referring specifically to the General Electric Co., Bridgeport, Conn., R-1462, II-R-1245.

A summary of the case file is as follows:

April 6, 1939, from Danaher to Madden, quoting a letter from Sydney A. Johnson, attorney for the independent union:

"In January of this year there were approximately 3,000 workers eligible for voting and our union has slightly over 1,300 registered members of that 3,000. The U. E. R. and M. W. A. has, we believe, less than one-half of our number. In addition, we are positive that the remaining employees, not members of either union, are more in sympathy with the G. E. I. U. than with the U. E. R. and M. W. A. *

*

"In the plant it seems to be generally conceded by the workers that in the event of a vote for certification my union would unquestionably be the victor."

There is a memorandum or communication, on the 14th of July, 1939, from Mrs. Herrick to Chairman Madden, after defending scope of inquiry on the ground that the C. I. O. intended to seek larger unit:

As a matter of fact, the C. I. O. is now wavering and is not sure that it wants to contend for a company-wide union. But we still feel the full factual picture should be at hand for use if necessary at the hearings which are now scheduled for August 14.

When the Fort Wayne cases were transferred here and ordered reopened, I argued against the procedure with Mr. Witt, and urged that at least the hearings should be held locally even though the record might be consolidated. Mr. Witt, as I recall it, said that problem could be met by the trial examiner later.

Pink memorandum from Dr. Leiserson to the Board, Witt and Stern:

I think this is an attempt to enlarge the scope of the petition and such a procedure will bring the same errors that occurred in the Chrysler cases. Next, July 15, 1939, from Stern to Herrick:

The Board has reconsidered this matter and has directed you to withdraw the letters to Regional Directors in whose regions are other plants of the company and to international organizations which you believe might be interested in the issue of a national unit if it is raised by any of the parties at the hearing in the above captioned cases.

On July 24, 1939, from Herrick to Stern:

I am somewhat at a loss to understand precisely what procedure you contemplate in your memorandum to me of July 15, 1939, as to the matter of withdrawing the letters to the regional directors and to the international organizations. I am somewhat puzzled to understand what purpose it would serve to withdraw the letters written to the regional directors who have already answered us, giving us information we had requested. I am also at a loss to understand just what you mean withdrawing letters to the international organizations.

In view of the fact that I have submitted to you copies of letters sent the several parties involved, it would be helpful if you would please outline the form which you desire these withdrawal communications to take, and upon receipt thereof I shall see that such letters are sent to the parties suggested by you. We have sent twelve locals throughout the country other than those directly concerned in the petitions, notices that the hearing is to take place on August 14th. Will you kindly inform us what action you want taken with reference to these notices which have already been sent. It seems to me that it would serve no purpose to have these locals appear at the hearing if the issues are to be restricted to those raised by the petitions in the above-entitled cases.

I think your letter to Mr. Brown contained an unfortunate and unwarranted reflection upon the procedure followed by this office, as outlined above.

On August 17, 1939, Mrs. Herrick to Witt:

In accordance with your memo to me of August 14, 1939, the hearing in the above entitled consolidated proceeding was closely watched, and it was definitely

indicated therein that the W. R. M. A. does not desire to raise the question of a national employer unit.

The same Exhibit, No. 11 of the Committee, referred to the Times Publishing Company case, and I read from our summary:

Times Publishing Company, Detroit, Michigan, VII-C-149, VII-R-138 (not consolidated):

Petition filed April 1, 1938.

Complaint and notice of hearings April 13, 1938.

Hearing set for April 21, continued to 25, continued to May 2, and held on that date. Mapes Davidson, Trial Examiner.

Intermediate report June 27, 1938.

Exception filed and request for oral argument requested July 2 and 13.
Notice of hearing July 14, 1938, to be held on July 26, 1938.

Motion to receive further evidence made by respondent on July 20, 1938; denied July 21.

Record ordered reopened for purpose of receiving further evidence, February 8 1939. Newspaper Guild filed motion to vacate this order on February 27, 1939; denied by the Board on March 3, 1939.

