we received only the evidence and not the exhibits that are in question? Mr. MILLER. I don't know anything about that, Chairman Smith. Mr. ROUTZOHN. That is the answer and that is the reason I brought it out to the witness. Mr. TOLAND. Do I understand from you that what you have stated here is your best recollection of everything that was contained in the offer of proofs made by Mr. Ingraham? Mr. MILLER. I do not recall specifically, Mr. Toland, other statements. I have tried to give in general the substance of the offer. There were, I might add, offers in regard to violence which occurred at other garment factories, I believe, in Kansas City, and in other cities throughout the country, in which the International Ladies Garment Workers Union representatives had participated, but I took it that you were referring to the testimony of the employees in regard to the coercion and interferences. Mr. TOLAND. I was asking with respect to all offers made. Mr. MILLER. I see. There were also the offers in regard to violence and threats of violence at other garment factories. Mr. TOLAND. I will have the record at 10 o'clock, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FAHY. May I have the record on page 41 of the Board's printed decision? The problem was taken up and disposed of in the decision. Mr. TOLAND. Will you speak a little louder? Mr. FAHY. On page 41 of the printed decision of the Board, the matter which the committee is discussing now, was taken up and disposed of by the Board in its decision, and I think probably along the lines of discussion before this committee. The CHAIRMAN. And the Board in that decision held that it was proper to exclude the employees from testifying in this case? Mr. MILLER. They affirmed the ruling of the trial examiner, which you have in question. The CHAIRMAN. Didn't the trial examiner rule that it was not proper for the employees to testify? Mr. FAHY. I understand he did rule. The CHAIRMAN. And therefore the Board so ruled. Mr. FAHY. I don't want to make a general statement that the employees couldn't testify, but I think he did rule that it was immaterial that they would testify that they were themselves not coerced. The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Fahy, let's get it straight. The actual fact is that the trial examiner would not hear them, is it not? Mr. FAHY. On that point, it is correct. On that point. The CHAIRMAN. There wasn't any other point to the case, except whether they had been dominated, was there? Mr. FAHY. I suppose there was evidence by the company to rebut the Board's evidence of domination in other respects. The CHAIRMAN. The whole point is that the Board, though, wouldn't hear the people who were most interested on that subject. Now that is a fact. Mr. FAHY. On that subject. The CHAIRMAN. And that was the whole issue of the case. Mr. FAHY. I said, on that subject, that is, the testimony which they offered, they were not dominated. I don't think the trial examiner precluded from rebutting the testimony of domination in other respects, Mr. Chairman. It was just in that limited respect. The CHAIRMAN. I wouldn't regard that as a limited respect when the 1,300 employees offered to testify that they were dominated. That was the only issue in the case, so that the Board really did rule that they could not testify on that point. Mr. FAHY. On that point, that is correct. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Toland, did we have some witnesses here yesterday from a distance that you wanted to take up on Monday? Mr. TOLAND. Monday morning at 10 o'clock. The CHAIRMAN. We will adjourn until Monday morning at 10 o'clock. (The following was offered for inclusion in the record by the chairman :) The CHAIRMAN. The following is an extract from the Board's opinion in the case, confirming the ruling of the trial examiner in ruling out the testimony of the employees as to company domination (reading): The respondent and the D. G. W. U. contend that its employees formed and joined the D. G. W. U. of their own free will in order to resist unionization by the I. L. G. W. U. and were not coerced or interfered with in their choice of the D. G. W. U. or in their rejection of the I. L. G. W. U. In support of this contention they sought to introduce the testimony of the members of the D. G. W. U. that they were not dominated by the respondent but formed, joined, and supported the organization of their own free will. They also offered evidence to show that the employees knew of the violence accompanying the I. L. G. W. U. organizational campaigns at other garment factories and of threats by I. L. G. W. U. representatives that the same tactics would be used at the respondent's plant and formed the D. G. W. U. for that reason. The Trial Examiner refused these offers of proof, ruling that such testimony was irrelevant and immaterial to the issues. We have affirmed the rulings of the Trial Examiner on those offers of proof because, giving full credit to such testimony and assuming that the employees had other motives for rejecting the I. L. G. W. U. and joining the D. G. W. U. as an instrument for opposing the I. L. G. W. U., the fact remains that the record shows the respondent to have committed acts of domination, interference, and assistance in the formation and administration of the D. G. W. U. which makes that organization company dominated and not the free agent of its members.65 Section 8 (2) proscribes such conduct on the part of employers regardless of the ostensible willingness of employees to accede to it. (Whereupon, at 2:25 p. m., the hearing was adjourned until Monday, May 6, 1940, at 10 a. m.) 65 N. L. R. B. v. Brown Paper Mill Co. (C. C. A. 5th), decided January 17, 1940, enf'g Matter of Brown Paper Mills Co., Inc. and Int. Brotherhood of Paper Makers, affiliated with the A. F. of L., 12 N. L. R. B. 60; cf. Matter of New Era Die Company and I. A. M. Lodge 243, A. F. of L., N. L. R. B., No. 27. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT MONDAY, MAY 6, 1940 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Washington, D. C. The committee met at 10:15 a. m., pursuant to adjournment on Saturday, May 4, 1940, in room 362 of the Old House Office Building, Representative Howard W. Smith, chairman, presiding. Present: Representatives Howard W. Smith of Virginia, Abe Murdock of Utah, and Harry N. Routzohn of Ohio. Edmund M. Toland, general counsel to the committee. Charles Fahy, general counsel to the National Labor Relations Board. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Vogt. TESTIMONY OF HERBERT J. VOGT, FIELD EXAMINER, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.-Recalled Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Vogt, when we recessed you were making an explanation as to certain exhibits that had been introduced in evidence. Now, do you have before you the verbatim record of the committee? Mr. VOGT. Yes; I have. Mr. TOLAND. And will you make any explanation as to any of the exhibits that are recorded in the verbatim record that you did not make any explanation about at the time you were on the stand? Mr. VOGT. I referred to Exhibit 1311, appearing on page 638.1 I wish to make a correction that when that exhibit was shown to me, it was several letters, and I only looked at the first page, and I answered, "I don't remember seeing this letter, but I do remember what he speaks of here." After reading the letter through completely, I recalled distinctly that John Senneff saw me on the street and he said to me, "Herb, I want to show you a letter that I am going to send to your office." So I went up to his office and he showed me the letter. I read that letter, and at that time in his letter where he refers to: I had not supposed that the National Labor Relations Board or its officers or employees would demonstrate this much zeal in the outcome of any election, and I wish to believe that it was personal with Mr. Vogt rather than with your office. I have shown this letter to Mr. Vogt 1 Indicates page reference to verbatim transcript of committee proceedings, May 3, 1940. 218054-40-vol. 23- --6 At that time, I said to John, "I disagree—” Mr. MURDOCK. I didn't get the name of the person. Mr. VOGT. John Senneff. The CHAIRMAN. What page? Mr. VOGT. Page 638, Exhibit 1311. It is in the last paragraph. John Senneff is an attorney Mr. MURDOCK (interposing). I haven't got the name yet. Get away from that thing and see if we can't hear you. Mr. VOGT. John Senneff. Mr. MURDOCK. All right; go ahead. Mr. VOGT. It so happens that John and I are on good personal terms, and when he showed me this letter I said to him, "Well, I think you have overstated this matter and I deny what you say there about that. You have the right to send it. I can't tell you not to send it." Can you hear me now? And so he sent it. The next exhibit I wish to refer to is on page 639,1 Exhibit 1316. In that exhibit, Mr. Jones in the letter to me states at the end of the first paragraph case. on December 6th, a celebration of our victory in the Gamble-Robinson I don't know what he meant by the word "ours," although the union always, when they have won a victory, they always try to puff up the field staff by saying that you did this and you did that. I don't think that Jones meant that I had all and everything to do about it, because I had nothing to do with their getting the contract whatsoever. I was not in on the final negotiations whatsoever, and I will say that I was en route between cities over that week end, and I did stop off in Estherville. I was at the oyster party. I received no expenses from the C. I. O. or no compensation whatsoever. There was no obligation to anyone. Mr. MURDOCK. Did you make a speech? Mr. VOGT. Yes; I made a few remarks. Mr. MURDOCK. Do you recall what they were? Mr. VOGT. All I can recall-I don't recall everything I said, but I remember saying that I was glad to be there, and gave the general salutations of welcome. Mr. MURDOCK. Go ahead. Mr. ROUTZOHN. Did you travel on the Government expense or your own? Mr. VOGT. I was traveling en route between two cities; between the two cities I was stopping, going from one city to the next city, and I stopped en route. Mr. ROUTZOHN. That was charged up to the Government? Mr. VOGT. Yes; but I would have had to go through there anyway because I think at that time I was going from Waterloo to Sioux City. Mr. ROUTZOHN. So there wasn't any necessity for the C. I. O. to pay your expense? Mr. VOGT. There was no necessity of anybody? Mr. ROUTZOHN. You mentioned about not having received any expense from the C. I. O. Mr. VOGT. Yes. 1 Indicates page reference to verbatim transcript of committee proceedings, May 3, 1940. |