Mr. FAHY. Well, was any question of its membership in the chamber of commerce taken into consideration by the Board? Mr. MADDEN. It was not. Mr. FAHY. And nothing relating thereto appears in the Board's decision? Mr. MADDEN. That is correct. Mr. FAHY. In the Mount Vernon case, referred to in the record at pages 240, and following, did the Board in deciding that case take into consideration any material in the informal file? Mr. MADDEN. It did not. Mr. FAHY. And was the Board in any way influenced in its decision by the fact that there was a memorandum prepared by a review attorney in connection with the oral argument to be had in the case, which memorandum in part was based on information in the informal file? Mr. MADDEN. It was not. Mr. FAHY. That is all. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will recess until 2 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12:30 p. m., a recess was taken until 2 p. m. of the same day.) AFTER RECESS (The hearing was resumed at 2 p. m. upon the expiration of the recess.) Mr. FAHY. Mr. Watts. TESTIMONY OF ROBERT B. WATTS, ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, SILVER SPRING, MD. (The witness was duly sworn and testified as follows:) Mr. FAHY. For the record, Mr. Watts, please state your full name. Mr. WATTS. Robert B. Watts. Mr. FAHY. And your present residence address? Mr. WATTS. 8318 Draper Lane, Silver Spring, Md. Mr. FAHY. And your present occupation? Mr. WATTS. I am the associate general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board. Mr. FAHY. How long have you been associated with the Board? Mr. WATTS. Since approximately late in 1934, when I came with the predecessor Board. Mr. FAHY. Was that with Mr. Garrison, of the middle Board? Mr. FAHY. Now, Mr. Watts, will you outline, not in great detail, your academic experience and legal experience up to the time that you came with the Board? I should say, your education and legal experience. Mr. MURDOCK. May I suggest, Mr. Chairman, I can't hear the question or the answer. The CHAIRMAN. The amplifying system isn't working today. Mr. FAHY. I asked Mr. Watts to outline his education and legal experience up to the time he came with the Board in 1934. Indicates page reference to verbatim transcript of committee proceedings, January 23, 1910. Mr. WATTS. I am a graduate of Bates College, Yale Law School. Following my graduation from Yale Law School I was appointed as an assistant United States attorney for the southern district of New York. Thereafter I became chief assistant United States attorney for that district. I remained in that position for 2 years; thereafter I resigned to become a member of a private law firm in New York City and practiced with that firm until 1934, when I was especially retained by the predecessor Labor Board as its counsel in charge of litigation, Mr. FAHY. How old are you, Mr. Watts? Mr. WATTS. Thirty-eight. Mr. FAHY. Since you have been with the present Board you have been associate general counsel of the Board? Mr. WATTS. That is correct. Mr. FAHY. Now, what are your duties as associate general counsel of the Board? Mr. WATTS. In general, subject to the directions of the general counsel, to supervise the litigation of the Board and in turn that involves the direction of the proceedings in the courts for enforcement or review on the one hand, and the direction of the trial of cases in the field on the other. Mr. FAHY. Now, you have engaged actively personally, have you not, also in the conduct of Board litigation? Mr. WATTS. I have. Mr. FAHY. In the courts of the United States? Mr. WATTS. I have appeared repeatedly in each of the circuit courts of appeals and in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and in the Supreme Court. Mr. FAHY. And during the period of what is called the injunction period, did you not appear before many of the district courts of the United States? Mr. WATTS. I did. I personally appeared and argued against the attempted injunctions throughout that period, and carried those proceedings through the circuit courts of appeals and argued the case in the Supreme Court. Mr. FAHY. Those cases involving the right or lack of right to an injunction that reached the Supreme Court were the Bethlehem and the Newport News Drydock and Ship Building cases? Mr. WATTS. That is correct. Mr. FAHY. Did I understand you to say that you have argued cases on the enforcement or review of Board orders in all of the circuit courts of appeals in the United States? Mr. WATTS. I have. As far as I am aware, I have appeared before every United States Appellate