Board revokes order to reopen record on July 11, 1939.

Decision and order, July 18, 1939. The respondent was not found to have committed any unfair labor practices, and the complaint was dismissed.

The informal file contains a memorandum from Harold Cranefield to Nathan Witt of April 3, 1939, in which Cranefield severely criticizes the Board for its action in reopening the record. He criticizes the Board for sending out a memorandum to Bowen, stating what further evidence was desired.

Memorandum from Emerson to Fahy, Watts, Witt, and Pratt, of July 13, 1989, concerned with the record; says satisfactory except for "undue, though perhaps unavoidable, use of hearsay.' Also stated trial examiner made frequent comments during trial in expressing his opinion as to the weight of evidence. In Exhibit 5 Dr. Leiserson referred to the Universal Pictures Co., Inc. The summary discloses:

Universal Pictures Company, Inc., Universal City, California, XXI-C-886, C-1055.

Charge filed September 27, 1938, alleging violations of 8 (1) and 8 (5). Order consolidating and transferring proceedings to National Labor Relations Board. November 23, 1938.

Original complaint was issued February 21, 1939, under the signature of Madden, Smith, and Smith.

Amended complaint docketed August 1, 1939.

The informal files disclosed the following material:

Telegram from Batten to Pratt, dated March 29, 1939, indicating that respondent and Guild agreed on all points except duration of contract; that respondent had compromised from ten to seven years, but that the Guild stood a four and a half years; that Batten would continue the attempt to effect a compromise.

Batten, incidentally, Mr. Chairman, is the trial examiner of the Board.

Telegram from Batten to Pratt, dated April 14, 1939, indicating agreement between Guild and producers on the 7-year proviso. Telegram from Halliday to Alpert, Board employee, dated April 19, 1939, stating understanding that agreement had been negotiated, recalling Alpert to Washington.

Telegram from Brackett to Witt, dated April 20, 1939, urging that Alpert be allowed to remain on coast, else the Guild would lose only leverage it then had.

Copy of news release dated May 2, 1939, concerning Guild's refusal of the producers' terms. Letter from Janofsky, S. W. G. attorney, to Alpert, dated May 6, 1939, admitted the 8 (5) case was weak, but indicated hope that the contract between the producers and the Screen Playwrights might be knocked out under 8 (1) if hearings could be reconvened.

112

Letter from Janofsky to Batten dated May 2, 1939, recognizing that the Guild no longer has an 8 (5) case but expressing a desire to go forward wit a the 8 (1) charge.

Letter from Motion Picture Producers' Committee to Nylander, dated May 9. 1939, in which the writer stated facts to support the position that the producers had bargained in a bona fide manner with the S. W. G. Outline of negotiations enclosed with the letter.

Letter from Janofsky to the Board, dated May 19, 1939, consisting of 15 pages, requesting reopening of the case, alleging disintegration of the Guild would result from failure of the Board to reopen the case.

Telegram from Brackett to Witt, dated August 1, 1939, saying a great advantage will be lost if the hearing is delayed; further delay will diminish respect for the Board.

Telegram from Stern to Pratt, dated August 1, 1939:

"Board has decided best not to approach Brown here. Depend on you settle and send us good news soon."

to

Letter from Joseph Padway, General Counsel, American Federation of Labor, to Madden, consisting of two pages, dated July 2, 1939, saying that there is no basis for any representative of the Board threatening employers with criminal prosecution if they entered into a closed-shop agreement with the I. A. T. S. E. Copy of letter from Stern to Padway, dated August 2, 1939, stating that the threat referred to above had been made by Katz, counsel for the United Studio Technicians' Guild.

A telegram from Brackett. Screen Writers' Guild, to the Board, dated August 18, 1939, urging that the hearing be allowed to proceed without interruption ; if case as commenced is pushed forward with the same vigor, capitulation of the producers is imminent.

