Mr. FRETER. I went first with the General Accounting Office as auditor. Mr. HEALEY. All right, but you liked the job you had with the National Labor Relations Board very well, didn't you? Mr. FRETER. Yes, sir. Mr. HEALEY. And as a matter of fact when you were let out you were pretty much aggrieved, weren't you? Mr. FRETER. Yes, sir. Mr. HEALEY. And you just sort of became a haunt, as I think you put it, in words similar to that, around the office of the Board, trying to see various officials up there, for a long while? Mr. FRETER. That is correct. Mr. HEALEY. And, of course, you have never been completely satisfied with the treatment that you received, have you? Mr. FRETER. No; I am not. Mr. HEALEY. And you have come here with some grievance against this Board, haven't you, some animus against this Board? Mr. FRETER. No, sir. Let me explain my feeling. Mr. HEALEY. No; you have Mr. TOLAND (interposing). Let him finish.· Mr. HEALEY. I am asking these questions as a member of this committee. Mr. TOLAND. I am calling these witnesses, and I ask for their protection; if they want to make an explanation they should be permitted to do it. The CHAIRMAN. Let him go on a little further. Mr. TOLAND. You can't pull that on me. Mr. HEALEY. I am a member of this committee, and I reserve my right to interrogate witnesses, and I shall continue unless the chairman says I can't. Until then I will continue to ask questions. Mr. FRETER. I Would just like to explain my attitude toward the Board. I feel that the National Labor Relations Act can be the finest thing in this country toward the establishment of intelligent labor relations, if it is fairly and impartially administered. I felt then, and I feel now, that it is not being so administered. However, I would be glad to take a position with the Board at any time that the C. I. O. bias or any other bias disappears. Mr. HEALEY. Are you trying to tell me that you are here without any feeling against this Board because you were discharged by the Board? Mr. FRETER. Yes, sir; that is correct. Mr. HEALEY. You have no feeling against the members of the Board or that organization? Mr. FRETER. Oh, no! Merely a disappointment that it is not being done as I think it should be. Mr. HEALEY. You mentioned the names of two cases in which you made a personal investigation-the Roy S. Bailey case and the George H. Rudy Coal Case? Mr. FRETER. Yes, sir. Mr. HEALEY. And you say that some one remonstrated with you because you hadn't found sufficient cause to predicate a complaint on; is that correct? Mr. FRETER. That is correct. Mr. HEALEY. Did it ever occur to you that you ought to find out the disposition in those cases-what happened to the cases? Mr. FRETER. The only way I could do that would be to go to the Board and ask for that information. Mr. HEALEY. Well, you were there in the field. Mr. FRETER. When the Board severed my connection with it, those cases were still pending. Mr. HEALEY. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have reliable information that in neither of these cases was a complaint issued, and I think it ought to appear in the record, however deduced for the purpose of the record, that no complaint ever issued in either one of these cases. Mr. HALLECK. It strikes me that maybe his report was right about it. Mr. HEALEY. Did it ever occur to you to look up the record as to the number of A. F. of L. cases and the C. I. O. cases that were presented to the region in which you were employed as field examiner, and the percentage of C. I. O. cases, A. F. of L. cases that were disposed of in that particular region? Mr. FRETER. Whether it occurred to me or not I don't know, but it wouldn't have made any difference because shortly after I came there the order was given that the field examiners were not to go into the files but were merely to put in a request by name and number for any specific file they wished to examine. Mr. HEALEY. So you don't know anything about the number of C. I. O. cases and the number of A. F. of L. cases that were settled in that region between the dates of September 1, 1937, and May 1, 1939; you don't know anything about that? Mr. FRETER. No, sir. Mr. HEALEY. Well, is it your impression that during the time you were employed there that there were more C. I. O. cases settled than A. F. of L. cases? Mr. FRETER. I really have no impression on that. Mr. HEALEY. You have no knowledge at all about that, have