Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

position of these cases is due to extraneous causes. The extent to which delay in the other cases is likewise due to extraneous causes can be ascertained only by an analysis of the files in each case, which we have not undertaken to do. Since this more detailed information is pertinent to the subject of your inquiry covered by my letter of February 12, may I ask that this letter be also made part of the record at a convenient point, as supplementing my letter of February 12.

[blocks in formation]

DEAR MR. DAVIDSON: This will confirm my telegram to you, under today's date, reading as follows:

"The Board today dismissed you with prejudice, and without accrued annual leave for addressing a false and scurrilous letter to the Board, dated March 17, 1940."

[blocks in formation]

Subject: Weyerhauser Timber Co. XIX-C-382 (Trial Examiner: Davidson).
I have read the Intermediate Report, record, and files.
Procedure. There are no special procedural problems involved.

The complaint alleges 8 (1) and (3) violations; there is one discharge allegation in the complaint. The entire case has to do with one alleged discriminatory discharge.

Intermediate Report. The first draft of the Intermediate Report did not in my opinion fully set forth all of the facts. I discussed the record with the Trial Examiner, who thereupon redrafted the report and set forth a good many more facts than in the first draft. The Trial Examiner dismissed the case. In my opinion there was a very clear 8 (3) discrimination case proved by the record. In fact it seems to me that the report as drafted by the Trial Examiner on its face demonstrates that there was an unfair labor practice committed. However, the Trial Examiner has fully considered all of the evidence, barring one very important part of evidence, which I am still of the opinion should have been included in the report. This has to do with the fact that the respondent company became aware of Paul Moore's "bad record" from the son of the man who had blacklisted him at Ludlow. The Trial Examiner attaches no significance at all to the blacklist, whereas, it seems to me that this is the key to the entire case, especially when it is considered that Moore was the president of the union and very active on the grievance committee. In fact at the time of his final lay-off, the union was having negotiations with the company concerning a contract, and the negotiations had been proceeding very slowly and haltingly.

Comments.-The Trial Examiner should refrain from making too many comments during the course of the hearing. I refer especially to his habit of commenting on whether or not evidence means anything. In addition, he omitted to make the customary opening statement.

EXHIBIT No. 1107

(The following is the portion of the Exhibit not read into the record.) FEBRUARY 7, 1938.

Messrs. FAHY, WITT, and PRATT.

THOMAS I. EMERSON,

Assistant General Counsel.

COMMENTS ON THE RECORD

Case.-H. E. Fletcher Co. and Granite Cutters Int. Assoc. (Cases Nos. C-381; R-378).

Date of Hearing.-October 18 and 19, 1937.

Trial Examiner.-Mapes Davidson.

Regional Attorney.-Norman F. Edmonds.

The record in this case comprises 361 pages of testimony covering 8 (1) and (2) charges and a petition for an investigation and certification of representatives. Although the record is short, ample evidence was adduced to sustain the complaint and to resolve the issues raised by the petition. The brevity of the record, in itself, indicates that the case was well prepared and presented, the hearing having proceeded without the introduction of extraneous evidence. The record appears to be incomplete in only two respects. Little testimony was introduced to show the position of "Employees of H. E. Fletcher" in the Employees' Representation Plan. Also there is little in the record to show the detailed operation of the Works Council. Neither of these deficiencies, however, is serious.

DECEMBER 6, 1937.

Mr. BENNET F. SCHAUFFLER,
BONNIE FOSTER,

Calmar Steamship Corporation:

Mr. Pratt would like a full, confidential report on the manner in which Mapes Davidson acted as Trial Examiner in the above-mentioned case. Please mark the envelope in which you reply "Personal and Confidential."

EXHIBIT NO. 1108

United States of America. Before the National Labor Relations Board, Fifth Region. In the matter of Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company and Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America. Case No. C-470

EXCEPTIONS OF THE EMPLOYEES' REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COMPANY TO THE INTERMEDIATE REPORT OF JAMES C. PARADISE, TRIAL EXAMINER IN THE ABOVE-STYLED CASE

Pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act and the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 1, as Amended, the Employees' Representative Committee of the Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, referred to in the Intermediate Report and hereinafter referred to as the intervenor, without waiving any objections or exceptions heretofore taken in the course of the hearing, excerpts to the Intermediate Report made in this case by the Trial Examiner, said exceptions being as follows:

1. To the action of the Trial Examiner in rejecting the petition filed at the bearing asking that the forty-three (43) duly elected representatives of the Employees' Representation Plan be designated and certified for the purposes of collective bargaining as representatives of the employees of the said Shipyard. The uncontradicted evidence was that on June 15, 1937, 5,718 workers out of 6,300 eligible workers present on the day of election and out of 7,175 on the rolls of the Company, including furloughed employees, voted for the names attached to the petition as their representatives.

