Графични страници
PDF файл

Mr. Routzohn. That is the reason I say there wasn't any necessity for the C. I. O. to pay you your expenses, because the Government was paying your expenses?

Mr. Vogt. While en route.
Mr. RouTzOHN. Yes.

Mr. MURDOCK. Have you ever received any contributions or expense in any form whatever from the C. I. O. or any other labor union ?

Mr. Vogt. No, sir.

Mr. ToLand. Now, let me ask you right along those lines. I want you to think now. Based upon the question Mr. Murdock asked you, I want you to tell this committee whether or not while you have been an employee of this Board you have or have not received of the C.I. O. contributions of one kind or another.

Mr. Vogt. No, sir.

Mr. TOLAND. You are sure now? I don't want you to misunderstand me.

Mr. Vogt. What do you mean by contributions"?
Mr. TOLAND. Any kind.
Mr. Vogt. Not that I recall.

Mr. TOLAND. Isn't it a fact that you use C. I. O. offices, that you use C. I. O. stenographers, and that you use C. I. O. stationery, and have used it?

Mr. Vogt. I don't know of any stationery I used, but when I am in the A. F. of L. offices

Mr. TOLAND (interposing). I didn't ask you that.

Mr. Vogt. Or C. İ. O. offices they have said, “Here, if you want to use our office while here you are permitted to."

Mr. ToLAND. Mr. Chairman, I am asking him about the C. I. O. I will take up the A. F. of L.

Now answer my question “Yes” or “No."

Mr. MURDOCK. I don't think, Mr. Chairman, that the witness should be directed to answer a question “Yes” or “No” unless it is evident that it can be.

Mr. TOLAND. I want you to tell this committee.
Mr. Vogt. I have used both A. F. of L. and C. I. O.

Mr. ToLAND. I didn't ask you that, and I want a responsive answer. You are a member of the bar, are you not? Now, tell this committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Answer the question.

Mr. TOLAND. Tell this committee if you have used C. I. O. stenographers and C. I. O. stationery and C. I. O. offices in the performance of your duties.

Mr. Vogt. I have not used their stationery as I remember. I have used their offices and their stenographers; yes.

Mr. TOLAND. All right, tell the committee the names of the unions, the cities that they are located in, and how many times you used them, and the approximate date.

Mr. Vogt. I don't think I could do that. Mr. Toland.
Mr. TOLAND. Well, now, give us your best recollection.

Mr. Vogt. I think I have used the C. I. O. offices when I worked on some of their cases in Sioux City and I worked on some of their cases in Des Moines, the only ones I recall.

Mr. TOLAND. Just Sioux City?
Mr. Vogt. Sioux City and Des Moines.

Mr. TOLAND. And Des Moines?
Mr. VOGT. Yes, sir.
Mr. TOLAND. How many times would you say you did that?

Mr. Voor. Oh, when I was on those packing cases and asking to get some evidence from interviewing witnesses, I had the stenographer take down my questions and answers, the C. I. O. stenographer.

Mr. TOLAND. Do you when you are in the State of Iowa have your own automobile you travel around in?

Mr. Vogt. Yes, sir.

Mr. TOLAND. Now tell this committee how many times you used A. F. of L. offices, A. F. of L. stenographers, and A. F. of L. stationery; the name of the local union of the A. F. of L., the city, and the approximate date, and the number of times that you used their facilities for the performance of your duties.

Mr. Vogt. Well, I don't think I can give you the number of times, but I know I used their offices extensively; the cities I have used their offices have been particularly Dubuque, Clinton, Keokuk, Burlington, and Des Moines.

Mr. TOLAND. And you used their stenographers and stationery!

Mr. Vogt. I used their stenographers but I don't recall using their stationery.

Mr. TOLAND. How many times would you say you used the A. F. L. office and their stenographers ?

Mr. Vogt. I would say I used theirs more than I did the C. I. O., because the A. F. L. had more cases in Iowa than the C. I. O.

Mr. TOLAND. Have you finished your explanation ?
Mr. Vogt. No; I have not.

Mr. MURDOCK. Along this line, I would like to ask you a question or two. Just explain a little more in detail how it is you used the A. F. L. office and the C. I. O. offices and their respective stenographers? In what connection, and how did you happen to do it!

Mr. Vogt. Whenever the union had a charge, the respective union, either the A. F. L. or the C. I. O. would, in most instances, rather, or their people would rather, come to the union office than they would to come to the hotel, because these are small towns, and they know if they come to the hotels they are on the spot, because a lot of people told me they did not want to come to the hotel in their working clothes. I have used their offices to interview witnesses, mostly, and their stenographers to take down notes because out in the field when you try to take down notes it is quite a job to make pencil notes, so I have used their offices whenever they have had cases, or when they discussed them with me.