you? Mr. FRETER. No. Mr. HEALEY. So that if the facts appear that the percentage of A. F. of L. cases that were settled in that region was greater than the number of C. I. O. cases that were settled, actually settled and disposed of, you couldn't deny that because you have no knowledge of the facts, have you? Mr. FRETER. That is right. Mr. TOLAND. Nor could you admit it. Mr. FRETER. Nor could I admit it. Mr. ROUTZOHN. The A. F. of L., you do know, has been an established labor organization for a number of years and the C. I. O. is only about 4 years old; isn't that correct? Mr. FRETER. Yes, sir. Mr. ROUTZOHN. And consequently there would be more A. F. of L. organizations in Indiana, or wherever you were, than you would expect to find C. I. O. organizations? Mr. FRETER. For another reason also, sir, and that is that the C. I. O. cases and unions would undoubtedly take in a greater scope than would the smaller A. F. of L. cases; so even the number of C. I. O. cases and A. F. of L. cases settled would have very little bearing on the number of men involved or the importance. Mr. ROUTZOHN. Now, one other question: Have you permitted any feeling that you may have had regarding your dismissal to interfere with your telling the truth on this occasion? Mr. FRETER. Oh, no, sir. As a matter of fact, I would like to state that within the last possibly year or so I have been over to the Board. I talked to Mr. Emerson, I believe, to see if there was a possibility of getting a position in the review section, because I feel that is something that I could do even though I disagreed with the Board's policies. Mr. ROUTZOHN. Do you have any prejudices now against the Board? Mr. FRETER. No, sir; nor any member. I would like to state that I still have nothing but the greatest of admiration for most of the people in the Board whom I have contacted, especially here in the Washington office-Miss Frankfurter, Mrs. Stern, Mr. Levy over there, Mr. Glaser, the chief clerk. All of them I would like to count as friends of mine. Mr. MURDOCK. Are you through? Mr. ROUTZOHN. I am through. Mr. MURDOCK. I would like to ask a couple of questions. As I understand you, the partiality that existed down here at the National Labor Relations Board was very repulsive to you, was it not? Mr. FRETER. Not so much repulsive as I was amazed at it; I was surprised. Mr. MURDOCK. Rather shocked, were you not? Mr. FRETER. Let me explain this. Before I came to the Board I did not know the difference between craft unionism and industrial unionism. It had come up in our own Government union, our particular unit of it, and I was chosen as chairman of a mediation committee, and we asked three attorneys from the Labor Board to come in and mediate that dispute. Mr. MURDOCK. Was this before you became an employee? Mr. FRETER. Yes, sir; that was when I was with the General Accounting Office. One of those three, and the chairman of those three, I think, was Mr. Levy. But other than that I knew nothing whatever about the factional strife between the two. Mr. MURDOCK. I have gained the idea here in listening to you, that you maintain your ethics and your morals on a very high standard. Mr. FRETER. I try to. Mr. MURDOCK. And that this partiality that existed down among Board members and the personnel there was at least offensive to you. Mr. FRETER. Yes. Mr. MURDOCK. Then when you went out into the field as a field examiner and you found the conduct and the procedure of the regional office in Indianapolis such as you have related, I assume that that was also rather offensive to you. Mr. FRETER. Yes, sir. Mr. MURDOCK. And that when you were let out, these conditions still existed, did they not, of partiality to the C. I. O.? Mr. FRETER. But not quite as strongly as before, or else I myself was not aware of it. Mr. MURDOCK. The same procedure existed in the Indianapolis office when you went out? Mr. FRETER. Except that most of these things testified occurred in the early months of my emplo whether it was were still willing to accept employment with th MOR RELATIONS 7th the virness. Mr. 4r. Francis P. Fer ittee on Education Federn Mr. MURDOCK (interposing). But bad as the we American times trying to continue your employment, and and his restimony ap out, you applied for a job with the review section House hearings, pare And I would lik "L, 1002, 1062, andi I an I can do it perhaps by an analogy. I am very of of the American Government. However, I still feel that I