Mr. VOGT. No.

Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer in evidence their response to the questionnaire-the response of the Lennox Furnace Co.-forwarded to the committee, and an acknowledgment by myself as counsel, dated October 19, 1937.

(Reply of Lennox Furnace Co. to questionnaire, with acknowledgment dated October 19, 1939, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1433," and is on file with the committee.)

Mr. TOLAND. I have another communication from the same company, dated November 10, 1939, concerning the case before the Board. (Communication from the Lennox Furnace Co., dated November 10, 1939, addressed to Hon. Howard W. Smith, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1434," and is on file with the committee.) Mr. TOLAND. Now, Mr. Chairman

Mr. MURDOCK (interposing). Mr. Toland, this is with reference to which case, this last exhibit?

Mr. TOLAND. The Lennox Furnace Co.

Mr. VOGT. I might say, I think our records show that that case was adjusted, and the accusation made that the independent union was a company-dominated union, was disestablished by stipulation, as I recall it.

Mr. MURDOCK. It was disestablished by stipulation?

Mr. VOGT. Yes; as I recall it.

Mr. MURDOCK. And all of these exhibits that are going in now are with reference to a case settled by stipulation; is that right?

Mr. TOLAND. Yes, sir; it still has reference to the attitude and the course of conduct of the witness in connection with his duties.

Did you also investigate the W. G. Block Co. in Davenport, Iowa? Mr. VOGT. Yes. I worked on that case with the conciliation department.

Mr. TOLAND. And would you say the statement is correct that—

two informal discussions with Herbert Vogt, District Examiner, convinced the company of a decidedly pro-union attitude, irrespective of merits, and we declined further discussion preferring to fight in court if necessary. Nothing further has since been heard about the matter.

Would you say that is a true statement of your conduct when you conferred with them?

Mr. VOGT. I would say no.

Mr. TOLAND. I offer it in evidence.

(Reply of W. G. Block Co. to questionnaire, dated November 27, 1939, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1435," and is on file with the committee.)

Mr. VOGT. That refers to a teamsters' case in Davenport, and I think the conciliation department worked on that case, and when I saw it was a conciliation department case I gave it to them.

Mr. TOLAND. Did you also investigate the Iowa Soap Company case?

Mr. VOGT. I had one of thein; yes.

Mr. TOLAND. And did you travel together with the C. I. O. organ. izer in that case, in automobiles, do you remember?

Mr. VOGT. I don't recall, unless-that must be an old case, because at that time I did not have a car, and I think they did give me a lift Mr. TOLAND. In 1938?

Mr. VOGT. Yes.

Mr. TOLAND. Did you live at the same hotel and share the same room with the organizer?

Mr. VOGT. At that time?

Mr. TOLAND. Yes.

Mr. VOGT. Not that I recall.

Mr. TOLAND. Have you ever done that with any C. I. O. organizer? Mr. VOGT. I think there was only one time in Waterloo when the hotel was out of rooms, and they said they would be willing to set up a cot in the fellow's room if it would be O. K. with him.

Mr. TOLAND. Would you say that Mr. Larrabee▬▬
Mr. VOGT (interposing). I didn't catch the name.

Mr. TOLAND. Larrabee, of the Iowa Soap Co. Is he making a correct statement as follows (reading):

At all times during our discussions with the Government representatives it was obvious from their attitudes that they favored the C. I. O. organization over the A. F. L. and over all independent unions.

Mr. VOGT. I don't recall.

Mr. TOLAND. Well, did you say anything that would warrant that conclusion?

Mr. VOGT. I don't even recall a man by the name of Larrabee. Mr. TOLAND. He is connected with the company, and he filed the answer on behalf of the company.

Mr. VOGT.. Well, I might say, before we got into the company union, there was quite a fuss, and the conciliation department was in the case, and I came in on the tail end on the company union, and the case was dismissed for the simple reason that the company disestablished the company union.

Mr. TOLAND. I offer this document in evidence.

