Mr. HONEYWELL. The final decision was not made by the WOC. Mr. MALETZ. The WOC's made recommendations. Mr. HONEYWELL. Yes, but the final decision as to who should be retained and who should be let go was made by full-time Government officials. Mr. RODINO. Did the final decision follow the recommendation? The gentleman who preceded you stated he relied on that recommendation. Mr. HONEYWELL. It could or could not in the individual case. Mr. McCoy. The recommendations were not followed out because many of the recommendations could not follow out with the civil service laws. Mr. MCCULLOCH. I should like to know whether the person who was selected to lose his position under your reduction in force, did he have an opportunity to talk to his supervisor or someone in the Department with executive authority so that if there was revenge motivating the recommendation, or jealousy or any other improper motive, that that matter would be fully explored. Mr. McCor. Mr. Congressman, I think every one took full advantage of all the opportunity to do that. Mr. MCCULLOCH. These people in large part were civil service employees and had the right to take advantage of all civil service laws and regulations pursuant thereto? Mr. McCoy. All the civil service laws were applicable. I might say that many of the employees of NPA having been built up rather rapidly were not status employees. They did not have full status. Therefore, under the terms of the Civil Service Commission set up in October 1950, they had no rights really but we did give everyone a hearing with respect to if he had any problem in connection with his dismissal which he thought was unfair or he wanted to say he wasn't being treated right, he certainly had an opportunity and did talk to those who had the final authority with regard to the reductions in force. Mr. Scorr. I suppose some of them took a transfer too? Mr. McCoy. Some of them found other jobs. I am speaking of those who were employed without status and under civil service rules had no actual claim to the job. Once we were in a reduction in force program, they did not have the status or the retention rights that regular civil service people had who had status and veterans' preference and all the others which go to make up the civil service retention rights. Mr. McCULLOCH. In all your experience do you know or do you recall where any employee was about to be affected by a reduction in force, where it had come to your attention that he had been singled out by reason of revenge or by reason of dislike or for any other improper motive? Mr. McCor. Quite a few did appeal to higher command on the basis of something of that sort might have taken place. It was thoroughly looked into. In times like that many people may believe that they are not getting fair treatment. Mr. McCULLOCH. I did not mean only fair treatment. I wanted to get at this question suggested by counsel that Mr. X had been selected as one who was to go by reason of some personal grudge or feud or something that had happened between that person representing his industry when he was in private industry and he was now using his position personally against someone in Government. Mr. McCoy. I do not recall any specific instances of that kind. Mr. Scorr. I was going to make one further observation. It is perfectly obvious to me that during the war in dealing with some of these agencies-and I have in mind OPA-that many of the fulltime employees were brought in there who had no knowledge whatever of the industry and I had a particular experience with the venetian blind industry down there. All that some people in that department knew about a venetian blind was how it could poke him in the eye. They just didn't know. The CHAIRMAN. I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, we can probably know more about these items if we have an opportunity to look at the files. Also, we will be able to obviate a lot of these questions. Mr. SCOTT. It will help. Mr. RODINO. Mr. McCoy, how many people actually at the early part of 1953 did this reduction in force affect? Mr. McCoy. I will have to depend upon my memory. But we were in a reduction-in-force program from the middle of 1952 through the latter half of that year and through 1953, to June 1953. As I recall, we started with about 4,700 salaried employees of NPA at its peak and decreased that through 1952 and 1953 to some six hundred to seven hundred-odd, at the end for the new BDSA. As I recall, there were about 2,300 or 2,400 on the payroll in January 1953. That meant that we had to reduce that force by at least a thousand or more during that 6 months' period. Mr. RODINO. How many of those who were separated appealed to the Civil Service Commission? Mr. McCoy. I am not sure of the number. It seems to