Court. Mr. FAHY. And in addition to the Supreme Court cases, which we have just referred to, you have also, have you not, argued a number of other cases involving questions arising under the act before the Supreme Court of the United States? Mr. WATTS. That is correct-matters of procedure. Mr. FAHY. In matters of procedure? Mr. WATTS. Yes. Mr. FAHY. Well, also, have you not argued cases involving merits of the Board orders in the Supreme Court? Mr. WATTS. Oh, yes. Mr. FAHY. Including the Waterman Steamship Co. case, recently decided by the Court? Mr. WATTS. That is right. Mr. FAHY. Now, Mr. Watts, in the present record, at page 373,1 volume 1, there appears in evidence a memorandum dated September 27, 1937, from you to David Shaw, inquiring about Jack Davis' conduct in the investigation of the American Radiator Co. case. Do recall writing Mr. Shaw about that matter? you Mr. WATTS. I do. Mr. FAHY. And who is Mr. Shaw? Mr. WATTS. Mr. Shaw is a member of the litigation division and one of my assistants. Mr. FAHY. And he is the attorney who tried, in the field, the American Radiator Co. case? Mr. WATTS. That is correct. Mr. FAHY. Did you receive any reply from Mr. Shaw to the communication you sent him on September 27, 1937? Mr. WATTS. I did, approximately a month later, and at the time of the annual conference of the Board's directors and regional attorneys. Mr. FAHY. And what was, in substance, that reply given you at that conference? Mr. WATTS. Mr. Shaw reported that he had looked into the charges on the ground that he was of the opinion that the charges were not supported in fact, and also added that in his opinion Mr. Davis had not used entire discretion in his press comments about his own work and about the work of others in the office. Mr. FAHY. Prior to the time you wrote Mr. Shaw in September, Mr. Davis was in St. Louis, was he not? Mr. WATTS. He was temporarily assigned to work in St. Louis. Mr. FAHY. And what did you do about his assignment shortly thereafter? Mr. WATTS. He was immediately recalled from his assignment and taken off the case. Mr. FAHY. And was he transferred to some other point? Mr. FAHY. In volume 2, at page 3122 of the record, there were put into evidence letters from you to Stanley W. Root, dated November 23, 1937, and December 10 of the same year, inquiring of Mr. Root about Mr. Davis' conduct in Philadelphia, and Mr. Davis' reply dated December 11, 1937, recommending Mr. Davis' retention was placed in the record. Mr. WATTS. You mean Mr. Root's reply. Mr. FAHY. Mr. Root's. Who is Mr. Root? Mr. WATTS. Mr. Root at that time was the regional director and the officer in charge of the Philadelphia office. Mr. FAHY. Did you consider his response Mr. WATTS. I did. I made the inquiry as a secondary check on this man who had once been criticized. Mr. FAHY. Did you come to any conclusion as to whether or not Mr. Davis should be retained? 1 Indicates page reference to verbatim transcript of committee proceedings, January 8, 1940. * Idem, January 29, 1940. Mr. WATTS. I accepted the judgment of the man in charge of the Philadelphia office, who had recommended his retention, and therefore permitted him to stay. Mr. FAHY. Was any disciplinary action at all taken because of the alleged misconduct of Mr. Davis when he was temporarily assigned to the St. Louis office? Mr. WATTS. Yes: in spite of the fact that Davis had had some 9 or 10 years practice and normally would have been eligible for consideration for promotion, he was passed over on the next review, in March 1938. He made several applications for transfer for duty in New York, where he lives, and I did not permit him to transfer according to his desires. He also applied for transfer to the position of trial examiner, for which I did not recommend him. Mr. FAHY. Was an increase granted to Mr. Davis in his salary some time after he was sent to Philadelphia? Mr. WATTS. In or about November of 1938 he was given a minimum advance of one grade or $200. Mr. FAHY. Did you have any evidence before you for consideration, and in my consideration with you, on the basis of which that increase was recommended to the Board? Mr. WATTS. I did. We had called for a formal recommendation and report from the regional attorneys as to all of their men, and the regional attorney of the Philadelphia Region reported Davis' work as especially excellent, particularly in the settlement of cases without litigation, and it was upon the basis of that work performed in Philadelphia that he was recommended at that time for a promotion. Mr. FAHY. That was about a year subsequent to his removal