vecity of Wisconsin, where I received a master's degree in the book of Speech, and taught until 1935 at Knoxville College, in Tenessee, as an instructor in speech and as administrative assistant to the president of that college.

I then went to Northwestern University Law School, where I graduated in 1938. Thereafter I was admitted to the bar in Illinois in September 1938, and became law clerk immediately thereafter to Judge Warren H. Orr, of the Supreme Court of Illinois, where I served until May 1, 1939, when I came to the Board in Washington. Mr. TOLAND. Now, prior to the time that you were appointed as attorney at the National Labor Relations Board, had you actively engaged in the practice of law?

Mr. MILLER. No, sir; my experience in law was with Judge Orr on the Illinois Supreme Court, where I did, of course, work on briefs, records of cases, reporting to the judge, writing memoranda for him. But it was not active practice in the courts.

The CHAIRMAN. How long were you in that job?

Mr. MILLER. About 9 months. At that time, Judge Orr retired from the Illinois Supreme Court.

Mr. TOLAND. Now I show you committee Exhibit No. 2 and ask you if that contains all of the cases that have been assigned to you as a member of the review staff.

Mr. MILLER. No, sir; it does not.

Mr. TOLAND. Will you state for the record the names of the cases that are not on the list that you have worked on?

Mr. MILLER. So far as I am able to recall. Kansas City Structural Steel Company case, which was a representation case; the Blue Diamond Corporation case, Los Angeles, California, a representation case; Pelican Bay Lumber Company case, also a representation case; Ingram-Richardson Manufacturing Company, of Frankfort, Ind., a representation case. Those are all I recall that have been completed. Mr. TOLAND. Now, will you tell the committee the procedure that you followed as a member of the Review Staff of the Board in the performance of your duties after each case was assigned to you?

Mr. MILLER. My procedure was this: I examined first of all the charge and complaint filed in the case, the other matters of the pleading, the intermediate reports filed by the trial examiner, if there was one, there being intermediate complaints in the "C" cases, the charge cases, and not the representation cases, and then read the record in its entirety, the transcript of the hearing, and the exhibit, and any other matters that might be present therewith. Thereupon I reported the case to a supervisor, reporting it in full.

Mr. TOLAND. Orally?

Mr. MILLER. Orally.

Mr. TOLAND. Would you have any notes?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. TOLAND. Go ahead.

Mr. MILLER. After reporting to the supervisor, the case was then taken for report to the Board, where I reported the facts of the case to the members of the Board. Thereafter, on the instruction of the Board, I prepared decisions in those cases which were then passed upon by the Board and issued.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, tell the committee your best recollection as to the longest conference on any particular case that you had with the

Board, the approximate date, and the shortest conference that you had with the Board on any particular case, and the approximate date, and the name of the case in each instance.

Mr. MILLER. You are referring to the first report of the case to the Board? When the case was reported in full? There are times, Mr. Toland, when we have to go back on particular points.

Mr. TOLAND. Yes; well, I am asking you, where you only reported once, the first report that you made on any case.

Mr. MILLER. Í suspect that the longest report to the Board lasted from 12 to 2 hours. I think that my recollection now is that it was a full 2 hours, Mr. Toland, from about 4 or 4:30 to 6:30. The Donnelly Garment Co. case.

Mr. TOLAND. Do you remember when that was?

Mr. MILLER. It was on the day that that case was argued orally before the Board in Washington. I believe that was January of this year.

Mr. TOLAND. That was after the argument?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir; the same day following the argument.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, tell the committee how many other cases that you were assigned to as a member of the review staff that on the day of the oral argument you appeared before the Board, after the hearing, and discussed the facts of the case with the members of this Board? Mr. MILLER. In the only other case I have had in which there was oral argument, that was the case.

Mr. TOLAND. And what case was that?

Mr. MILLER. Swift & Co., Albert Lea, Minn. I correct that. I believe South St. Paul, Minn.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, what was the shortest conference, and the date, and the name of the case, if you can recall it.

Mr. MILLER. I have no particular recollection of any case in which there was an especially short conference on the first report. In a number of our cases-that is, representation cases-where the record was quite short, they might be disposed of in 15 or 20 minutes by the Board. That has perhaps happened in two or three cases.