me it ran two, three, four hundred. Mr. RODINO. How many? Mr. McCoy. Somewhere around 300 appealed to the Civil Service Commission. Took advantage of their opportunity to appeal. How many presented and prosecuted their appeals, I do not know. Mr. RODINO. Isn't it correct that the Civil Service Commission overruled the NPA in case after case, because of violation of Civil Service Commission regulations? Mr. McCoy. Yes; that happened. The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Honeywell. Mr. HONEYWELL. Now as to the policies of the Department of Commerce and BDSA relating to WOC's let me quote the former NPA administrative instruction which is still in force, having been adopted by the BDSA at the time of its organization. Under the caption "Policy and Regulations Applicable to WOC Employment" it is declared that the Secretary of Commerce exercises his power to appoint persons without compensation in accordance with the following policies: 1. So far as possible, operations under the Defense Production Act shall be carried on by full-time, salaried employees of the Government, and appointments under this authority shall be to advisory or consultative positions only. 2. Appointments to positions other than advisory or consultative may be made under this order only when the requirements of the position are such that the incumbent must personally possess outstanding experience and ability not obtainable on a full-time salaried basis. 3. In the appointment of personnel and in assignment of their duties, the head of the department or agency involved shall take steps to avoid, to as great an extent as possible, any conflict between the governmental duties and the private interests of such personnel. 4. The requirements of the position must be such that the incumbent must personally possess outstanding experience and ability not obtainable on a fulltime salaried basis. If the duties of the proposed employee are of an operating (as opposed to an advisory or consultative) nature, appointment may be made only after the Secretary of Commerce certifies that the duties require the outstanding experience and ability possessed by the proposed appointee, and that such experience and ability are not obtainable on a full-time salaried basis. 5. The position involved must be classified at grade GS-15 or above. 6. The proposed WOC employee must have outside income in excess of $10,000 per annum and he must specify that he wishes to be employed without compensation. 7. Non-Government employment of employees without compensation should be of such character as will not prove embarrassing to the Authority or raise question that information gained through official means is being utilized for advancement of the employee's or his friends' private interests. 8. Appointment to a position without compensation does not prevent acceptance of appointment to another Government position to which compensation is attached. However, such other employment should not be incompatible with service required under WOC appointment. 9. Persons who are paid representatives of a trade association will not be appointed on a without-compensation basis. 10. A determination must be made that any person to be appointed on a WOC basis meets the following conditions: (a) Is not engaged in the practice of law Mr. MALETZ. Do you have, or in the recent past have you had, any WOC who is house counsel for a particular company? Mr. HONEYWELL. Not that I know of. Mr. MALETZ. Are you sure about that? Mr. MALETZ. What is your practice in that respect? Mr. HONEYWELL. We do not employ legal-counsel people from industry. Mr. MALETZ. Suppose a person is house counsel for a company, would he be eligible to be employed by your agency as a WOC? Mr. HONEYWELL. I cannot answer that because I do not know the definition of "house counsel." Mr. MALETZ. House counsel for a company is an attorney who spends full time as an employee of a company. Mr. HONEYWELL. Under these regulations that would not be permitted. The CHAIRMAN. Have you made any departure from that prohibition? Mr. HONEYWELL. Not to my knowledge, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Do you allow the employment on the advisory committees industry advisory committees of paid trade executives, like the secretary or executive director of trade associations? Mr. HONEYWELL. Yes, sir; we do. The CHAIRMAN. Didn't the Attorney General's opinion proscribe such employment? Mr. HONEYWELL. No, sir. To the contrary, under the safeguards established by the Attorney General's Office, we were advised that it would be appropriate. The CHAIRMAN. Did the Attorney General at any time issue an opinion proscribing the employment of trade-association executives? Mr. HONEYWELL. AS WOC's? The CHAIRMAN. He