years, from about 1915 to 1925, Girdler ruled Aliquippa, a place of 31 nationalities, with iron hand and all-seeing eye.

Unwary union organizers were escorted out of town. Others knew better than to set foot there. In the great steel strike of 1919, when labor vainly fought for abolition of the 12-hour day and 7-day week, Girdler's mills never closed. Nor were they disturbed by picket lines.