2. To the statement on page 2 of the Trial Examiner's report that in 1927 the respondent in cooperation with its employees aided in putting said organization into effect, "and that it lent its moral support and encouragement to the formation and continuation of the said organization." The National Labor Relations Act went into effect July 5, 1935; prior to that time any relationship that existed between employer and employees is immaterial. And the action of the employer and the employees in entering into an arrangement for bargaining purposes between the employer and the employees eight years before the Act went into effect is not a proper subject to be criticized or to be adversely commented on by the Trial Examiner.

3. To the statement on page 5 of the said report under paragraph 5, "Prior to his discharge there was no active local of the Union in Newport News,". The evidence was there was local machinist Union affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and that the employee, John M. Darling, Jr., at one time belonged to that union. The undisputed evidence was further that the respondent at no time objected or interfered with their employees' membership in an independent Union or Labor Organization.

4. To the findings of the Trial Examiner that the Employees' Representation Plan was illegal by reason of the manner of its adoption, that the provisions of the amended plan and its manner of operation are contrary to the Act. When the plan was first put in force in 1927 it constituted an agreement between the employer and the employees and this agreement is in full force and effect now and constitutes a contract between the employer and the employees. To hold that this contract should have been terminated and a new one written rather than to amend the contract to conform with the requirements of the National Labor Relations Act is frivolous. The Trial Examiner takes the position in his report that the arrangement between the employer and the employees should have been scrapped and a new arrangement made. In 1927 the arrangement between the Yard and its employees was perfectly legal anl lawful and showed that a very desirable relationship existed between the employer and the employees. It is the contention of the intervenor that the amendment made in June 1937 made the contract between the employer and the employees perfectly proper and conformed to the requirements of the National Labor Relations Act.

5. To the finding of fact No. 29 that the Employees' Representation Plan was illegal from its very inception.

6. To the finding of fact No. 30. The Trial Examiner in his report has ignored the contention of the intervenor that the copy of the Plan constituted, first, a contract between the Shipyard and its employees with respect to who would be recognized by the Shipyard as the legal representatives of its employees, and secondly, the plan provides certain By-Laws and rules for the employees over which the Shipyard has no control. The Trial Examiner underlined in his report the provision in the By-Laws that amendments to the contract shall be binding upon the Company unless disapproved by it within fifteen days. This provision applies only to matters affecting the Company and not to the Organization of the employees. It is conceded that confusion might result because the contract between the Shipyard and the employees is contained in the same written instrument as the By-Laws of the Employees Representation Plan. In matters affecting only the employees, the Shipyard has no control or say. In actions affecting the existing agreement between the Shipyard and the Employees' Representation Plan the Shipyard shall have a say, but as the plan is written it is most advantageous to the employees for the reason that they can take action, notify the Shipyard of the same and unless objection is made thereto it becomes binding on the Shipyard. It is submitted that it cannot be contended that it is illegal or a violation of the National Labor Relations Act to have a provision in an agreement between employer and employee providing how changes in the agreement shall be made, and it is respectfully submitted that this is all that Section 1 of Article 9 of the Plan means.

7. To the finding of fact in No. 33 that the respondent and its officers and agents on June 1937 and down to and including the present time formed and sponsored a plan known as the Representation of Employees. The undisputed evidence was that the plan was put into operation by a vote of the employees in 1927, in which 2,430 votes were cast in favor of putting the plan in operation to 204 against it, and that the amended plan became effective June 30, 1937, was adopted on June 15, 1937, by an overwhelming vote of the employees, free from any interference or domination by the employer.

8. To the finding of fact in paragraph 34 that the respondent is dominating and interfering with the administration of labor organization and its employees by its acts, and in contributing financial and other support to the said labor organization for the reason that this finding of fact is not supported by the evidence.

