After all, this is a Board case. You are in complete charge and that I think, should be politely impressed upon Miss Palmer and Miss Tobin. I know you will have some difficulties with Miss Palmer but I am confident that you are well able to take care of yourself.

I do not think you should be at all discouraged because of the Federal Court injunction. This demonstrated very forcibly, at least to my mind, that there is a company-dominated union. The Federal Judge throughout that hearing treated Mr. Tyler with almost contempt. I am inclined to think the Federal Judge also sensed a "nigger in the wood pile." It seems to me that the demonstration at the factory at the conclusion of the Federal hearing can be utilized to demonstrate more forcibly the company domination. I think you should take advantage of this.

I understand that our friend, Tyler, was involved in the company union in the Grace Garment Company Case, and there was some testimony in this record about it. I intend to look the record over and if there is anything advantageous, will forward it on to you. I am also enclosing a key to the office, which in my haste I seem to have carried away.

Give my regards to the gang in the office, and accept my best wishes for a successful conclusion of the Donnelly Case,

Sincerely yours,

MJN/GS.

Enclosures.

MAURICE J. NICOSON, Attorney.

Now, Mr. Miller, will you tell the committee whether or not in the performance of your duties in other matters, you discussed the merits of any of the controversies with trial examiners, attorneys of the litigation division.

Mr. MILLER. The only discussion I have ever had with any trial attorney or trial examiner is that in the Donnelly Garment Co. case, in which I conferred with Trial Examiner Batten. I have never in any other case discussed any matter with either a trial attorney or a trial examiner.

Mr. TOLAND. How many drafts of this decision that was issued did you draw before the final decision in this case was issued by the Board?

Mr. MILLER. I believe largely for my own use I drafted, or drew a draft, which included verbatim large numbers of exhibits which were pertinent to the issues involved. This was merely for the purpose of collecting in one place all of the pertinent material. Thereafter, from this draft I have referred to, a tentative draft was prepared which was submitted to my supervisor. After going over it, some corrections were made and the tentative draft was submitted to the Board.

Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer in evidence another copy of a letter from Mr. Nicoson to Mr. Broderick, dated April 26, 1939, found in the informal files of this case at the National Labor Relations Board. I ask that that exhibit be spread on the record.

(Copy of communication dated April 26, 1939, from Mr. Nicoson to Mr. Broderick was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1351" and follows:)

To: Paul F. Broderick, Acting Director, 17th Region.
From: Maurice J. Nicoson.

Subject: Complaint Amendments.

APRIL 26, 1939.

You will recall a discussion concerning the right of the Regional Director to issue an amended complaint.

I am now advised that while it is the general practice for the Regional Directors to issue amended complaints there is some doubt under a strict construction of the statute that the Regional Director has that right. The better

218054-40-vol. 23

practice seems to be for the Regional Director to withdraw the original complaint and issue a new one. The practice that you have been following, that is, issuing notices to amend can still be used but it involves the possibility of the Trial Examiner finding it necessary to grant additional time to respondent if the motion to amend is allowed. Technically, the complaint is not amended until after the motion is made and allowed by the Trial Examiner. Such motion is granted upon such terms as the Trial Examiner deems right and proper.

In the Donnelly case I think the better plan would be to withdraw the original complaint and issue a new one which will be the same as the amended complaint I have heretofore drafted. This will avoid the complications of amended notices of hearings and extension of time to answer and will also obviate any necessity of granting a further postponement of the hearing by the Trial Examiner should you follow the motion method.

I think this will solve our pleading problems.
Sincerely yours,

(Signed) M. J. N.

That is all, if the committee wants to question the witness.

The CHAIRMAN. Just one question that I think the witness ought to be permitted to state.

You started to state, I think, an explanation, your explanation, of why this irregular procedure of referring this case to the Review Board before the trial examiner had written his intermediate report. Do you wish to make any statement about that?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir; thank you very much, Chairman Smith. My instructions were that about the time I was assigned to this case the trial examiner's section had begun the practice of having review trial examiners go over the intermediate reports submitted by the trial examiners in the cases which they had heard. Before those intermediate reports were issued, the Board desired to determine, by way of experiment, whether this review work could be done by the review section of the Board, which was assisting the Board in its judicial capacity, just as the trial examiners were. It was for that reason that I was assigned to the Donnelly Garment Co. case and to confer with the trial examiner.

