Page images

«ffers to the polling place. If that had been done, it would have given Ring an Pyrus to claim that he had been interfered with and, as a result, his union's chait of winning the election prejudiced. The Board's agents adopted this attitude because of the publicly expressed intention of Ring to invalidate the pletion if possible, and also because of a belief that the petitioning union should Dot suffer by reason of Ring's conduct.

True to the predictions of Ring, on Monday, February 20th, Mr. Ring, together with other C. I. O, representatives, Attorney Anderson and Attorney Margolis, of the girm of Gladstein, Grossman, and Margolis, came to the office to protest the election. They were advised to file their protest in writing and that many of the points which they raised would have to be made subsequent to the Onting of the ballots. Briefly stated, they made the following points:

1. Voting lists were incorrect in listing ineligible voters and in omitting the D:Wes of some C. 1.0. eligible voters. This is being checked.

2. The eligibility lists were improperly prepared, so that some individuals tot nire than once under the same name and Social Security number; some [Iasite than once under the same name, but different Social Security numbers; and some more than once under different names. For "reasons of union policy," iles stated they may refuse to give these names. However, a check of the paya Ls revealed that only one case had been found of an individual voting twice kift the same name and Social Security number, and only four cases with the

me ne and different Social Security number. There were many individuals €2 played in the cameries who evidently had more than one Social Security Dinher, and in some instances different individuals had the same name. These erruns were no more than inight be expected under such circumstances. 1,877 it were (ast in the election.

3. The C. I. O. also claimed that various foremen had been transporting voters to the pollins place; and that one foreman, a Japanese, bad attempted to show Futers how to mark the ballots. None of these matter's was called to the attention of any of the Board's agents during the election, although Ring claims that To they what was going on. The C. I. (). representatives, in addition, signed the t'rrtificates of ('oniuct of election and at the meeting on February 20th, Jan Pitierson, one of these representatives, said that he dieln't know what - was signing. He was unquestionably lying, as he is a man of considerable ibi!icence.

1. Further claim was made of various acts of assistance to the A. F. of L. au discrimination against ('. I. (). members by the companies during the electi... Tre are a waiting more specific charges along this line. So far, no proof bis en presented.

Finally, oral charges were made against the Board's representatives conditing the election of having said various things allegedly detrimental to the potitioniuk union or favorable to the A. F. of L. The charges related generally

butters in no wise connected with the election. The motive seemed to be that they wished to indicate an A. F. of L. bias on the part of the Board's offi

s ponducting the election. These charges were made by Ring and were Categoriíally denied by the Board representatives. It is our belief that these Garip are based on distortions of fact.

Tiseltrition is extremely important to both C. I. O. and A, F. of L., and the pitioning union, we believe unwisely, has resorted to very questionable tactics to present the election resulting in an A. F. of L. victory. There may have buzny apny assistance to the A. F. of L. previous to the petition filed by the (10). This matter was not investigatel, as the union refused to file a charge, insistin' upon an early election insteail of a hearing on a charge, which would A jelay. We believe that anything occurring before the petition for an inition was filed should not now be used to invalidate the election.

We are anxious to have an expression of opinion from the Board at the farliest possible moment to guide our future actions in this case.

A. M. R. Mr. TOLAND. Now, Doctor, if you will look at the one dated Septreiber 18. I show you a photostatic reproduction and ask you if that is a true and correct copy! (Showing a document to the witΤΙ-ες)

Dr. LEISERSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TeLiND. I offer in evidence the exhibit just identified by the withless.

(Report, Sept. 18, 1939, from Rosseter to Witt on F. E. Booth & ('o., was received in evidence, marked “Exhibit No. 52" and follow's.)


[Interoffice communication, National Labor Relations Board)

To Mr. Nathan Witt, Secretary, September 18, 1939.
From: Alice M. Rosseter, Regional Director, 20th Region.
Subject: F. E. Booth & Company, Cases R-1181 thru R-1191.

Your wire of September 15 asks whether the allegations in my memorandum of February 27, 1939, with respect to the conduct of the C. I. 0. in the election, have been substantiated. Investigation leads us to conclude that such allegations are not substantiated.