from St. Louis? Mr. WATTS. Just about-exactly a year. Mr. FAHY. NOW, Mr. Watts, on page 5201 of volume I of the record, there is in evidence Exhibit 393, which is a comment on the record in the Schwarze Electric Co. case. At page 482 of volume II, there was introduced a comment on the record in the Burroughs Adding Machine Co. case; and on page 321 of volume II, a comment on the record in the Stehli Co. case. 3 Now, without asking you about those special comments on the record in those particular cases, what has been the practice with respect to review attorneys making written comments on the record in cases in which they have read the record for report to the Board? Mr. WATTS. We have followed the general practice of having the review attorney, who worked upon a case, set down his opinion as to the way it was tried and the way in which the trial attorney as well as the trial examiner had performed his functions, for the purpose of self-criticism and for the purpose of permitting the men who are handling these cases in the field to recognize their mistakes, if they have made mistakes, and to avoid repeating them, and they in turn were given the opportunity of replying, if they desire, to these so-called comments on the record. They represent an informal interchange of 1 Indicates page reference to verbatim transcript of committee proceedings, January 11. 1940. Idem, January 16, 1940. 3 Idem. January 29, 1940. opinion among the staff members, self-criticism for the purpose of bettering the type of work done. Mr. FAHY. Do they go to the Board? Mr. WATTS. No, they do not. They go to the division heads. They go to the general counsel, the associate general counsel, the secretary, the chief trial examiner. Mr. FAHY. Now, Mr. Watts-and they go to the attorney whose record is criticized? Mr. WATTS. When I receive my copy I forward it or have it forwarded to the attorney who tried the case for his study. Mr. FAHY. And you consider those comments on the record useful in improving the trial work of the trial attorneys and the work of the trial examiners in presiding over cases? Mr. WATTS. Yes. It gives the man an opportunity to evaluate his work in the light of the opinion of his fellows who are working on that and upon other cases. We also file a copy of these reports in the personnel file and refer to it in connection with the general level of work which a man is performing. Mr. FAHY. Mr. Watts, there is just one other matter I would like to ask you about. There was introduced into the record, a letter written by Mr. Shore after he was no longer an attorney in the regional office at Cincinnati, criticizing the conduct of Mr. Phillips, particularly with respect to his relations with attorneys in the office. Do you recall reading that letter of Mr. Shore's? Mr. WATTS. I do. Mr. FAHY. Now I would like you to explain to the committee the circumstances under which Mr. Shore became attorney in the Cincinnati office and the circumstances under which his services were discontinued, and what, if anything, was done by you or others, to your knowledge, acting on the basis of Shore's criticism of Mr. Phillips. Mr. WATTS. Mr. Shore's selection was delegated to Mr. Phillips, then regional director. Mr. Phillips had theretofore been a member of the litigation staff. He had practiced law himself, and, since this man to be appointed was to be his legal adviser, we permitted him to make the recommendation of the man whom he thought would best fill that position. Shore was that individual. Thereafter we had some contact with Mr. Shore through meetings and conferences and had some slight opportunity to form an opinion of him. The nature of that opinion was such that we, after some time, working in the Cincinnati office, concluded Mr. Phillips and Mr. Shore did not get on together. I did not feel it was desirable to exercise any pressure to request Mr. Shore to resign. His letter I deemed to be considerably exaggerated. I had had frequent opportunities to visit the Cincinnati office to talk with the attorneys and with the director. I had never seen and never have received any criticisms from those persons of the type expressed in Mr. Shore's letter, although after the receipt of the letter I did, and I think the general counsel also did, talk to Mr. Phillips and impress upon him the desirability of maintaining his severance of the operation of the director and the regional attorney. Mr. FAHY. The letter of Mr. Shore, just for the purpose of clarification at this point in the record, now appears in the record as Exhibit No. 211. 218054-40-vol. 19 |