Copy of memorandum from Wilson to Halliday, dated August 19, 1939, stating that in a conversation with Walsh and Fitzpatrick, trial examiner of the Board, there had been agreement that it was urgent that the case proceed “inasmuch as our only chance of reaching a settlement is to continue our present tactics." Comment was made on excellent manner of Fitzpatrick's handling of respondent's attorneys and there was an expression of the undesirability of switching trial examiners.

Letter from Wilson to Halliday, dated August 26, 1939, alleging that he, Wilson, had not attempted to dictate the terms of negotiations, but indicating that he had demanded that the producers recognize the Screen Writers' Guild as the bargaining agency; Wilson being the Board's attorney.

I now refer to the Committee's Exhibit No. 13, that being a memorandum by Dr. Leiserson, of August 19, 1939, referring to the HazelAtlas Glass Co. case. Our summary discloses the following:

The caption of the case is "Hazel-Atlas Glass Co., Clarksburg, W. Va., VI-C

Individual filed charges on April 26, 1938, charging 8 (1) and (3) violations, discharge of 14 employees for union activity. Charges amended May 18, 1938, to add 36 more employees, members of both C. I. O. and A. F. of L. unions. Amended further on February 27, 1939, and it was charged that the company hnd forced employees into an A. F. of L. union and entered into a closed-shop contract

No action taken until September 27. Complaint authorized July 19, 1938. 1939, when another authorization for issuance of complaint was made by the Bord No further entries to show that any complaint was actually issued. Material in the informal file, there being no formal file that we could locate:

Memorandum from Douds to the regional director at Pittsburgh, dated May ? 138 set out all the circumstances of the case and recommended issuance of

complaint. From Douds' memorandum it appears that there was a fairly strong hasis for the charges. Return memo from Witt dictated by "FGK," dated June 3. 1938, sought further information concerning the charges before authorizing the complaint.

Reply from Douds, dated June 16, 1938, answered questions contained in memo of June 3, and enclosed copies of letters from company to A. F. of L. naion and A. F. of L. union to Williams of the sixth region. In union letter to Williams, dated June 13, 1938, it was stated that no men had beeen dismissed for union activity as, if that were so, action would have been taken by the national union. Douds, however, thought there had been discrimination for union activity.

The file contains a memorandum from Douds to Witt, dated July 7, 1938, setting out the results of attempts to use the grievance machinery of the union, unsuccessfully, and that Douds did not rely on the A. F. or L. union's president and Lis statements in his letter of June 13.

Letter from Ralph Lind, regional director of the National Labor Relations Board at Cleveland, now a management representative, to Douds, dated July 6, 1978, set out terms and method of settling disputes. This me hod is in the Hazel-Atlas agreement. Suggested employees utilize it. Memorandum from Witt to Douds dated July 19, 1938, authorizing the issuance of the complaint.

Memorandum from Stern to Douds, dated September 14, 1938, referred to memo of Douds of September 9, 1938, in which Douds asked advice about grantng the union's request that he submit letter asking that grievances be handled by procedure set up by the agreement. Stern said no. Reply from Douds, on September 16, stated that the desire of the Board that nothing in writing be submitted will be strictly observed."

There was nothing in the file between the 16th day of September and the 23d day of December.

Memo from Weisz, of the Economics Division, to Saposs, dated March 3, 1939, Set out data on efficiency of discharged men. It was his conclusion that the efficiency of the group laid off was no higher than that of the group retained, but there were individual records showing men laid off more efficient than some retained or later recalled. Used pay-roll figures as employees paid on piecework basis.

Long memo from Douds, to Witt, dated March 11, 1939, setting out in detail the circumstances of the case. Requested advice whether region authorized to proceed to a hearing.

Memo from Stern, dictated by "F G K", to Douds, dated May 16, 1939, reviewed Douds' memo of March 11.

