them had been to the chief of police asking what protection he intended to give them. His only suggestion was that they should arrange to go to and from work in busses, and, as a matter of fact, the company later arranged for the busses and for several months did bring the employees to and from their work in busses.

After the employees had discussed among themselves the question of what could be done for their own protection some one of them suggested that Mrs. Reed be sent for, and Mrs. Reed came down and they asked her what the company intended to do to protect them, and Mrs. Reed told them that that was a matter for the lawyers to decide; but in substance she said that one thing that she would not be intimidated to force them to join the International against their will, that that was a matter that they could decide for themselves.

Senator Reed will read actually the verbatim transcript of what Mrs. Reed said. Following this the International proceeded with the preparation of its attack on the company. It started with sending girls out calling on our customers. They had prepared a circular which contains a copy of the March 9 letter. This March 9 letter made all sorts of false charges against the company-that it operated a sweatshop, that it paid wages 50 percent below wages paid in other plants-all of which the company knew were false, and they didn't answer the letter.

The CHAIRMAN. May I interrupt there?

Mr. INGRAHAM. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. When this case was tried before the trial examiner, were the facts that you now are narrating as to the methods used by the union brought to the attention of the Board?

Mr. INGRAHAM. Yes, Judge. I will say this, that in our answer to the complaint, we alleged as an affirmative defense that the International was engaged in an unlawful conspiracy against the company, and we further alleged that the National Labor Relations Board had become a party to the conspiracy and was assisting in helping the International. The trial examiner struck that part of the answer out. We-I happened to be trying that case. I introduced evidence which he ruled out, substantially supporting what I have told you about these acts of violence. He wouldn't admit the evidence, and I made an offer of proof, and that is in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you offer proofs in the record?

Mr. INGRAHAM. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. So that the things that you undertook to prove do appear in the record, although they were ruled out by the trial examiner?

Mr. INGRAHAM. That is correct; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And were they brought to the attention of the Board itself, when this case was tried?

Mr. INGRAHAM. Oh, yes; yes, indeed.

The employees, not being satisfied with what might happen in case they didn't protect themselves, they employed counsel to represent them, and counsel suggested filing an injunction suit, and as I-we understood, he prepared a petition for that purpose. Then the National Labor Relations Act was declared constitutional, and this attorney advised the employees to organize, and on April 27, 100 percent of the employees organized at the plant union.

(Off the record discussion.)

Mr. INGRAHAM (continuing). Well, on April 27, 1937, the employees organized a plant union, 100 percent of the employees. After several months of negotiation, they had requested that the company enter into a contract with them. Contracts were entered into. The International had started their emissaries traveling throughout the country, calling on our customers; on July 5, 1937, the company filed an injunction suit in the Federal court asking an injunction against fraud and violence. The International asked for a three-judge court. The circuit court appointed a three-judge court. There was a hearing on a preliminary injunction before the three judges, and the court granted the injunction. The International appealed to the United States Supreme Court, and the United States Supreme Court held that it was not properly a threejudge case, and returned the case to the district court for a new trial.

Now that all leads up to about the spring of 1938. At that time, the International had stopped circularizing our customers. In August of 1938, the regional director of the Labor Board sent the company a letter, stating that the International had filed charges against the company, and asked for an immediate conference. I went over and was referred to a man named Fee. I went into his office and Mr. Fee asked me if I was prepared to discuss the Donnelly Garment case. I told him that I was, and he said: Well, he wasn't ready to discuss it yet, and to get in touch with him in a week.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. Who was Mr. Fee?

Mr. INGRAHAM. Mr. Fee was, I think they called him a field agent for the Labor Board.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. For the Board?

Mr. INGRAHAM. Yes. And he explained to me that he had been connected with the Philadelphia and the Washington office of the Board, and that he had been in some of their more important cases, and had come out in Kansas City in connection with the Donnelly case.

Well, I returned again in a week, and Mr. Fee again wasn't prepared to discuss the matter. I asked him if he would give me a copy of the charges, and he said no, that wasn't the practice of the Labor Board. I asked him if he would advise me as to what acts we had done in violation of the law so that we could be given the opportunity to present our side of the picture, that he had only heard their side. Mr. Fee said no; that they never did that. Well, we-I asked him

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). You mean that he wouldn't tell you what the charges were?