(Communication from Mr. Frederic O. Larrabee, of the Iowa Soap Co., dated October 17, 1939, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1436," and is on file with the committee.)

Mr. MURDOCK. In answer to Mr. Toland's question, will you state if you did say or do anything to warrant statements such as are found there?

Mr. VOGT. No; I don't remember ever talking with Mr. Larrabee. Mr. MURDOCK. Well, do you recall talking to anybody else?

Mr. VOGT. No.

Mr. MURDOCK. Did you make any statements that would warrant that conclusion?

Mr. VOGT. No.

Mr. TOLAND. Did you investigate the Sherman's, Inc., company in Iowa, at Des Moines?

Mr. VOGT. The what company?

Mr. TOLAND. The Sherman's, Inc.

Mr. VOGT. I don't recall. What do they make?

Mr. TOLAND. Woolen cloth, at Des Moines, Iowa.

Mr. VOGT. Oh, yes; that is Sherman's.

Mr. TOLAND. Yes. Did you make any statement to the officials of that company in the course of your dealings with them with respect to the considerable expense the company would have to go to if they took any appeal to the Federal Court of Appeals in St. Louis, Mo.? Mr. VOGT. I think Mr. Daniels, in that case, asked me what the cost would be through a hearing. That case was settled by a consent

election, but before he consented to an election he said, "Could you give me an idea of what the usual procedure is?" I outlined that if the parties do not consent, there was a local hearing and that the intermediate report was issued, and from there the Board made a report, and from there they had a right to appeal to the circuit court of appeals, and I told him finally it would go to the Supreme Court.

He asked me, "Who stands all these expenses?" and I told him at that time, "Your expenses, whatever their amounts might be, would have to be borne by you." That is as I recall talking to Daniel. The CHAIRMAN. Now, would you answer the question? Mr. VOGT. I don't think I stated it in those terms.

Mr. TOLAND. Well, if he made that statement that you pointed out and emphasized it, and as a result of your statements the company was influenced against fighting the decision, is that a true statement on behalf of the company?

Mr. MURDOCK. Certainly this witness cannot testify as to the actions of the company.

Mr. TOLAND. That is true.

Mr. MURDOCK. He cannot testify as to what influenced them. Why, he doesn't know anything about it.

Mr. TOLAND. I am not asking him

Mr. MURDOCK (interposing). That is what you did ask him, whether you intended it or not.

Mr. TOLAND. I asked him if the statement was true.

Mr. VOGT. I think not.

Mr. MURDOCK. In the statements you did make with reference to the cost of the proceedings, did you state the facts?

Mr., VOGT. Yes. I stated the facts. I mean, he asked me there what the procedure was, and he said, "I don't know anything about this; would you tell me just how this could operate?" and I told him.

Mr. MURDOCK. Did you estimate the cost?

Mr. VOGT. Oh, no.

Mr. MURDOCK. You did not do that at all?

Mr. VOGT. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, let's see what are the facts. The fact is that it is pretty expensive for a company to take one of these cases through the Board, and then through the court, is it not?

Mr. VOGT. From what I have been told, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, now, you do know that, don't you?
Mr. VOGT. I—

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). How long have you been with the Board?

Mr. VOGT. Three years.

The CHAIRMAN. Three years. And how many cases have you handled?

Mr. VOGT. Oh, I'd say about 200, or more.

The CHAIRMAN. And you have not been asleep all that time, have you?

Mr. VOGT. No; I have not.

The CHAIRMAN. So you do know whether it is expensive or not. Now, it is pretty expensive, isn't it, in fact? Mr. VOGT. I imagine it is; yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, as a matter of fact, don't you frequently tell the company that it would be a right expensive thing if you try to take this thing through a hearing and through the courts?

Mr. VOGT. No.

The CHAIRMAN. You don't know?

Mr. VoGr. No.

(The reply to the questionnaire of Sherman's, Inc., dated November 13, 1939, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1437," and is on file with the committee.)

Mr. MURDOCK. Let me ask a question: These companies are usually represented by able attorneys, are they not?

