regulations of the Board, have been designated as agents of the Board who can properly put people under oath. Mr. TOLAND. May I say that this is the employee of the Board, and he is the first employee of the Board that I ever heard of who swears witnesses when he examines them. Mr. MURDOCK. I don't think that that is important, whether you heard of it or not. The question in my mind is whether there is any question about this man's authority under the statute and under the rules and regulations of the Board to put witnesses under oath. Mr. TOLAND. There is a question. Now, here is what he said to this witness. Mr. MURDOCK. Before we go on to that, then, I ask if you will point out for me, Mr. Fahy, the rules and regulations here that cover it. I would like to put that in. I read part of the statute. Now if there is a rule or regulation designated here why Mr. FAHY (interposing). It is section 2 of article IV of the rules and regulations of April 27, 1936. Now I think they were in the prior rules, too, which were adopted originally in September 1935. Mr. MURDOCK. May I read this into the record, then? This is section 2 of the rules and regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, series 1, as amended, section 2 of article IV (reading): Section 2. All examiners now or hereafter in the employ of the Board, or herewith designated by the Board as its agents: (c) To have access to and the right to copy evidence and to administer oaths and affirmations in accordance with section 11, subsection 1, of the Act. Mr. TOLAND. I would like now for the record, Mr. Fahy, at the appropriate time to have you advise me if it is the custom and practice of examiners of the National Labor Relations Board to swear witnesses when they interview them in the course of their investigations. Now, as a typical example of what the witness, based upon exhibit, has done, I read as follows: his own Roy Schaeffer and Ollie Davis will raise your right hand. Do you swear you are telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? We do. Are the records you have produced the only records that are within the company union and that the union has and that there are no other records on file that have been perjured, either upon the advise of counsel or advice of the trustees, or any other officials but where you get your authority? Mr. SCHAEFFER. There are no more than I am aware of. We endeavor to get everything, and as far as my knowledge is concerned this is all and nothing has been changed. Mr. DAVID. My answer is the same; nothing has been changed. You understood the question fully? Yes. I would like to take up also the witness's activity in connection with the Iowa Southern Utilities Co. Did you investigate that case? Mr. VOGT. Yes. Mr. TOLAND. I show you a copy of a communication from yourself dated July 12, 1939, and ask you if you didn't dictate the same? Mr. VOGT. Yes. May I comment on it? Mr. TOLAND. Yes; sure. Mr. VOGT. Please. This was quite a complicated case. Originally we had an 8 (2) charge of the company-dominated union. That case was settled by the company agreeing to disestablish that union. After that union was disestablished another union sprang up in its place. The utility workers in Burlington, Iowa, asked me at one time whether or not an appropriate unit could be established for the city of Burlington. I looked up some of the Board cases and found that it could. I told them there were cases on both sides. They said, "Well, all right, we want to then file a petition.' They filed a petition and the company and the union and myself conferred, and the company asked me to draw up the stipulation for consent election, which I did. They asked me then if they could have a little time to look it over. I told them "Yes." After they looked it over they decided that they couldn't agree to that unit, and I think you got a letter in their files indicating they would like to have a hearing. Then in that intervening time, as I recall it, another petition-no; the utility workers said Well, we won't consent to any election if the company is going to hear it because we feel this present association is a violation of section 8 (2) Mr. TOLAND. Which union said that? Mr. VOGT. The utility workers. Mr. TOLAND. The C. I. O.? Mr. VOGT. The C. I. O. was the utility workers' union, accused the independent union of being company dominated. I told them, "All right, if you have any evidence, present it and then there could be consolidation." Then in the meantime the independent union filed a petition and I informed the independent union of this other charge, and the Board couldn't very easily hold an election while this other charge was there, unless it was disposed of, because the Board could not very easily certify a union if the 8 (2) was