It is felt that the background to my memorandum of February 27 is necessary to a proper understanding of it. After the election was held the petitioning union met with me on February 20, 1939, and presented orally certain objections to the election. Its representatives stated that since their objectious raised what seemed to be substantial issues as to misconduct by Board agents and since the Board was under such severe attack they wished to raise the objections informally at first and confer with us concerning them before making charges that would become public record. Jennings and Knowlton, the two men from this office who had handled the election, were called into the meeting and a long-and at times heated-discussion was hall of all issues raised by the petitioners. Jennings and Knowlton flatly denied the charges made and in turn claimed the motivation for such charges was that set fortli in my memorandum of February 27. The petitioner was advised to file written charges for our consideration and investigation. Following the conference of February 20, and on the advice of Jennings and Knowlton, the memorandum of February 27, 1939, was prepared. For the most part the memorandum was crafted by them and signed by me upon their recommendation.

l'pon the filing of written charges --in a letter date: February 27, 1939, and received by us on February 28, 1939--it was decided on the advice of the Regional Attorney to hold an informal hearing before me on the charges, affording the petitioner an opportunity to bring forward whatever evidence it had in support of the charges, and permitting Board agents directly concerned to cross examine. In addition, Jennings and Knowlton were called upon to testify or bring other evidence to meet the charges made. The transcript so obtained consists of over 150 pages with many exhibits. In addition, an independent field investigation was made which proved long and fairly unproductive since the workers had by that time left Monterey to seek other seasonal work else. where.

Following the aforementioned hearing the petitioner file, pursuant to an extension of time granted within the five-day period following service of the Intermediate Report, formal objections, The draft of Report on Objections now before you is based on the formal Objections and an analysis of the transcript adduced at the hearing together with results of the independent field investigation.

It is felt that the supporting memorandum analyzing the available evidence discusses in detail many of the issues raised in the February 27 memoramiun. There follow, however, brief comments on the salient points in the February 27 memorandum concerning the conduct of the C. I. O, union anıl its representatives.

1. It is stated at page one of the February 27 memorandum as foilows:

"We believe this situation has arisen partially because of a belated discovery by the petitioning mion that its effort to organize the Monterey camnery workers was msuccessful: partially because of the fact that the Board, in its decision, did not rule 'strike-breakers' ineligible (although these votes were segregated): and partially because of a dispute between various representatives of the petitioning union as to the wisdom of going through with the election. It is our firm belief that the eligibility lists were as accurate as possible and that whatever errors might have been made, could not have ailected the results of the election."

Again it is stated at page three:

".1.- subsequent evilence and statements proved, Ring of the petitioning union had made up his mind that his union would not cooperate in the election, but

would place every obstacle in the way of the Board's agents and would do frerything possible to provide a basis for invalidating the elections."

It is felt that these conclusions are not warranted by the facts. The foreging quotation from page one, in light of our investigation, seems to be no Dre ihan suspicion and self-serving. At no time prior to the counting of the bariots could we obtain an admission, on or off the record, that the C. I. 0. leadership felt it would lose; it did concede that it would not carry all eleven (rajanies. The issue mentioned in the same quotation relating to strikebreakers was settled in advance of the election by the device of segregating those who started working after November 20, 1939, which was agreed to by the CI. 0. leadership from Bridges down to Ring. Whether there was a dispute wiihin the C. I. 0. leadership as to the advisability of going through with the els tion has never been made clear. Certain of the C. I. 0. representatives from Munteres bave expressed dissatisfaction with the advice of their counsel in eing through an election without first remedying what seems to be flagrant and long-continued unfair labor practices; as previously indicated to you and Mr. Watts (in confidential reports on members of the staff) the recommendaDicas of Knowlton and Jennings to me which disregarded the violations of the Art were extremely ill-advised. Such a course of action, it is believed, is fundamentally the case of our present difficulties.

Ring has denied the motivation attributed to him in the second quotation and has stated that neither he nor any representative of the C. I. 0. union nor the C. I. 0. organization as such determined to obstruct the election in any way oop for any reason. Further, no proof has been submitted, other than the stateDients attributed to Ring which are discussed below, to substantiate such charges.

In justice to Ring and the C. I. 0. it should be pointed out that their protests in every instance (i. e., inclusion of "strikebreakers" method of preparing eligibility lists and errors found in eligibility lists) were timely and contain no indication of being afterthoughts.

2. The memorandum of February 27, 1939, contains statements at page four paypeerning Ring's statements with respect to having the election thrown out bucause of the erroneous eligibility lists and at page five details as to allegedly dsorderly conduct by Ring. Investigation shows that the polling place was in an extreme condition of disorder during the first day of the elections and that les severe argument and tension obtained during the remaining two days. It **ms clear that during these disorders extravagant statements were indulged in bs all parties-including Board representatives. The testimony of Board ti presentatives at the hearing indicates that much of this consisted of argututs in which both unions participated. In brief, the type of conduct alleged at pages 4 and 5 of the February 27 memorandum describes a general condition at the election in which both unions participated freely and for the continuation of which Board agents are subject to severe criticism; regardless of its causes this condition should have been stopped immediately even if closing the polls *pe necessary.