Mr. INGRAHAM. No; he wouldn't give me a copy of the charges or tell me what acts we had done in violation of the law. His answer to me was, "You violated sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Wagner Act."

The CHAIRMAN. He wouldn't tell you what the specific violations consisted of?

Mr. INGRAHAM. No, or when the acts occurred, who committed the acts, or any of the surrounding circumstances, so that we could be prepared to present evidence.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, now was that incident of his refusal to tell you what you were charged with ever brought to the attention of the Labor Board in any other way?

Mr. INGRAHAM. Well, I don't know as it was brought directly to the attention of the Labor Board. We wrote letters, Your Honor, to Mr. Broderick, who was director-regional director. Now, I don't know whether he sends letters on to the Labor Board or not.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you write to the regional director's office, complaining that they refused to tell you what you were charged with? Mr. INGRAHAM. Yes, we did write such letters; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And did they, in response to those letters, tell you what you were charged with?

Mr. INGRAHAM. No.

The CHAIRMAN. And when did you first find out what your company was charged with?

Mr. INGRAHAM. When the complaint was served.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. How long was that after your first contact with Mr. Fee?

Mr. INGRAHAM. That was approximately 5 months.

Mr. TOLAND. Did they tell you the names of the employees that they said had been discharged or discriminated against?

Mr. INGRAHAM. No; in all the early conferences, they never had the names of any of the employees. At first, they told me that there were 15 employees that had been discriminated against. When the complaint was finally filed, they only named 2.

Mr. TOLAND. Now will you tell the committee briefly, but in detail, the conversations that you had with Mr. Broderick in determining the proposed settlement he insisted had to be carried out?

Mr. INGRAHAM. Mr. Fee called on Mr. Broderick after these first conferences, and said that the case would be settled.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is Mr. Broderick?

Mr. INGRAHAM. He is the attorney for the regional office in Kansas City.

The CHAIRMAN. Of the Board?

Mr. INGRAHAM. Of the Board, yes.

Mr. Fee asked if they could see Senator Reed, that Senator Reed would, they supposed, pass on any settlement. So a conference was arranged to go out to Senator Reed's house. At that conference, Senator Reed asked what we had done in violation of the act, and if we weren't entitled to a copy of the charges. And they said, “no.” The Senator said, "Aren't we going to be given the privilege of submitting evidence?" They said the only thing that they were interested in was the organization of the plant union, so we suggested that the attorney for the plant union, or some members of the plant union be called in, and let them talk to them, let them find out for themselves. At the same time, we suggested that if there was any question about the employees' organization, that the Labor Board should hold an election.

They said, "no"; they wouldn't hold an election, that the company in any event couldn't file a petition, that they wouldn't be considered by the Board. Well, then, in view of their interest in the plant union, we suggested a later conference at which time the attorney for the plant union would be present, so that conference took place several days later, and the attorney for the plant union was present.

They asked if he had information about the plant union, and he said he had, and he started to explain, and they said, "Oh, well, now this is useless." They turned to the Senator and said, "Senator, hold on to your chair. Now we have got a proposition. Now wait until you hear it. This will settle all your difficulties with the International. One, you must disestablish the plant union. Two, you must

post notices on the different floors in the plant that the employees are free to organize in accordance with the Wagner Act. Three, you must reinstate some 15 employees."

Well, Senator said that the company had no way of disestablishing the plant union, and that we couldn't legally do that. Mr. Broderick said, "Oh, yes; that can be handled." He said, "You can agree to a consent decree in the eighth circuit court, and that will protect you. Mr. Reed said, "What about our contracts with the employees?" "Oh, well," he said, "those contracts wouldn't hold, in view of the consent decree." Mr. Reed said, "What about the rights of the employees to organize their own union?" And Mr. Broderick said, "The employees at your plant don't need a union." Mr. Broderick had expressed to me the fact that the employees were highly paid and the working conditions were fine and they didn't need a union. That was his suggestion.

Mr. Reed said, "What do you mean, this will settle the whole controversy?" He said, "This proposition is satisfactory to the International."

Well, after some discussion about how he knew it was satisfactory, he just naturally stated, "Now the International will drop all activities, boycott all the things that they are doing, if you agree to this," and that everything can be settled. He said, "Well, how can they be bound? How will you bind them?" He said, "I will bring them into the conference." Mr. Reed said, "Well, we'd better have a conference and let's see what they say, if this really is their proposition that you are proposing."