Mr. VOGT. Yes,

Mr. MURDOCK. And do attorneys in your opinion have a pretty good idea about the court costs?

Mr. VOGT. They should, they are all good attorneys.

Mr. MURDOCK. So that your comments on that are that your opinion would not have much weight as compared to the opinion of their own attorneys; isn't that so?

Mr. VOGT. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Now let us see whether they do. When you go out in the field to investigate one of these cases, you go to see the employer and tell him there is a charge against him. That is the first thing that happens to the employer?

Mr. VOGT. Yes. When I see the employer, I tell him about the charge.

The CHAIRMAN. The employer doesn't have a lawyer unless he has a case, does he?

Mr. VOGT. In most cases they say, "We would like to call our counsel. Will you make another appointment?" I know very few cases where the employer talks without his counsel.

The CHAIRMAN. You do?

Mr. VOGT. Yes; that's right.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, is your experience any different from other employees of the Board? Because we have not heard about that heretofore.

Mr. VOGT. I don't know if my experience is any different than other employees of the Board, but I know

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). As a matter of fact, do you mean to say that in your operations up in Iowa since you have been there, it has come to be that whenever you go in to talk to a businessman he has to have a lawyer before he will talk to you?

Mr. VOGT. No; I don't say that.

The CHAIRMAN. Wasn't that just about what you said a moment

ago?

Mr. VOGT. No.

The CHAIRMAN. Didn't you just say that the employer almost always told you he had to see his lawyer when you wanted to see him. and have him in on the conference?

Mr. VOGT. In the majority of cases they have their attorney.
The CHAIRMAN. They do.

Mr. VOGT. I usually inform the employer of the fact that he has a right to have counsel.

Mr. TOLAND. Tell us the name of the employers you have made that statement to.

Mr. VOGT. Well, I don't know the exact employers that I have made the statement to. You mean the names?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. VOGT. Oh, I think I told them in this Sherman case that you just referred to. I am quite sure I did when he told me he did not know anything about the act, I said, "Well, you have a right to have your counsel," and in fact he did bring in a counsel.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you tell all the employees that you interviewed and put under oath in hotel rooms and C. I. O. meeting rooms that they could have their lawyer, that you would not talk with them but would postpone the conference until they got their lawyer?

Mr. VOGT. I didn't tell all of them, but if they asked me whether they had a right to have counsel, I told them they could have one. The CHAIRMAN. Did anybody ever tell you before that you have a right to call them in and put them under oath and take their statements?

Mr. VOGT. No; I read it in the act, and the act says that any agent of the Board can take statements under oath, under section 11 and 12, I think it is.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know whether that is a custom or practice of the field examiners that are interviewing witnesses, that they make them raise their right hands and swear?

Mr. VOGT. I don't know as to the custom of the other examiners, but I have found that it saves me a lot of trouble to put them under oath, because that way you don't have to listen to a lot of stuff that is not relevant.

The CHAIRMAN. What difference does that make?

Mr. VOGT. I think when you tell them that, and get their statements under oath, they are more conservative.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you do that with union witnesses?

Mr. VOGT. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Tell me one case that you took the union witnesses under oath when you examined them.

Mr. VOGT. I think the case you referred to, the Cudahy case, definitely showed that I did.

The CHAIRMAN. And when you had witnesses of the independent union, did you ask them, "Aren't you a member of the company union?"

Mr. VOGT. No; those weren't.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, let us get the exhibit. That speaks for itself, those yellow papers.

Mr. MURDOCK. Is there any question, Mr. Toland, about this witness's right to put witnesses under oath when he examines them? Mr. TOLAND. I am not questioning his right, I am questioning if it is a policy and practice of the Board, and whether he does it and no one else does it.

Mr. MURDOCK. The act reads as follows:

Any member of the Board or any agent or agency designated by the Board for such purposes may administer oaths and affirmations, examine witnesses and receive evidence.

Now, I am informed by the general counsel for the Board that under the provision I have read the field examiners, by the rules and