9. To the finding of fact No. 39 that the activities of the respondent as set forth in Section 2 of the Trial Examiner's report occurred in connection with the operation of the respondent for a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several states and foreign countries and have led, and tends to lead, to labor disputes, burdening commerce and the free flow of commerce. Exception is taken on the ground that the respondent is not engaged in interstate commerce and is not subject to the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act.

10. The intervenor excepts to the conclusions reached by the Trial Examiner as set forth in No. 2 of his report under the title of "Conclusions and Recommendations," and states that the same is not supported by the evidence in the

case.

11. The intervenor excepts to the recommendations of the Trial Examiner in Section 2 of his recommendations and insists that the respondent is not dominating or interfering with the formation or admissions of the plan known as the Employees' Representation Plan, and they deny further that the respondent is contributing financial or other support to the said plan.

12. The intervenor excepts to subsections C and D of Recommendation 5 in withdrawing from the Representation of Employees recognition as representatives of its employees for the purposes of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, wage, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment, and that they required notices to be posted that the labor organization known as Representation of Employees is disestablished, and that the respondent will refrain from any recognition thereof for the reason that these recommendations are not in accordance with the weight of the evidence and would abrogate a valid existing contract between the respondent as employer and the intervenor as representatives of the employees that was entered into in good faith and is a binding and valid agreement.

13. The intervenor excepts to the finding of the Trial Examiner that the Employees Representation Plan is dominated, controlled, and interfered with by the respondent and that the same is receiving financial aid and other assistance of support from the respondent.

The intervenor requests permission to file written brief in this matter with the Board and permission to argue the case orally before the Board.

Respectfully submitted.

March 19, 1938.

EMPLOYEES' REPRESENTATION COMMITTEE, By FRANK KEARNY, Counsel.

EXHIBIT No. 1110

RESPONDENT'S CASE @ 852 (9/3) L. RHINESMITH RE BELL 8 (3)

Recalls a conversation with Bell shortly
Denies he said "You better watch your

852. Is quarterman in electrical dept. before he was laid off-at Pat Laracy's. step, because the mgmt. will not stand for C. I. O."

854. Contends it was this way: Bell said, “We have organized here and we have gotten along pretty well." I said, "O. K. What union?" He said, “C. I. O.; what do you think of it?" Witness states he said he could speak only for himself and had no use for it-never repeated the conv. to anyone and had nothing to do with Bell, Wright, or Anderson being laid off.

857. CROSS.

857. Bell, in electrical dept., did not work under Rhinesmith. Nothing. Direct for intervenor is baloney. W. Exc. 866.

Hon. ROBERT H. JACKSON,

EXHIBIT NO. 1094

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Washington, D. C., February 13, 1940.

Attorney General, United States Department of Justice,

Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL: During the course of the hearings before the Special Committee to Investigate the National Labor Relations Board, testimony was introduced of the activities of members of the Board and certain employees, and a question arose as to whether the testimony came within the prohibition of title 18, United States Code Annotated, section 201, which reads as follows:

"Use of appropriations to pay for personal services to influence members of Congress to favor or oppose legislation. No part of the money appropriated by any act shall, in the absence of express authorization by Congress, be used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device, intended or designed to influence in any manner a member of Congress, to favor or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation or appropriation by Congress, whether before or after the introduction of any bill or resolution proposing such legislation or appropriation; but this shall not prevent officers and employees of the United States from communicating to Members of Congress on the request of any Member or to Congress through the proper official channels, requests for legislation or appropriations which they deem necessary for the efficient conduct of the public business.

"Any officer or employee of the United States who, after notice and hearing by the superior officer vested with the power of removing him, is found to have violated or attempting to violate this section, shall be removed by such superior officer from office or employment. Any officer or employee of the United States who violates or attempts to violate this section shall also be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500 or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both (July 11, 1919, c. 6, section 6, 41 Stat. 68)."

The committee decided that it would like to have your opinion on the evidence before proceeding further with this line of testimony. I was therefore directed to submit the question to you and ask you if you could with propriety give us your opinion on the subject.

It is the opinion of some members of the committee that the actions disclosed by the testimony came within the prohibition of the statute, and that it would not be inopportune to direct attention to the fact for further guidance not only of the National Labor Relations Board, but of other governmental agencies that may be indulging in similar practices.

I am enclosing for your information and consideration the transcript of the testimony of the committee for last Thursday and for today (February 8 and 13); included therein are the exhibits referred to.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
« ПредишнаНапред »