Mr. TOLAND. Did the members of the Board or anybody tell you the reason why you were assigned?

Mr. MILLER. I have told you, Mr. Toland, just what I have been told. My own instructions came from Mr. Thomas Emerson, associate general counsel.

Mr. TOLAND. So you don't know what purpose, if any, the Board had in

Mr. MILLER (interposing). I understand

Mr. TOLAND (interposing). No; I just want you of your own knowledge

Mr. MILLER (interposing). Well, I can only say this: That the Board desired to know whether decisions could be expedited in this fashion— that is, whether the time elapsing between the close of a hearing in the field and the issuance of a Board decision could be shortened in this fashion.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. Of course, you don't know, of your own knowledge, whether the reason you have just assigned for your having been assigned to this particular matter was the real reason that motivated the Board, or whether it consisted of the reasons that were given the Board by the regional director.

Mr. MILLER. I know nothing about that.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. No. So that would be up to the committee to draw its own conclusions as to what may have motivated the Board in assigning you to this case.

Mr. TOLAND. I would like to offer in evidence a pink memorandum found in the files of this case at the Board dated approximately the 27th day of April, although it doesn't have any date, reading as follows:

Broderick called Shaw from Kansas City.

In Donnelly Garment injunction case, Jim Reed pulled a phoney by setting up a dictaphone behind the wall at conference of union and company. Broderick says Reed is pulling out half statements and distortions and pleading them in injunction case. Broderick feels Board may be involved, and therefore wants to know if he can take the stand as a union witness to protect the Board. Shaw is to wire him this afternoon. What do you advise.

(Pink memorandum relating to the Donnelly Garment Co. case was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1352," and appears above.)

Mr. TOLAND. Did you ever see that? Is that in your handwriting? Mr. MILLER. No, sir; it is not. I have never seen this.

Mr. TOLAND. Do you know whose handwriting this is?

Mr. MILLER. No, sir.

Mr. TOLAND. Do you know whose handwriting that is?
Mr. MILLER. No, sir.

Mr. TOLAND. That is all.

(The witness, Mr. Miller, was excused.)

Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Ingraham.

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT J. INGRAHAM, ATTORNEY, KANSAS

CITY, MO.

(The witness was duly sworn and testified as follows:)

Mr. TOLAND. Will you give the reporter your full name, please? Mr. INGRAHAM. Robert J. Ingraham.

Mr. TOLAND. Where do you live?

Mr. INGRAHAM. In Kansas City, Mo.

Mr. TOLAND. Are you a member of the bar of the State of Missouri?

Mr. INGRAHAM. I am.

Mr. TOLAND. And are you associated in the practice of law with Senator Reed?

Mr. INGRAHAM. I am.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, Mr. Ingraham, will you tell the committee, briefly but in detail, your connection with the Donnelly Garment Co. case, both with respect to the injunction suit in the United States district court and the National Labor Relations Board case that I have just questioned the witness, Mr. Miller, about?

Mr. INGRAHAM. Yes; I have been one of the attorneys for the Donnelly Garment Co. in the injunction suit and also in the Labor Board case. I think it would be helpful, Mr. Toland, if I could be permitted to briefly state the history of the company and the relationship it has with its employees.

Mr. TOLAND. Right. I think the committee would like to hear it. Mr. INGRAHAM. The Donnelly Garment Co. was organized in 1917 by Mrs. Reed. It employed at that time only a few people; I think

it was 3 in number. It started with very little capital. It gradually grew, and by 1930 the company employed approximately 1,000 people. At that time the depression started and Mrs. Reed, in attempting to help the unemployment situation, decided that the company would employ 100 employees in 1931 in addition to the regular employees. That same thing took place in '32; another 100 were employed, and in 33 another 100 were employed. During all this time the company had paid wages far in excess above the usual wages paid in the industry, and I mean by that the union scale. There had been no complaint or trouble or controversy of any sort between the company and its employees.

