(The reporter read the last preceding question.) Mr. MILLER. I conferred with the trial examiner before he issued his intermediate report. Mr. TOLAND. And isn't it a fact that as a result of your views, the decision of the trial examiner in this case, that heard the evidence, was changed and subordinated to your views? Mr. MILLER. No, sir; it is not true. Mr. TOLAND. Let me see if the records don't show your recollections incorrect. Mr. Chairman, before I proceed further, I think the chronology of the case, as prepared by my staff, should be placed in the record at this time. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Mr. TOLAND. This case is Donnelly Garment Co., Kansas City, Mo., and the case is C-1382. On the 9th day of August, 1938, the charges were filed by the I. L. G. W. U. On the 29th day of March, 1939, the complaint was authorized. On the 6th of April, 1939, amended charges were filed. On the 27th day of April, 1939, the complaint was drawn, and on the same day, April 27, 1939, a new complaint was issued. On June 5, 1939, to July 15, 1939, a hearing was held before Mr. Batten, the trial examiner of the National Labor Relations Board. On the 15th day of July, 1939, the complaint was amended. On October 7, 1939, the intermediate report of the trial examiner was issued. Now, tell this committee when it was, and who it was, that assigned you to the Donnelly Garment Company case to work with the trial examiner in connection with the proposed intermediate report that he was to file in this case. Mr. MILLER. Mr. Toland, I would like to say first that I didn't understand that I was to work with the trial examiner. Mr. TOLAND. Well, what were you supposed to do then? Mr. MILLER. I was assigned by Mr. Thomas Emerson, associate general counsel of the Board, I believe sometime in the month of August 1939. Mr. TOLAND. Tell us what he said when he assigned you. Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir. He told me to read the record in the Donnelly Garment Company case. At that time I was also instructed that during the time I was reading the record in that case the trial examiner would prepare his intermediate report, that his intermediate report would come to me before issuance of that report by the trial examiner, and that the purpose of that intermediate report coming to me was to check the accuracy of the facts found by the trial examiner. I was further instructed that I should make no corrections in the intermediate report, that the intermediate report was to be the report of the trial examiner and the trial examiner alone, and that I could only point out any inaccuracies in statement of fact that might have occurred in the trial examiner's report. The CHAIRMAN. Point out how, and to whom? Mr. MILLER. To the trial examiner, Mr. Smith. Mr. TOLAND. Do you know Mr. Batten well? Mr. MILLER. I had never met Mr. Batten until I had a conference with him after he prepared his intermediate report. Mr. TOLAND. Do you know his record? Mr. MILLER. No, sir. Mr. TOLAND. Do you know how long he has been a member of the bar, how long he has engaged in the practice of the law? Mr. MILLER. No, sir. Mr. TOLAND. Do you know his reputation as among the trial examiners of the National Labor Relations Board? Mr. MILLER. No, sir. Mr. TOLAND. Go ahead. The CHAIRMAN. Wait a minute before you leave that point. I would like to know for the information of the committee whether this arrangement by which the review attorney examined and conferred with the trial examiner as to his report was the usual procedure or the unusual procedure. Mr. TOLAND. When I proceed further, Mr. Chairman, I think only in three instances in the history of the Board was there any such similar arrangement. The CHAIRMAN. I would like it developed right now, if you do not mind. Mr. TOLAND. I would rather, if I may, wait for a record. I will ask the witness. Do you know of any other instance of any member of the review staff outside of the Western Union case, the Donnelly Garment Company case, and the Consumers Power Company case, that any member of the review staff was assigned and designated to participate or to sit in the hearing and to confer with the trial examiner with regard to the preparation of the trial examiner's intermediate report? Mr. MILLER. I have never known any other case except the Donnelly Garment Company case that was assigned to me by way of an experiment; the review section and the trial examiners assist the Board in their judicial capacity, and it was felt Mr. TOLAND (interposing). Now, go ahead, Mr. Miller Mr. MILLER (interposing). The Board desired Mr. TOLAND (interposing). Don't let's have any argument, Mr. Chairman, as to his views. The CHAIRMAN. I want to know why the extraordinary and unusual procedure was taken in this particular case. Mr. TOLAND. If you will bear with me, I will introduce an exhibit that shows the action in this case was taken because of the prominence of this distinguished American, and I will offer that document right now. Mr. MILLER. I should like to explain The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Let him offer the document first, and then you can. Mr. TOLAND. Wait a minute, please, and then you answer. Mr. Chairman, on the 8th day of February, 1939 the acting regional director wrote to the secretary of the Board. Bear in mind, Mr. Chairman, that no complaint had been issued by the Board at this time, and the comments of the regional director were as follows (reading): The case is one of particular importance for the following reasons: (1) Because of the prominence of James A. Reed, ex-Senator from Missouri and husband of the