The issue, then, seems to be what lay at the bottom of this condition. There can be do doubt that the basic cause of the trouble was the errors in the eligitility lists. This matter is analyzed separately in tables attached to the memorandum analyzing the evidence in detail. When the confusion and protests became so strong corrections were made by the Board agents on the first day of bri!!(ting. Such corrections indicated over thirty errors in the lists as originally marle up. Subsequent investigation discloses 227 additional errors.

Whether or not these errors would have affected the numerical results of the veting, it cannot be gainsaid that their existence reasonably caused doubt, protret, and contention concerning the reliability of the Board's machinery. This ere would prejudice a fair election. The reluctance of the Board agents to acknowledge the errors and seek to remedy them, together with the bitterness of an interunion struggle and an obvious clash of personalities among the varions representatives and Board agents, doubtless aggravated the situation to a pwint where a fair election was virtually destroyed.

It should be added that the errors in the eligibility lists seem, after investiLation, to be mainly the fault of the companies. Their conduct resulted in erroneous employment records being submitted to the Board agents and in such delar in the submission thereof as to accord the latter insufficient time to make op accurate eligibility lists. Such seems inexcusable in light of the fact that the information needed by the Board agents was already in readily available form on social-security records maintained by each company.

That it was deliberate is indicated by statements of Company representatives to Knowlton, when the latter went to Monterey after the Board's Direction of Election to obtain necessary pay-roll data, that the election was unnecessary anci they were reluctant to give the information. On the other hand it seems clear that Knowlton realized the inadequacies of the pay-roll data and the probability of error in his eligibility lists. Notwithstanding this, he neither obtained added information to check his lists nor more time in which to do so.

The details of Ring's conduct listed at page five of the February 27 memorandum relate, as investigation later developed, mainly to the heated arguments and general confusion of the first day--precipitated as stated above by substantial eriors in the eligibility lists. When cross examined by Jennings at the hearing Ring denied making these statements. When Jennings testified at the hearing he made no mention of them and was not asked about them under cross examination. As to the statements numbered 1, 2, 3, and 7, even if they were made we have no evidence that the acts described were committed. There is evidence, however, that the C. I. 0. representatives were unnecessarily (urtailed in their challenging as well as being deprived of lists of people whom they wished to check up on.

3. The statements as to C. I. 0. electioneering, made in the first paragraph on page 6 of the February 27 memorandum, are misleading and incomplete. It is true that C. I. O. representatives passed out leaflets at the entrance of the polling piace. When directed to leave they did so and resumed their activities at permissible distance from the polling place. The evilence shows that similar activities were engiged in by supervisory employees at the polling place and by a threatening moh of A. F. L. members in front of the polling place without any audequate measures being taken by Board agents and without response by the former to efforts by Board agents to have the practices stopped.

The February 27 memorandum lists generally the charges made by the petitioner which prompted the February 27 communication. The extent to which they have substance is indicated by our detailed memorandum enclosed herewith.

A. M. R. Enc. Mr. TOLAND. I am ready to recess now, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. We will take a recess until 2: 15 this afternoon.

(Thereupon, at 12: 5.5 p. m., a recess was taken until 2:15 p. m. of the same day.)


[ocr errors]

(The recess having expired, the committee reconvened, all members being present, at 2:15 p. m.)

Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Chairman, just before recess I introduced and made a part of the record, and asked to be spread on the record, the reports to show the difference in the reports of the regional director of San Francisco, in the case of F. E. Booth & Co.

Now, referring to the Committee's Exhibits + and 5, heretofore introduced in evidence, being the memorandum of Dr. Leiserson of July 4, and a memorandum of Dr. Leiserson of July 26, I ask leave to rezeel the following statement, which is an outline prepared by my

taff from the Board file of what transpired in this case, namely, Todd-sohnson Drydockx, Inc., Algiers, La., XV-R-166; R-751:

Petition filed by I. ('. M. S. W. A. (C. I. O.) on March 14, 188, for certification as the bargaining agent among all except clerical and supervisory employees. Company at the time was bargaining by a contract with A. F. of L. union entered im January 27, 1938, recognized as representing a majority as a result of a pay-roll check by the National Labor Relations Board on September 16, 1937.