In 1934 there was a business slump, and in June of that year the company was forced to lay off over 300 employees. In the fall, the late fall, business picked up and the company gradually called back to work part of those employees, and I think by December 150 of the 300 employees had been called back. On December 4, in 34, the company received a notice from Mr. George Pratt, who was then the secretary of the N. R. A. labor office in Kansas City, advising that his office was filing a complaint against the company alleging that it had discharged some 15 people. Mr. Pratt had never notified the company of any complaint before and that was the first notice that the company had.

The company investigated at once the complaint and found that 8 of the 15 people were working and that the 7 would probably be called back when business picked up, and that the remaining 150 out of the 300 would be called back.

Well, Mr. Pratt insisted that there be hearings, and in February of that year the hearings began. Mr. Pratt was the attorney who examined the witnesses. He was the judge; he ruled in the case on the evidence, but before the hearing closed the Supreme Court declared the N. R. A. unconstitutional.

Then everything apparently stopped. The Wagner Act became effective in July 1935, but there was no complaint made under the Wagner Act concerning any violations on the part of the company in connection with discharging or discriminating against employees. In December 1936 Mr. Dubinsky, in Washington, gave out a statement to the public press that the International Ladies Garment Workers Union intended to organize all remaining unorganized workers in the country, that they had $4,000,000 to accomplish that end, that they were going to open offices in various parts of the United States, that there would be an office in St. Louis and in Kansas City, that ordinarily one office in a State would suffice, but in connection with Kansas City, that office would be used to concentrate on the organization of the Donnelly Garment Co., and that Dubinsky was going to give Jim Reed a break. Following that by several months, I think it was February 26, Meyer Perlstein, who was the Southwest regional director of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, arrived in Kansas City and called in the press reporters and gave out a public statement. He said that the union was going to commence their drive on the Donnelly Garment Co., that the union had, I think, $250,000 to spend on the Donnelly Co., that they would commence their campaign by sending a polite letter to the company asking for a conference on collective bargaining, that if the company refused, they were training emissaries

to go out throughout the country and call on all the customers of the Donnelly Co., that if these customers refused to accede to the union's demand to stop patronizing the Donnelly Garment Co., their stores would be picketed.

Then he further said that as soon as we have enough members we will call a strike. Now, at that time the union had never contended that it had any members that were employed at the Donnelly Garment Co. That statement in the press caused considerable consternation among the employees. A year or two previously the International engaged in other strikes in Kansas City and there had been a great deal of violence in connection with those strikes. Employees were beaten and their clothes torn off them, and that was a matter of knowledge. It was in the public-in the press. Well, the employees, on-two employees, on March 2, circulated a petition which was addressed to Mrs. Reed. Mrs. Reed had no knowledge of it, nor any officers of the company had any knowledge of it. In this petition it recited that the employees were satisfied with their conditions at the Donnelly plant, and that they thanked Mrs. Reed for kind and humanitarian treatment, and they didn't want any representation by the International. That was in substance what they meant. That was signed by every employee except one.

Following that Mr. Dubinsky, on March 9, arrived in Kansas City, and he made a speech which was in substance the same as Mr. Perlstein's speech, and he said that the company in a few days would receive the polite letter, and that if the company refused to negotiate a union contract that the International would proceed with its campaign.

Then the union sent the letter. The company, knowing that the union wasn't even pretending to represent a single employee in the plant, and had no authority to speak for the employees, and that the employees had already expressed their opposition to the union, didn't answer the letter. In fact, we felt that if we did enter into negotiations it would be a violation of the Wagner Act.

Following that, on March 15, the International announced that they were going to call strikes in three smaller plants, one of which they didn't even have men, but they would call in outsiders and engage in all sorts of intimidation and assaults. That started in, and they further said that they were training their pickets so that when they came to the Donnelly plant they would be well trained, and that they were going to do worse to the Donnelly employees than they were doing to these people.

Well, these acts of violence, fortunately for us, pictures were taken of it. One of the companies had riot insurance, and in order to protect itself so that it could recover under its insurance policy it had motion pictures taken, and they established without any question of a doubt the violence on the part of the International. Those pictures have been shown in court several times. The employees of the Donnelly Co., hearing and being told, many of them being told personally by agents and representatives of the International that they were going to be treated worse than these other employees at these plants, they arranged for a meeting, not on company property but on other property, which was arranged to be held after working hours. They discussed what they could do to protect themselves, and several of