Mr. TOLAND. Did you have a stenographer employee of the Board with you at that time?

Mr. Vogt. No.

Mr. TOLAND. Would it have been necessary to employ a stenographer had you not used the services of either the A. F. of L. or the C. İ. O. stenographers ?

Mr. Vogt. Yes; if I was going to get that work done.

Mr. TOLAND. And was it more convenient in making your investigation and more expeditious

Mr. Vogt (interposing). Yes.
Mr. ToLAND. Well, wait, I have not finished the question—was it

more expeditious to go to the A. F. of L. or the C. I. O. office, in order to carry on the necessary work?

Mr. Vogt. That is correct.

Mr. TOLAND. And were the witnesses concerned in your investigation there at the offices of the respective labor organizations?

Mr. Vogt. That is right. I might say, if I can say this in passing, that any memoranda that were written by me to the Board, I always got a public stenographer. Any other office communication, stuff like that, I always got public stenographers to do.

Mr. TOLAND. I think that is all. Proceed.

Mr. Vogt. The next Exhibit is 1337, appearing on page 647, which was a personal letter written by attorney Franklin A. George to myself, which he considered as personal, too, in which he asked me to try to get a job for a friend of his, and in one paragraph, he says (reading):

She sort of agreed with your friend Rader, she says she gathers from your talk that you are pretty pro C. I. 0. Perhaps you had better write her a letter and cheer her up a bit.

It so happens that Anthony Rader is a member of the Grain Processes and I think now is vice president of the Grain Processes which is affiliated with the A. F. of L., and is a very good friend of mine. He was in town that night. In fact, he asked if I would share a room with him that night which I did, so as to cut down expenses, and we all went out to dinner and were joshing each other. And if one reads the letter in detail, one will see that Franklin George, who was a good friend of mine, obviously was making this humorous remark. And that he did not mean by it what it actually would appear in black print. He is a kidding type. We kid each other back and forth and also, I wish to say that Franklin George represents most of the A. F. of L. unions in that city.

Then, the last exhibit I wish to make any remarks about, it was 1338, appearing on page 647.1

That exhibit refers to a memo written by Rosenberg to Mr. Wiener, in which he asked that he get some testimony relating to alleged misconduct on the part of Field Examiner Vogt. (Reading :)

please have Mr. Vogt prepare and airmail to me as soon as possible a statement dealing with Fowler's criticisms.

I made a diligent search, had a diligent search made both at the Board office here in Washington and in Minneapolis, and we can't find anything.

Mr. Wiener sent me this wire Saturday night (reading): Re your telephone request for your report on Fowler and Foote Brothers Machine Company, Chicago, pursuant to July 13, 1939, request from Rosenberg. Diligent Search our files does not reveal any of this material. However we hold receipts from Smith Committee for our entire file "Amendments to Act," entire folder marked “Herbert J. Vogt," and entire personal file of Herbert J. Vogt. Any material we might have should be in one or all of files which Smith Committee took.

Mr. TOLAND. Well, it wasn't.

Mr. VOGT (continuing). Well, the best record that I can find is secondary evidence, but it is from the Senate hearing committee of

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

1 Indicates page reference to verbatim transcript of committee proceedings, May 3, 1910.

August 4, 1939, on page 4449, under the heading “F. H. Fowler." Here is what was reported to the Senate hearing committee. I evidently did write a letter.

F. H. Fowler, President of the Foote Bros. Gear & Machine Corporation, testified before the committee concerning the experience of his company with the Board. The decision in the Foote Bros. case was issued on August 24, 1939. The complaint alleged that the company had interfered with the employees' rights of self-organization, that it had supported and dominated a labor organi. zation, that it had discharged four employees—not five as Mr. Fowler testifiedbecause of their union activities and that it had refused to bargain with the C. I. O., although the C. I. O, represented a majority within an appropriate unit. On the basis of the evidence adduced at the hearing the Board found that the company had committed the unfair labor practices alleged except in regard to two of the employees alleged to have been discriminatorily discharged.