Mr. TOLAND. Let's talk about "C" cases.

Mr. MILLER. All right.

Mr. TOLAND. What is the shortest conference that you had with the Board on a "C" case?

Mr. MILLER. I suspect in the Swift & Co. case, to which I previously referred. The conference lasted 30 to 40 minutes.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, can you tell us what happened on the day of the argument in the Donnelly Garment case, when you say you were with the Board from 4 to 6, or from 4:30 to 6: 30?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir. I reported the facts in the case. I reported all matters of the hearing. I reported—I think those are the things I reported in full.

Mr. TOLAND. Well, it is very recent now. It is the 9th of January of this year.

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. TOLAND. And I'd like you to give the committee your best recollection, and as much in detail as you possibly can, what transpired when you were with the Board for 2 hours on the afternoon of the 9th of January, 1940, what you said, and what they said.

Mr. MILLER. Well, that is a pretty difficult thing to do. I'll try.

Mr. TOLAND. Well, do your best. It is not so far. This is in May. That was the 9th of January. You were sure of the exact time that it took for the conference. Now let's see how sure you are as to what you said and what they said.

Mr. MILLER. I think I reported first of all what was contained in the charge in that case and what was contained in the complaint issued by the Board. The case involved a charge that the Donnelly Garment Co. had dominated, interfered with, and assisted the Donnelly Garment Workers Union. It also contained an allegation that the Donnelly Garment Co. had discriminatorily discharged two employees because of their membership and activity in the International Ladies Garment Workers Union. Out of those two allegations, there was an allegation under section 8 (1) of the act that the Donnelly Garment Co. had interfered with the rights of their employees as guaranteed in section 7 of the act. The specific facts which were alleged in the complaint were reported to the Board in connection with the charge of company domination of the union, and in connection with the discriminatory charges. I went through with the Board, or presented to the Board, all the facts as to the 8 (2) charge. that is, company domination-

Mr. TOLAND (interposing). What do you mean by all the facts? Mr. MILLER. I mean all of the evidence, that is, testimony, that was presented at the hearing before the trial examiner which was relevant and material to the 8 (2) issue.

Mr. TOLAND. Let's stop right there. I want the committee and the record to show whether you mean by saying that you presented all of the testimony, if you mean that every word of the testimony, both on behalf of the union and the respondent, that you recited word for word, verbatim, the testimony in the record, or you presented to the Board a summary of the testimony that you thought was relevant and material to the issues involved.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Toland, I did not report it verbatim. That, as you can see, in a 3,500- or 4,000-page record would consume an undue amount of time.

Mr. TOLAND. I didn't ask you that. I am asking you what you did. Mr. ROUTZOHN. Let him answer.

Mr. MILLER. I attempted to summarize the facts. If I had any doubt about the importance of facts contained in the record, they were reported to the Board.

Mr. TOLAND. Did you have the record with you?

Mr. MILLER. I am not sure of that.

Mr. TOLAND. You wouldn't say you did?

Mr. MILLER. I would not say I did or I did not, but I had a very complete outline of the facts contained in the record.

Mr. TOLAND. In your own handwriting, in the form of notes?

Mr. MILLER. That is correct.

Mr. TOLAND. Go ahead; proceed.

Mr. MILLER. As I say, I reported that in complete fashion, although, as Mr. Toland has pointed out, summarizing. The Board gave its decision as to what it believed the facts meant in terms of the act under section 8 (2), under section 8 (3), and under section 8 (1).

Mr. TOLAND. What do you mean by the Board? Which member of the Board or what members of the Board were present, and tell us what they said.

Mr. MILLER. Chairman Madden was present, and Edwin S. Smith was present. I believe Dr. Leiserson was not present at that first conference.

Mr. TOLAND. And tell the committee briefly your best recollection as to what the members of the Board said to you.

Mr. MILLER. Well, I can only tell that, Mr. Toland, in terms of their conclusions. I certainly could not

Mr. TOLAND (interposing). That's what I mean. Tell the Committee who it was reached the decision, if they reached it jointly or separately, or if one member of the Board spoke for both members of the Board, and what instructions they gave you at that time.