Memo from Krivonos to Stern. dated May 16, 1939, reviewed case again. Attached to the two memos was pink memo from "F. G. K." to "B. M. S.," dated May 16. in which it was stated: "Recommend: You or I might telephone Douds and discuss memo before sending it out. Issues are stated in both memos."

Another pink memo from "B. M. S." to Krivonos, dated May 17, asks, "Will you talk to Douds? Thanks. Good memo." Reply from "F. G. K." to "B. M. S.," dated May 18, stated: "Please sign and send memo to Douds. I talked to Douds today and explained. He will reply to memo when Kleeb returns to office."

Memo from Douds to Stern, dated May 24, 1939, related to alleged statements by Lind that Board could be "bought out."

Long memo from Douds to Stern, dated May 24, 1939, answered question asked by Stern in memo of May 16. Douds thinks that A. F. of L. contract should be made an issue, even though Board does not want it. Also, reference made that Board should have been consulted before accepting amended charge of February 27, 1939, raising issue of validity of A. F. of L. contract.

Memo from Krivonos to Stern, dated May 26, 1939, stated that Doud's memo of May 24 had squarely raised the issue of whether the Board should reconsider its authorization and allow the contract to be made an issue.

A long memorandum from Douds to Stern, dated June 24, 1939, set out statements of union representative concerning attempts to use grievance machinery of the union and employees. Not successful.

Memo from Witt to Madden, dated August 16, 1939, related to Witt's recommendation that authorization be given Douds to put the A. F. of L. contract in issue. This is the memo referred to in the letter from Leiserson to Madden, dated August 19, 1939.

Memo from Stern, dated August 26, 1939, stated:

"The Board directed that Douds advise charging party that unless he can make a clear showing to the Regional Director that the handling of the men's claims under the union contract was completely inimical to the interests of the complainants at the Association conference, the Board will not proceed with the case.”

Memo from Stern to Douds, dated September 8, 1939, set this out. Makes reference to a memo of Douds of June 24, where it was indicated that the evidence submitted at the conference was incomplete. Some inquiries made concerning this. Answer from Douds, dated September 9, 1939, stated union representative did not do a competent job of presentation to the conference.

Memo from Witt to Douds, dated September 28, 1939, stated that Board authorized issuance of complaint on September 27. This entry being the last one of any particular substance in the files.

I now refer to Committee Exhibit 18, a memorandum from Dr. Leiserson to Chairman Madden, dated August 18, 1939, concerning the Block & Co. case. I read from our analysis of the file. The caption of the case is "Block & Co., Inc., New York, N. Y., II-R1416."

Petition filed by C. I. O. Union (U. M. W.) on July 27, 1939, for certification as bargaining representative for all employees.

Order directing investigation and hearing, August 11, 1939.

Hearing set for August 28, 1939; postponed to be continued upon three days' notice, August 24, 1939.

Board noticed that request for permission to withdraw petition by union would be granted on August 29, 1933, unless sufficient cause to contrary shown; issued August 22, 1939.

Order of Board permitting withdrawal by union of petition and closing of the case, August 31, 1939.

The analysis made by my staff of the material in the informal file. discloses the following:

Memorandum from Herrick to Witt, dated July 29, 1937, sets out the field examiner's report. From the report it appears that the C. I. O. union had almost 100 percent of employees signed up, in spite of a closed-shop contract an A. F. of L. union had with the company that was to expire July 27, 1939. Herrick recommended investigation and hearing. On page 1 of the report it was stated:

"The Board has previously authorized hearing and investigation for Park Drug Co., case No. II-R-1360, with which Block & Co. is affiliated. Request is therefore also made for order of consolidation."

Memorandum from Witt to Emerson, dated August 11, 1939, stated that he was rot adopting the regional director's consolidation recommendation as the affiliation of the company with Park Drug Co. was the basis of the recommendation, and no other question was similar, and the Park Drug Co. case would be held up.

Memorandum from Witt to Herrick, dated August 11, 1939, repeated in substance what Witt had written to Emerson, above, and asked for any further thoughts of Herrick on the matter.