So a conference was arranged for January 20, and Mr. Broderick and Mr. Watson, at that time, appeared for the Board, and Mr. Langsdale appeared as attorney for the International. Mr. Langsdale then laid down the prerequisite to any discussion of a settlement, that the company had to agree to disestablish the plant union and agree to never recognize any plant union of its employees.

Well, we argued all afternoon and repeatedly expressed the opinion that we couldn't do a thing like that. It would be in violation of the law. Mr. Broderick suggested that each party put its proposal in writing, and that we then meet later and exchange proposals contemporaneously. Well, that took place in a few weeks, I think on February 4.

Mr. TOLAND. Will you let me interrupt you there? Will you state for the record who Mr. Fee was, that you mentioned in your conferences with Mr. Broderick?

Mr. INGRAHAM. I have done that, Mr. Toland. He is a field investigator for the Board, as I understood.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, I'd like to interrupt, Mr. Chairman, and offer in evidence certain communications bearing upon the conferences testified to by the witness. The first is a copy of the communication from Mr. Witt to Mr. Broderick, dated the 18th day of January, 1939. I offer that in evidence, and ask that it be spread on the record.

(Communication to Paul F. Broderick, from Nathan Witt, subject, Donnelly Garment Company, Case No. XVII-C-371, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1353," and follows.) The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you read it.

Mr. TOLAND (reading):

To: Paul F. Broderick, Acting Director, 17th Region.

From: Nathan Witt, Secretary.

JANUARY 18, 1939.

Subject: Donnelly Garment Company, Case No. XVII-C-371.

In discussing the work of the Kansas City office, Mr. Krivonos told me of his talk with you about the above case. Please transmit a report on the case, giving details on the progress of the investigation, efforts to secure compliance, the union's position and the present status of the case.

N. W.

I would like to offer in evidence Mr. Broderick's reply to Mr. Witt, dated the 21st day of January, 1939, reading as follows:

JANUARY 21, 1939.

To: Mr. Nathan Witt, Secretary.
From: Paul F. Broderick, Acting Regional Director, 17th Region.
Subject: Donnelly Garment Company XVII-C-371.

This will acknowledge receipt of your memo of January 18, 1939, inquiring as to the status of the above mentioned case.

Several conferences have been had with respondent looking toward possible settlement by full compliance. I feel that with the cooperation of the ILGWU we have a very definite chance of obtaining a consent decree providing for posting of notices "so many and so big that no one could possibly mistake the company's attitude toward the rights of our employees to form, join, etc." according to ex-Senator James A. Reed, husband of and attorney for the president of respondent.

Our latest conference was held January 20, at which time it was agreed that all parties would submit in writing concurrently a statement of their respective positions. I feel that with this accomplished there is a very definite chance to dispose of the charges in a manner consistent with Board policy.

Looking toward a possible consent decree, a request for authority to issue a complaint is currently being prepared.

Fred Krivonos had a suggestion which I feel will amply dispose of the union's position of "insisting that a public hearing be held in this matter." Upon granting authority to issue a complaint, the parties would be served and upon the hearing a stipulation providing for a consent decree could be offered.

To the union this is unquestionably a case of prime importance, having spent the sum of over $100,000 at the present time for the purpose of organizing workers. The company is an important one in the industry. In addition, both Senator Reed and Mr. Dubinsky have taken personal positions in connection with the matter. Further, the alleged company union involved here has provided a constant sources of hope to other employers in this area to feel that it is possible to set up an inside union and thereby keep out "radicals of Dubinsky's type, etc."

I assume that by Wednesday of next week we will be in a position to know definitely whether or not it will be possible to secure compliance by consent decree.

Sincerely,

I offer that in evidence.

PAUL F. BRODERICK.

(Communication from Paul F. Broderick to Nathan Witt, dated January 21, 1939, was received in evidence and marked "Exhibit No. 1354" and appears above.)

The CHAIRMAN. Now, do I understand that these conferences and efforts to mediate and conciliate and settle the matter all took place prior to the issuance of any charge against the company?

Mr. TOLAND. Any complaint.

The CHAIRMAN. Any complaint against the company?

Mr. TOLAND. That is true. No complaint was issued until April 6. The CHAIRMAN. So that all this time there was no formal proceeding before the Board?

Mr. FAHY. There was a charge filed with the Board.