president of the company. The CHAIRMAN. President of the Donnelly Co. ? Mr. TOLAND. Yes; Mrs. Reed is the president of the company and the owner of the company, having started the business many years ago, and the Senator and his associate will discuss that. 2. Because of the personal interest taken in this matter by the national organization of the International Ladies' Garment Workers, its president, David Dubinsky, and the fact that this organization has set aside $100,000 to organize the plant. The CHAIRMAN. What organization? Mr. TOLAND. The International Ladies' Garment Workers of America. The CHAIRMAN. Is that an A, F. L. or C. I. O.? Mr. TOLAND. It was C. I. O. and it is now independent, and is not affiliated with either the A. F. L. or the C. I. O. Mr. FAHY. Mr. Chairman, it was an A. F. L. Mr. TOLAND. Prior to the C. I. O. Of course, all of the national organizations were A. F. L. then. (Continues reading:) 3. Because it is practically the only plant of any importance in the Kansas City, Missouri, trade area not unionized under the national organization. Now, this is the regional director of this Board writing to the secretary of this Board, saying that these are the reasons why this company should be prosecuted. 4. In view of the case of the Donnelly Garment Company v. the International Ladies' Garment Workers, No. 2924 in equity, United States District Court for the Western Division of Missouri, docketed July 5, 1937. Therein the Donnelly Garment Company seeks in the Federal Courts a restraining order against the International Ladies' Garment Workers in their boycotting, picketing and unionizing activities. This case has been twice before the United States District Court, twice before the Supreme Court, and once before the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The interesting factor involved is the application of the Norris-LaGuardia Act and the National Labor Relations Act to current labor problem. The company incidentally contends that our Act, and not the Norris-LaGuardia Act, applies. 5. The number of employees involved. Now, those are the comments, those are the recommendations of the regional director of this Board to the secretary of this Board as to why this company should be prosecuted for violations of unfair labor practices. Mr. FAHY. Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. TOLAND (interposing). I would like to offer this document in evidence. I would like to have it spread on the record. (Interoffice communication of National Labor Relations Board, dated February 8, 1939, to Nathan Witt from Paul F. Broderick, subject, Donnelly Garment Co., XVII-C-371, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1343," and follows.) EXHIBIT NO. 1343 Inter-Office Communication NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD To: Nathan Witt, Secretary Date: February 8, 1939 From: Paul F. Broderick, Acting Regional Director Seventeenth Region Investigation by Joseph E. Watson, Field Examiner, and Leo B. Fee, Field Report prepared by Joseph T. Watson, Field Examiner AUTHORIZATION FOR ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF HEARING is hereby requested in the above case. The original charge filed by the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union on August 9, 1938, alleges unfair labor practices under Section 8 (1), (2) and (3). If authorized, the complaint will be under Section 8 (1), (2) and (3). THE COMPANY AND ITS BUSINESS The Donnelly Garment Company is, and has been since 1919, a corporation existing under and by authority of the laws of the State of Missouri. Its factory and principal place of business is at 1820 Walnut Street, Kansas City, Missouri. The business had its inception in the home of its present owner and president, Mrs. James A. (Nel Quinlan Donnelly) Reed, in January of 1916. Since that date it has expanded and grown until today it has a yearly value of sales in excess of one million dollars. The company engages in the design, manufacture, sale, and distribution of cotton, wool, silk, and rayon low and medium priced garments for women. About 85% of the factory output is cotton garments, and about 15% of the garments are made from other fabrics. However, silk, wool, and rayon constitute 75% or more of the factory's business during a three-month period of each year. Materials used in the manufacture of garments by the company are secured almost entirely from mills in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and other eastern States. By far the greater proportion of the finished product of the factory is shipped to States other than the State of Missouri. In the words of President Reed of the company, "By 1924 the product of the company had a nation-wide distribution, the company maintaining a department in leading mercantile establishments in every large city and town in the United States. This was particularly true with regard to the Nelly Don Departments." A considerable amount of the garments manufactured by the company are put out under the "Nelly Don" trade-mark. The company employs approximately 700 full-time and from 400 to 500 parttime workers. The ratio of supervisors to workers is one supervisor and assistant to each forty employees. Raw materials utilized by the factory and the finished products shipped, are transported by both rail and truck lines. It is believed that the company will stipulate as to commerce. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local No. 124, chartered December 6, 1934, is a labor organization affiliated with the International Ladies' Garment Workers. The charge in the instant case was filed by Miss Jane Palmer, Attorney of Kansas City, Missouri, representing the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union. The Donnelly Garment Workers' Union is a labor organization allegedly formed, dominated, and controlled by the Donnelly Garment Company. It was formed April 27, 1937, and has had since May 27, 1937, a closed shop contract with the herein-named company. LABOR RELATIONS HISTORY In 1933 the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union inaugurated an organizational campaign among the employees of the garment making companies of Missouri. From the very beginning the efforts of the union were resisted vigorously by employers. Sometime during the year, Local No. 114 of the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union was instituted in Kansas City. Employees from many factories affiliated, including a number from the Donnelly Garment Company's plant. However, it was not until late in the Spring of 1934 that union activities at the Donnelly Garment plant became generally pronounced. Early in July 1934 a number of the employees of the company met at the home of an employee named Glenn Brooks. Among the twelve or thirteen employees of the company present were: Thelma Owen. Lillian Rutherford. Virginia Stroup. Tillie Shirley. Ollie Thompson. Kathleen Jenkins. Margaret Howard. Ellen Fry. Cordelia Huntly. This meeting was for the purpose of discussing the efforts of the employees to organize the company's plant under the International Ladies' Garment Workers. It is alleged that of the group that attended the meeting, all but one were subse quently discharged; that Cordelia Huntly, who was an intimate and friend of Mrs. Reeves, company manager, dropped out of the union group shortly after the meeting and is alleged to have reported the meeting to Mrs. Reeves. At about this time David Dubinsky, president, and Meyer Perlstein, regional director of the International Ladies' Garment Workers, held a mass meeting of garment workers in Kansas City. The meeting was attended by many of the employees of the Donnelly Co., among them being Mrs. Reeves, manager. Various witnesses allege, and Mrs. Donnelly admits, that Mrs. Reeves reported this meeting to the president of the company. Prior to this meeting a more or less bitter feeling existed between the representatives of the union and the officers of the company, as indicated by various statements on file. However, subsequent to the meeting a rather bitter feud developed between the parties, and especially between President Dubinsky of the International Ladies' Garment Workers and former Senator Jim Reed, representing the company, and the files are full of acrimonious statements by both parties. The union charges that it was not long after this meeting before a considerable number of employees were discharged by the company because of their union activity. Organization efforts continued at the Donnelly factory and on December 6, 1934, the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union chartered Local 124 for employees of the herein-named company. The entire record indicates that no great amount of success has ever attended the efforts of the union to organize the plant. On the day Local 124 was chartered Mr. Perlstein filed a complaint against the company with the Regional Office of the Twelfth District of the National Industrial Recovery Administration, alleging violation of the National Industrial Recovery Act and the discriminatory discharge of the following employees of the company: Thelma Owen. Lillian Rutherford. Mamie Tubbessing. Gladys Richardson. The case was docketed as No. 160 and a hearing, including all continuances, was held from February 26, 1935, to May 25, 1935. The hearing was completed but, before a decision was rendered, the case was dismissed on June 10, 1935, due to the action of the Supreme Court in declaring the National Industrial Recovery Act unconstitutional. Following the installation of Local No. 124 on December 6, 1934, the Donnelly Garment Co. opened a branch factory at 2609 Walnut Street, on or about December 12, 1934. This plant is alleged to have been a much less desirable place in which to work than the main factory. It is further alleged that all employees known to have union affiliations or connections were transferred to this building. Due to such transfer of union members and sympathizers to 2609 Walnut Street, this branch factory of the company became known generally among the employees as the isolation ward. Subsequent to the decision of the Supreme Court declaring the National Industrial Recovery Act unconstitutional the Donnelly Co. is alleged to have lowered wages, lengthened hours of work, and closed the branch factory at 2609 Walnut Street, laying off all of the employees there. Of those employees laid off, any known to have union affiliation or connection were not reinstated or reemployed by the company. Early in February of 1935 there was organized at the Donnelly plant a labor organization known as the Donnelly Loyalty League, which is alleged to have been company dominated and controlled. This organization will be considered further in another section of this report. Sometime during June of 1935 a union member employed at the company's plant, Lillian Wales, was allegedly discharged for union activity. On July 23, 1935, the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union by Meyer Perlstein again protested the discharge and requested reinstatement and back pay of some 18 employees. These employees were: Ellen Fry. Thelma Owen. Gladys Eldrige. Lorretta Sisson. Glenn Brooks. Ollie Thompson. 218054-40-—vol. 23- -2 Lillian Rutherford. Virginia Stroup. |