Mr. MILLER. The decision on the 8 (2), the company domination question, was arrived at jointly by Chairman Madden and Mr. Smith. Mr. TOLAND. By doing what?

Mr. MILLER. After hearing the facts, discussing the facts, they conferred on those facts, conversationally, exchanging their ideas; thereupon instructed me that the Donnelly Garment Co. had violated the act, section 8 (2), and pointed out certain facts which indicated that. Mr. ROUTZOHN. Where was Dr. Leiserson at that time?

Mr. MILLER. I do not know.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. Has he ever been present when you appeared before the Board?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. Go ahead; pardon me.

The CHAIRMAN. Let's make sure about that. Has Dr. Leiserson appeared at one of these conferences that you had with the Board in determining the case?

Mr. MILLER. Are you speaking of the Donnelly Garment case? Mr. TOLAND. In any case.

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. TOLAND. Which case?

Mr. MILLER. One of the representation cases which I had, Woodward Iron Co.

Mr. TOLAND. Were all three members of the Board present?

Mr. MILLER. All three members of the Board were present at the time I reported the facts of that case.

Mr. TOLAND. When was that?

Mr. MILLER. That was probably in June or July, 1939.

Mr. TOLAND. He had just come on the Board at that time?

Mr. MILLER. Rather recently.

Mr. TOLAND. Since that time has he ever appeared before a conference of yours?

Mr. MILLER. He has been in conferences at which I have appeared before the Board. I cannot be sure that he has ever attended a first conference on the case since that time.

Mr. TOLAND. What is the difference between a first conference and any other conference?

Mr. MILLER. There are often subsequent conferences, Mr. Toland, on particular questions which arise in the course of the preparation of the decision. There are also at times conferences on the draft of the decision which is prepared by the review attorney. There was such a conference in the Donnelly Garment Co. case.

Mr. TOLAND. And did he participate in the subsequent conferences in the Donnelly Garment Co. case?

Mr. MILLER. In one subsequent conference, which I think was the only subsequent conference.

Mr. TOLAND. Do you remember when that was?

Mr. MILLER. I do not remember the precise date, but it was after a draft of the decision had been prepared and presented to him. There was a conference among all three members of the Board.

Mr. TOLAND. And you were present at the conference?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. TOLAND. Now give your best recollection as to the length of time of that conference.

Mr. MILLER. That conference probably lasted an hour, maybe more. At that time the Board considered each issue as presented in the draft of the decision.

Mr. TOLAND. What do you mean by "considered”?

Mr. MILLER. Discussed.

Mr. TOLAND. Discussed the proposed decision?

Mr. MILLER. I wouldn't call it a proposed decision, because that has a particular meaning which is not true here. It can be called a tentative draft of the Board's decision.

Mr. TOLAND. And did Dr. Leiserson participate in that discussion? Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir; he did.

Mr. TOLAND. Do you remember what he said?

Mr. MILLER. Not specifically, Mr. Toland. I remember that he agreed with the issues as they were resolved in that decision.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, let's go back to the first conference with the chairman of the Board, and tell the committee, after the Board had reached its conclusions, what instructions you received from the members of the Board as to the further duties that you were to perform in connection with this case.

Mr. MILLER. I was instructed to draft a tentative decision in the case, including those facts which the Board believed to be pertinent to that decision.

Mr. TOLAND. Was there ever any discussion or statement made by you to the Board that one of the reasons, one of the principal reasons why this case should be prosecuted was because of the prominence of the distinguished Senator from the State of Missouri, James A. Reed? Mr. MILLER. No, sir; there was not.

Mr. TOLAND. Did you ever read the file in this case?

Mr. MILLER. What file are you referring to?

Mr. TOLAND. The formal and informal file.

Mr. MILLER. I read only the formal file; I have never seen the informal file, Mr. Toland.

Mr. TOLAND. Let the committee get your connection with this case. Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. TOLAND. Isn't it a fact that you were assigned to this case before any decision was ever prepared by the trial examiner? Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. TOLAND. And isn't it a fact that you wrote the trial examiner's decision?

Mr. MILLER. No, sir.

Mr. TOLAND. Isn't it a fact that you participated and conferred with him with respect to the draft of the intermediate report? Mr. MILLER. I should be glad to tell you just what I did. Mr. TOLAND. Answer the question.