Mr. FUCHS. Yes, Mr. Healey. Mr. HEALEY. And the findings of the Board were sustained in that decision, although the court modified the order of the Board, is that correct? Mr. FUCHS. That is correct, sir. Mr. HEALEY. But later on, on appeal to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court reviewed the record of this case, and in a unanimous opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Roberts sustained the order of the Board. Mr. FUCHS. It sustained the Board's order in its entirety. Mr. HEALEY. And the exceptions of the respondent were part of the record that was reviewed by the respective courts? Mr. FUCHS. As well as the exceptions of the intervenor. Mr. HEALEY. And evidence of record was before the courts in that review? Mr. FUCHS. That is right, sir. Mr. TOLAND. Now I am putting in the record what was not in the record before the Supreme Court. Mr. HEALEY. We are sort of a super-Supreme Court. Mr. TOLAND. No, we are not; we are investigating what was done. Now, Mr. Fuchs, will you tell the committee what exhibit 1110 discloses with respect to your conclusion of the testimony of this witness on behalf of the intervenor? Mr. FUCHS. The page appears to be a transcript of the testimony of one L. Rhinesmith, called on behalf of the respondent. There is some closely hand-written notation followed by the word "Cross" and then some more notations, and then the words "Direct for intervenor is baloney. Witness excused 866." Mr. TOLAND. So are you excused until tomorrow morning. The CHAIRMAN. We stand adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 1 p. m., the hearing was recessed until 10 a. m. of the following day, April 27, 1940.) APPENDIX EXHIBIT No. 1093 STATE LABOR RELATIONS ACTS Utah Acts 1937 Chap. 55. Mass. Acts 1937 Ch. 436, Amended Acts 1938 Chap. 345/ and 1939 Chap. 318. N. Y. Acts 1937 Chap. 443. Penn. Acts 1937 Chap. 294, Amended 1939 Chap. 162. Wisconsin Acts 1937 Chap. 51, Amended 1939 Chap. 57. Mich. Public Acts 1939 No. 176. Minn. Acts 1939 Chap. 440. Subject: Report on Two Conferences--Sorg Paper Company, IX-R-185 (R. 633). Sept. 12th. Conference between Sam Sponseller, business representative of the C. I. O., and Mr. Phillips. Mr. Sponseller raised the point that it was believed among his members in the above plant that even though all contentions of the company were considered with regard to challenged ballots, the Union could still win the election as this membership had information that in the election it had challenged certain voters whose ballots would be in favor of the Union. The company had contended that the challenges were improper. To this Mr. Phillips stated he would be glad to arrange a meeting between Mr. Brown, the company's attorney, and if he was agreeable to bargain with the Union if it received a majority, giving the company the full benefit of its Year contentions with regard to the challenged ballots, the ballots would be opened and counted as such action would expedite matters in that a hearing on the challenges would not be necessary. Mr. Sponseller then stated that even though he had this information he was not certain that the ballots would be so cast, and he asked Mr. Phillips if he would open the ballots and check it so he could be certain, telling him how it could be done without anyone knowing it. Mr. Phillips refused to open the ballots, saying he would not do it even for his own information, much less for passing such information to one of the contesting parties. Sept. 13th. Conference between Mr. Phillips; Mr. Brown, attorney for the company; Mr. Sponseller, business agent for C. I. O..; and Mr. Julius Holzberg, attorney for C. I. O. Mr. Phillips presented the question discussed during the conference reported above, to the two attorneys. He asked Mr. Brown if all the company's coutentions with regard to challenged ballots were considered and the challenged ballots were opened and counted and it was found, even considering all these contentions by the compaany, the Union still represented a majority, would he agree to proceed no further and from this point bargain with the Union as the sole collective bargaining agency for the employees. Mr. Brown said that he would not, that he was anxious to appear before the, Board on the question of the twelve blank ballots and that until that time he would not feel free to bargain with the Union. A lengthy discussion followed. It is pretty clearly shown that the purpose of the company was to seize every technical point and, by doing this, break the Union. CSA/eh CHARLES S. ARMISTEAD. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 237 TABLE 1.-Strikes in the United States, 1881 to 1905 and 1914 to 1938 1 The number of workers involved in strikes between 1916 and 1926 is known for only a portion of the total. However, the missing information is for the smaller disputes and it is believed that the total here given is fairly accurate. 2 No information available. 601 314, 210 12,631,863, 921 288, 572 5, 351, 540 637 182,975 810 841 472 133 359 105 Man-days idle Strikes Workers in Man days idle |