did. Mr. HONEYWELL. Yes, sir; as WOC's. The CHAIRMAN. AS WOC's? Mr. HONEYWELL. Yes, sir. A membership on an IAC is not a position of a WOC. The CHAIRMAN. That opinion stated that paid executives of trade associations could not serve as WOC's. Mr. HONEYWELL. That is correct. The CHAIRMAN. Do you adhere to that completely? Mr. HONEYWELL. Yes. Mr. MALETZ. Do you know William A. Simon, Jr., Director of your General Components Division? Mr. HONEYWELL. Yes, sir; I know him. Mr. MALETZ. What is his position in industry? Mr. HONEYWELL. I cannot tell you immediately. I can look it up. Mr. MALETZ. Do you have a list before you? Mr. HONEYWELL. If he is on this list. He is listed as house counsel. That is the first time I noticed that. Mr. MALETZ. I thought you said that your rules would not permit employment as WOC's of people who are house counsel? Mr. HONEYWELL. That is the first time I have seen that title set against the name of William A. Simon, Jr. I did not know he was house counsel. Mr. MALETZ. You indicated to the committee previously that you interview every prospective WOC? Mr. HONEYWELL. I do. Mr. MALETZ. Did you interview Mr. Simon? Mr. HONEYWELL. That is right. Mr. MALETZ. You were not familiar with the fact that he was house counsel ? Mr. HONEYWELL. That is right. I did not know that at the time he was employed as a WOC. Mr. MALETZ. Did he disclose that fact to you? Mr. HONEYWELL. If he did, it missed my attention. The CHAIRMAN. What will be your practice with reference to that gentleman? Will you ask him to resign? Mr. HONEYWELL. May I take that under advisement? I am not a lawyer. I am not prepared to make a snap decision. You may be sure that that will be carefully looked into. The CHAIRMAN. That is a fair answer. Mr. HONEYWELL. Thank you. Mr. McCULLOCH. Since this is a very technical matter, would the witness please tell us what one of the regulations that would violate if he were house counsel, to use the phrase used by counsel? Mr. HONEYWELL. May I ask our counsel here to speak to that point? Mr. McCULLOCH. I wonder if you mean that house counsel is necessarily engaged in the practice of law? It would be my horseback opinion that house counsel would not necessarily in every instance be engaged in the practice of law. But I would be glad to have your reaction. Mr. ROPER. If I may, may I say first, that the instructions that Mr. Honeywell quoted from was a National Production Authority Admin istrative instruction which was ratified, adopted, and confirmed by the Business and Defense Services Administration by public regulation on its organization in October 1953. Now one of the requirements for WOC employment is specified in item 10 regarding being engaged in the practice of law. The CHAIRMAN. Active? Mr. ROPER. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. House counsel is engaged in the practice of law. He engaged in the practice of law for his client. Mr. ROPER. Just as Mr. Honeywell suggested, we will be glad to look further into the duties of Mr. Simon with his company. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Honeywell, would you place in the record please the so-called NPA administrative instruction you refer to. (See p. 148.) Mr. HONEYWELL. Yes, sir. Mr. ROPER. May I say, Mr. Chairman, we furnished it to you at your request a little less than 2 years ago. We will be glad to obtain another copy for you. Mr. WALDEN. Was BDSA in effect when you furnished it to us? Mr. ROPER. Just about the time. But I want to point out this is an NPA instruction which was ratified and adopted by BDSA. Mr. WALDEN. What time? Mr. ROPER. October 1, 1953. The CHAIRMAN. You know that most of our records are in the Archives, from previous Congresses, so it is very difficult to get hold of them. Mr. SCOTT. I think that is Mr. Ray's trouble too. The CHAIRMAN. I mean the actual Archives.. Mr. WALDEN. Are you familiar with John A. Clausson who was commodity industry analyst and also an adviser? Mr. HONEYWELL. I know his name. Mr. WALDEN. Is he a WOC? And what is his private affiliation? Mr. HONEYWELL. He is an adviser. The CHAIRMAN. He is what? Mr. HONEYWELL. He is an adviser. Mr. HONEYWELL. We don't pay him. He does not give us full time as far as I know. Mr. WALDEN. From March 9, 1951, to January 10, 1954, was he a full-time employee? Mr. HONEYWELL. From the record that I have in front of me it would appear that he was. Mr. WALDEN. What is his private affiliation? Mr. HONEYWELL. This record here shows he is secretary of the pig iron division of the American Iron and Steel Institute, New York, N. Y. Mr. WALDEN. Did that violate rule 9? Mr. HONEYWELL. That I cannot say, sir. May I again look that one up? Mr. WALDEN. Surely. Mr. HONEYWELL. May I continue with the balance of my statement? The CHAIRMAN. Proceed. |