Petition dismissed by order of the Board on April 5, 1938. Order dismissing petition revoked by Board order of April 16, 1338. Order directing investigation and hearing, April 16, 1938. Notice of hearing, April 23, 19%S.

Hearing ordered for May 2, 1938; postponed to Mity 5, 1938. Henry J. Kent, Trial Examiner. 866 pages of record. Informal report, May 21, 1938, recom

mended that an election be held. Case transferred to Board May 26, 1938. Further bearing scheduled for January 19, 1939, postponed to January 24, 1939 ; then to February 6, 1939. 167 pages of record. William R. Ringer, Trial Examiner at second hearing. No informal report appears in file. Third hearing veuled for October 12, 1939, postponed to October 23, 1939. Horace A. Ruckel, Trial Examiner at third hearing. 24 additional pages in record. Board granted A. F. af L. union until December 5, 1939, to file reply brief.

Oral argument, June 2, 1938.

Baarl decision and order to reopen hearings for additional evidence, Decemtr 141935. Decision stated that at time of pay-roll check A. F. of L. union stated that there were no other organizations involved. At the hearings the ertence showed the C. I. 0. union had only two or three members at the time the jel-roll check was made. Nevertheless, the Board ordered a further hearing on the qtiestion of proper unit, and so forth, as it did not feel bound by the certification of over a year previous to the decision, not the petition. Chairman Madden (7 beurred in the decision, although he thought the order directing investigation and hearing "improvidently made."

Lard order of September 1, 1939, ordered a second reopening of case for further bearing. Material contained in informal files.

mo from Logan, Regional Director, New Orleans, dated April 1, 1938, sets not the circumstances and recommended no action because A. F. of L. union rearly in majority at time of pay-roll check by Board in September 1937, and (I. O. nion had obtained most of its inembers in March 1939.

Pink memo, “AGK” to “BMS,” dated April 4, set out salient points of Logan's Hmo. Stated: “Lugan's report---arrangement terminable on seven day's Iwt147, and of no fixed duration.” Recommended investigation and hearing. Luard dismissed petition on April 5, 1939.

Nemo from Stern to Logan, dated April 6, 1939, enclosed order of dismissal 10 then stated: “Will you please advise the industrial union that the dismissal is without prejudice to the refiling in time to be designated as the collectivebargaining agency for the next year."

Teel sellow sheet, insigned, maddressed, and undated, stated that A. F. uf Lunion at time of pay-roll check had only 200 or 300 members. Said further thi.t c'. I. 0. in great majority since March 1:38. Copy attached. Next item in the file is telegram from Witt to Logan, dated April 16, 1938, stated the Board liad reconsidered the case, revoked order of dismissal, and directed investigation an hearilig.

Transcript of telephone conversation between Madden and Calvin, of the IF. Of L. On page 4 of transcript of conversation, Madden said: "I am not explaining to you how that happened (referring to the revoking of dismissal of putitioni- the fact of the matter is that the decision of the 5th overlooked some birrmation that we had but had not seen or properly noticed."

no from Witt to Logan, April 18, 1938, gave reason for Board's revocation of dismissal of petition as the termination feature of the contract (seven days' Dariai. Reference should be made that Stern knew of this through the pink tumo from A. G. K. to Stern on April 1.

Telegrams from Logan and A. F. of L. uvion indicated! A. F. of L. called strike and closed up company in protest against the Board's “strange behavior.”: Strike started on April 20 and ended on May 12.

smo from Logan to Witt, dated May 14, 1938, set out sequence of events. Start at end that testimony of Harris (C. I. 0.) at hearings concerning his inability to get information from regional office was “deliberate falsehood."

Memorandum from Donald Wakefield Smith to Emerson and Ragland, daten Tuinber 9, 1938, set out suggested changes in decision. Wanted to make basis the 4. F. of L. union's request for reopening.

Memorandum from Emerson to E. S. Smith, dated August 5, 1939, stated that L-ixrson had definitely decided not to participate in the case. Suggested dismissal of case without prejudice to filing of subsequent petitions.

Mr. TOLAND. I would like to state for the record that the memoranda of Dr. Leiserson and Mr. Madden, referred to earlier and introduced as exhibits, were not located in the case files but came into I session of the committee from Dr. Leiserson's files.

I now refer to Committee Exhibit No. 11, being a memorandum of Dr. Leiserson's of August 7, 1939, on the method of handling cases,

218054-40-vol. 1-8

« PreviousContinue »