Mr. Fowler criticized Field Examiner Vogt for allegedly stating during the investigation of the case that Mr. Fowler was a poor "horse trader," and for criticizing counsel for the company. Mr. Fowler stated that as a result of this "insult” he refused to confer at a later date with Mr. Vogt when requested. Mr. Vogt has communicated with the Board and although he cannot recall all of the details of the conference which took place, he writes:

“I remember stating to Mr. Fowler after the union had made some concessions that I thought it was a good trade or compromise in order to avoid a hearing and said at that time, 'as you know, Mr. Fowler, good horse traders usually recognize a good deal when it is offered.' This is all I recollect from the conference."

Certainly Mr. Fowler's own version of his meeting with Mr. Vogt would not justify his refusal to discuss the matter with Mr. Vogt on a subsequent occasion.

Mr. TOLAND. Aren't you reading an argument that was made by somebody else in regard to that? That wasn't your statement.

Mr. Vogt. No; that is not my statement. That was the end of quotes.

Mr. ToLand. Have you finished with respect to the exhibits?
Mr. Vogt. Yes, sir.

Mr. ToLAND. Now I questioned you when you were on the stand last about your trip to Europe.

Mr. Vogt. That is correct.

Mr. ToLAND. And asked you the countries that you visited. You mentioned that?

Mr. Vogt. That is correct.

Mr. ToLand. Now did you discuss the matter with Mr. Bajork before you went to Europe, with respect to your leave?

Mr. Vogt. As I recall, I did.

Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to offer in evidence a communication of regional director Leonard C. Bajork, the regional director at the time of this communication, to Mr. Glaser, chief clerk of the National Labor Relations Board, dated March 26, 1938, with a pink memo attached from C. S. E., dated March 29, 1938, to Mrs. Gordon, found in the files of the National Labor Relations Board.

(Communication to Mr. Herbert Glaser from Leonard C. Bajork, subject, "Vacation Leave of Absence," dated March 26, 1938, together with attached pink memorandum dated March 29, 1938, Wats received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1362" and follows.)

Mr. TOLAND. Now, do you have any recollection of the countries that you told Mr. Bajork you expected to visit?

Mr. Vogt. Well, I wanted to take in all the countries that I could, but my time limited me only to

Mr. TOLAND (interposing). I didn't ask you that. Please give me a responsive answer. Do you recall mentioning the countries to Mr. Bajork that you intended or hoped to visit?

Mr. Vogt. Yes.
Mr. TOLAND. All right.
Mr. Vogt. I think I remember.
Mr. TOLAND. Now tell the committee.

Mr. Vogt. I had planned to visit England, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, Germany, Austria, Italy, and Spain, if I possibly could.

Mr. TOLAND. Isn't it a fact you told him that you wanted to visit those countries where they had dictators, to study labor conditions under dictatorships?

Mr. Vogt. I was interested in how labor problems were

Mr. TOLAND (interposing). Did you tell him that? I am asking you. Either you did or you didn't. Now did you tell that to Mr. Bajork?

Mr. Vogt. I don't recall.
Mr. TOLAND. Well, then, I will read what he said you said.

Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that-if I could have the attention of the chairman for just a moment? The procedure seems to me, and it has been ever since our hearings commenced, for counsel to have in his possession an exhibit which definitely gives the evidence, and instead of first handing that to the witness to refresh his recollection on a thing that I'd imagine is a year or two old, he first cross-examines the witness as to whether or not he has made these statements, when the exhibit itself shows exactly what was done. Now it seems to me that that is rather a dilatory method of getting the evidence to us as to just what the witness may have done, and I suggest to both the chairman and to counsel, that if the evidence as to what the witness has done is right there before him that probably the best way to submit it would be to hand him the exhibit and ask him if he didn't make such a statement.

Mr. TOLAND. Well, now, that

Mr. MURDOCK (interposing). I make that as a suggestion, not as a criticism, but as something which appears to me to be conducive to expediting the taking of evidence.

Mr. TOLAND. Well, now, I—

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). I am sorry that I was diverted at the moment that this incident occurred and I really don't know the background of it. What do you have to say, Mr. Toland ?

Mr. TOLAND. I don't like to disagree with Mr. Murdock that from the very beginning right down to and including today, that all of the exhibits that I have introduced I have not shown the witness and then introduced them. When the witness was on, I put in probably 50 or 70 exhibits, and merely showed them to him and asked him if he ever saw them before, offered them in evidence, and then I gave an opportunity to make an explanation, whatever explanation he wanted to make with respect to them. Many of those exhibits he never saw. They were in his personnel file, being written by members of the Board with regard to criticisms, with regard to salary increases, and generally with regard to the work of the witness. I offered in evidence a letter from the chairman of intro

[ocr errors][ocr errors]
« ПредишнаНапред »