can t the C. L. O. Mr. FRETER. That is correct. with the policies of the administration here country even though I don't agree with the p eng prejudiced ind House committees, "ROSOL 2802, 2863, and 28 Mr. TOLAND. I would like to read this lett und 125 February 16, 1938. The CHAIRMAN. That is from this witnesseetion with Mr. Toiand Mr. TOLAND. This is from his personnel fi und Honse Relations Board. It is from Lester M. Levher ones that you ney, eleventh region, to Thomas I. Emerson Most of the Examiners in the office spend most on to the fact that I ton I feel that he is an intelligent Examiner and carefay all of the hea and I am not very well acquainted with them or mony before the Senate consulted Mr. Cowdrill and from reading the case he recori. only complaint that this office has insofar as he Poris. O nsducei iumes 20 ind I will be rad o I have another communication, addre If Mr. Bridges is approved, I will appreci: Mandar morni salary to be offered him. Review Division of the Board in the near fu tion to that effect. If you have one or two I can choose to fill this probable vacancy, ` Initialed "RHC/em." The personnel file of Mr. Freter March 25, 1938, to Dorothy E. G "Subject-Theodore H. Freter." We have been advised by the Board t are to be terminated at the expiration of Will you please notify me promptly a Mr. Freter is entitled to so that we ca take effect? There is no further communic reason in this file as to why Mr. permanent. NAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT trough with the witness. Mr. C ut that Mr. Francis P. Fac es of the American Ferron ate Committee on Education n Labor, and his testimony are in the House hearings, ne 3,999, 1001, 1062, 1062, and n behalf of the Anera el of being prejudiced a favor of rae C. L. 0. ny? are? are and House or 2706, 2801, 28, 290, 24. and 1250 journ. Connection with I: 7 te and Honse further ones tilat I from Drivers Salesmen Union to Mr. r in which he had handled a rom the file that Mr. Davis was s trial examiner, and was recomr of Congress from New York. the chronology of the American 37, as I stated heretofore, the plant were filed by the S. W. O. C. of the he Board authorized the issuance of .937, the complaint issued. The hearminer Wenzel in Litchfield, Ill., from The intermediate report was February opher Hoey to Mr. Fahy, general coun"Report on cases in Region No. 14": office are ready for immediate hearing. Armour & Radiator, No. XIV-C-64; Solomon Mfg. Co., No. nitz received late today authorization from the aring in the Armour case on August 30. There 250 membership cards in the Armour case. The d for permission to put this case down for hearing Board has received the complaint in the American › has been sent requesting authority to issue notice for September 2. Mr. Davis can handle the Armour re of the American Radiator case. Mr. Davis is fully and can try either one. e letter has nothing to do with the case before us. of a letter taken from the files dated August 30, hy to Mr. Hoey (Exhibit No. 308) : e your memorandum of the 25th. It gives me just the kind ke to receive from the attorneys in the field. I am checking of these cases and will probably talk with you on the telephone e this note. of the letter to Mr. Fahy was the regional attorney enth region. evidence, Mr. Chairman, the documents just read. nmunication from Christopher Hoey to Charles Fahy gust 25, 1937, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit included in full in the appendix of this volume. The cation from Charles Fahy to Christopher Hoey dated 30, 1937, was received in evidence and marked "Exhibit TOLAND. I have a letter, Mr. Chairman, taken from the files, September 27, 1937, to David Shaw, from Robert B. Watts, iate general counsel (Exhibit 309): has come to my attention that in the course of trying the American diator case, considerable testimony was to be offered bearing upon the ivities of Jack Davis while in your region. While I do not wish to interre with your time during the trial of this case, I am very anxious that hen an opportnuity presents itself you should give me a fairly complete utline of just what has happened in that particular. I should also like to have your report on any matters which have come to your personal attention in connection with Davis' actions in your region, which would assist us in evaluating his usefulness to the Board. Sincerely, 218054-40—vol. 5- -7 (Signed) ROBERT B. WATTS. |