present, in the presence of this charge. And I investigated; they asked me then to investigate, and I did, and in this memorandum of July 12 I informed the secretary of that union that I didn't think he had much of a case in the 8 (2) and asked him to withdraw. Finally, a hearing was held; the Board ordered an election, and the independent union won that election. Mr. TOLAND. Now, do you recall saying prior to this communication Mr. VOGT (interposing). I didn't hear that. Mr. TOLAND. I say, do you recall prior to this communication in the month of June writing to Mr. Wiener and saying (reading): Your letter of May 23, 1939, certainly is not helping investigation of the 8 (2) charge. The company union boys are covering up beautifully and if things do not break pretty soon we are going to certify a company-dominated union? Do you remember making that statement? Mr. VOGT. I must have made it. This is a memorandum from ma to Wiener. Mr. TOLAND. I offer it in evidence. (Memorandum dated July 12, 1939, Re: Iowa Southern Utilities Co., was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1438," and is on file with the committee.) 218054-40-vol. 23-9 (Memorandum dated June 7, 1939, to Robert Wiener from H. Vogt, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1439," and is on file with the committee.) Mr. VOGT. I think, though, in passing, as a matter of fact I don't know why it is easier to say a company union than to say independent union, and I think when we have interoffice communications we use that term; we don't always use it with that idea because unions when they talk to you hardly ever say independent unions; they always call it company unions. And I think we get in the habit of saying it is the same thing, and we shouldn't. Mr. TOLAND. I would like to read the chronology briefly in this case: It is R-1456 and R-1457; Iowa Southern Utilities, R-171; petition filed by the utility workers' organization committee on February 10 by the C. I. O. On November 18 a petition sent to the Board by the independent union. And on July 15, petitioning union withdrew charges then pending. July 31 to August 2 there was a hearing held by the Board. And on September 22, 1939, a decision in direction of election. On October 6 and 7, 1939, the election was held. On October 9, 1939, a protest of the election by the C. I. O. telegraphed to the Board and formally filed under rule 17. On October 26, 1939, the protest was withdrawn. And on November 15, 1939, the independent union was certified. Mr. VOGT. May I make further comment on that, since you have got that chronology. As an interesting sidelight-I don't mean to pat myself on the back, but the independent union there-Harry Charry, who heads up the independent union, told me personally the day of that election, "I thought you gave us the fairest break we ever got," and thanked me for it. And the C. I. O., as indicated in that chronology, thought that I had been too fair, and Harry Charry, president of the independent union. Mr. TOLAND. I show you a communication dated the 25th day of October, 1939 bearing the signature of Mr. Wiener, a copy of letter from Mr. Robert J. Shaw, attorney at law, addressed to regional director, and ask you if you recall seeing either of those coinmunications, both of them found in the files of this case. Mr. VOGT. Yes; I think I have seen both of these. Mr. TOLAND. I offer them in evidence. (Communication dated October 25, 1939, headed "Iowa Southern Utilities Co., XVIII-R-171, R-178," signed by Robert J. Wiener, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1440," and is on file with the committee.) (Communication dated May 15, 1939, to Regional Director, Minneapolis, signed by Robert J. Shaw, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1441," and is on file with the committee.) Mr. MURDOCK. Along the line that you stated with reference to the company union there, Mr. Vogt, don't you find, or hasn't it been your experience, that whether it is the respondent, the C. I. O., the A. F. of L., or an independent union, that their attitude as to your procedure, their attitude as to your fairness or unfairness, is largely dependent on the outcome rather than what you actually do prior to the outcome? Mr. VOGT. I think when we have two conflicting unions we are in a tough spot, so to speak, and whatever you do the other side wins, the other one says, "Well, you did this in their favor." I think you have sized the situation up right. Mr. MURDOCK. It is very similar, is it not, to all things that we do in this life, that the winner always is for us and the loser is always against us, isn't that true? Mr. VOGT. Generally. Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Vogt, you also investigated, did you not, the Rath Packing Company case? Mr. VOGT. I did; one of them. Mr. TOLAND. C-262, charges filed October 13, 1938; charges filed section 8 (1), (2), (3). Mr. VCGT. I think that case at the present time-I don't know whether it is in the courts or in the midst of negotiating, the Rath Packing case. Mr. TOLAND. And did you interview witnesses and take statements in that case? Mr. VOGT. Yes. Mr. TOLAND. Is this your handwriting? Mr. VOGT. I think so. Mr. TOLAND. And do you recall taking those statements or receiving them? Mr. VOGT. I think I did. Mr. TOLAND. I offer in evidence document identified by the witness. (Twelve pages of question and answer material, bearing date October 23, 1939, and marked "Rath Packing Company," was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1442," and is on file with the committee.) Mr. TOLAND. I also show you, Mr. Vogt, C. I. O. stationery being attached and ask you if you didn't use C. I. O. stationery in taking the statements of the witness, and also if you used C. I. O. stenographers. Mr. VOGT. Out of 13 pages I used three C. I. O. Evidently, I must have run out of paper. Mr. TOLAND. Well, you did use them, did you not? Mr. MURDOCK. I didn't get your statement there. Mr. VOGT. Out of 13 pages that are here, 3 of them are on C. I. O. stationery, so I must have run out of paper. Mr. MURDOCK. You should have gone out and bought some. Mr. TOLAND. Is that your handwriting? Mr. VOGT. Yes. Mr. TOLAND. I offer in evidence document identified by the witness. (Six blue cards with pink memo sheet, dated October 22 and October 27, 1939, respectively, were received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1443," and are on file with the committee.) Mr. TOLAND. What is on the back of the cards just identified? Mr. TOLAND. I didn't ask you that. Mr. Chairman, can't I get a responsive answer? The CHAIRMAN. I thought the witness answered the question. Mr. TOLAND. No. I said, "What is on the back of the card that your just identified?" He said, "There again, I ran out of paper." Mr. VOGT. I say the application cards of the C. I. O. Mr. TOLAND. That is all I wanted to know. Then if you want to explain it, all right. Mr. TOLAND. What are they? Mr. VOGT. I am sorry. Mr. TOLAND. Application cards of the C. I. O.? Mr. VOGT. That's right. Mr. TOLAND. The same union involved in that case? Mr. VOGT. Yes. Mr. MURDOCK. Why did you use them? Mr. VOGT. Because I didn't have any paper there and the people were there to give me some information, and I said, “I haven't got any paper," and they said, "Here, take these." Mr. TOLAND. And you turned them over and wrote on the back of them? Mr. VOGT. Yes. The full cards are there. Mr. TOLAND. I offer in evidence, Mr. Chairman, a chronology of the case. (Document entitled "18th Regional Office File, Rath Packing Company, Waterloo, Iowa, and United Packing House Workers (P. H. W. O. C.-C. I. O.) XVIII-C-262," was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1444," and is on file with the committee.) That is all. Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Vogt, I'd like to say that in this wholesale introduction of exhibits, it has been very difficult for me to follow the exhibits or to get anything out of them, but I am just wondering if you would like the privilege of looking them over and returning at some convenient time in the next day or two, if we keep on with the hearings, and make any explanations or comments that you may have on them? Mr. VOGT. Well, may I say this? I'd be glad to do that, but I feel that my work-we haven't had any extra people in the field— my work has been neglected here for two weeks now, and if I may, I'd like to, when I receive my official copy of the transcript, make written statements, if that is all right. Mr. MURDOCK. I'd like to ask that the witness- Mr. VOGT (interposing). If the committee feels that I should stay here, it is up to the committee. Mr. MURDOCK. May I ask that the witness be given that privilege, and if there is any necessity for cross-examination, he will be ordered back. The CHAIRMAN. I'd be glad to call a meeting of the committee for that purpose either today or tomorrow. It probably wouldn't be until tomorrow, but I'd want the witness here, rather than have him correcting statements that he made when he is not subject to court oath. Mr. TOLAND. I think that in 2 weeks if he is caught up with his work, he can come back in that time. Mr. FAHY. Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask something along the Mr. TOLAND (interposing). I tried to give him an opportunity to explain the exhibits as they went along. Mr. FAHY. I think that is particularly true, because today for the first time Mr. Toland has introduced some of the answers to the questionnaires. They were not previously seen by the witness and |