I now take Exhibit 46, being the report of Pratt and Van Arkel on the investigation of the Los Angeles office, under the caption "Relations with Field Examiners," beginning with page 13.

The relations between an executive and subordinates are necessarily tied in with their views on the methods of accomplishing the work at hand and their judgment as to the end to be attained. Other portions of this report deal with the relations between Nylander and the examiners insofar as they grew out of a differing approach to the problems of particular cases and to the work of the Board as a whole. There remain, nevertheless, certain techniques in the handling of these relations apart from the factors mentioned; here we attempt to assess Nylander qua administrator.

The examiners had the following complaints to make about Nylander's administrative handling of the office work:

1. Perhaps the most serious charge is a lack of honesty in his dealings with people, including the examiners. Thus, his making contradictory statements to employees and unions concerning his intentions with regard to certain cases, among them Taylor Milling, Cal-Ray Baking, and Aetna Life Insurance. While the evidence in any of these cases is not conclusive, the relative frequency of such complaints raises some doubts as to Nylander's complete candor when diseussing matters with employer and union representatives. It is our feeling that on soine occasions Nylander did not honestly discuss his handling of cases with us but attempted to assign motives other than his real ones for certain actions; notably in connection with the Examiner and Lewis-Chambers Construction cases. Symptomatic, too, are the different and conflicting reasons he assigned for moving Yager out of his office and into another; his failure to transmit to the Board Holohan's request that the lettuce-shed elections be postponed, despite his statement that this had been done; his statement that Cunningham was first present at the time of that incident when all the other witnesses agree that he came in later; the serious doubts concerning the accuracy of his story with relations to the Arizona incident and the question of the truthfulness of his statement to Howard that he transmitted the request for a run-off election in the Los Angeles Nut House case to Washington, when in fact this had not been done. While in any one of these incidents, Nylander's version may be the correct one, in certain other instances it clearly is not. His readiness to make such statements may be careless rather than deliberate; in any event, the examiners' difficulties in trusting him on more serious matters is understandable.

2. Another cause for complaint from the examiners was Nylander's practice of short-circuiting" cases, a practice which consisted in holding conferences with union and company representatives without the examiner assigned to the case present. There is no doubt that this was a practice; Nylander himself admits that it occurred with some frequency, and admits his error. There is no need to detail instances; we do not feel that it is shown in any case that this was done deliberately in order to put through some questionable maneouver. In the atmosphere of distrust which existed, such a practice naturally aroused further the suspicions of the examiners. Both Walsh and Nylander state that the practice was the result of an anxiety to get the work out, or an oversight, in those instances where it happened; Nylander says that he made definite efforts to correct himself in this respect.

3. There were numerous incidents and courses of dealing which made the examiners feel like college students rather than adults carrying on responsiblework. One galling matter which led to Howard's first open outburst against Nylander occurred in the Spring of 1938, when Nylander told the examiners in an office meeting that he would recommend no one for increases who did not take some outside study courses. He made similar statements to Muir at the time of his arrival. With the exception of Brown, who took the courses, all of them refused, and Howard objected rather strenuously. Nylander says that the matter came up because there was no one in the office who could read a balance sheet: that the examiners had important jobs which they should fit themselves for: and that it was his idea that academic instruction was the best way to get it. The examiners felt that they had all had whatever academic background was

needed; that classes were expensive and they could not afford them; that they were busy many evenings on Board work and throughout the day on their office work and could not spare the time. Nylander felt that the examiners were not interested in reading about their work; he said that for some months he maintained a library of labor books and that only on rare occasions did the examiners make use of them. The examiners stated, on the other hand, that they felt keenly the need of some instruction in the legal background of the court decisions concerning the Board, and that when they asked that Nylander hold such sessions he dismissed them as "bull sessions."

Nylander was apparently fond of carrying classroom methods into the office work. At various times he made inspirational speeches to the examiners. An outline supplies the examiners for their guidance in conducting interviews and the use of questionnaires is appended, together with an article on "Emotionalism,” distributed to the oflice staff. While wholly suited to classroom instruction, they hardly indicate an understanding of the appropriate relationship between the Director and the examiners. The speeches amused rather than troubled the examiners, but did not serve to raise Nylander in their estimation.

4. One serious problem of which the examiners did not complain directly, but which caused resentment and has an importance wider than the issues in this particular survey, concerns the method of assigning examiners. It appears that at the request of Holohan, Howard was removed from Arizona and McKay sent in. For some time prior to Nylander's resignation it is clear that certain examiners were being assigned almost exclusively to A. F. L. cases and others almost exclusively to C. I. O. cases. There appears to have been no particular favoritism in this; either group was able to obtain the examiners it wished on its cases.

The evil of such a practice is self-evident; it means that in a short period of time the union business agents rather than the Director are running the office; and where, as here and almost anywhere, the labor movement is split, the inevitable result is to tag each examiner as favorable to one branch or another of the movement and to accentuate splits among the examiners, as it did here. Nevertheless the temptation to keep peace and win the friendship of union leaders through such a practice is strong; and while we have no knowledge as to the extent to which this is a problem in other regions, we suggest that the Board either send out instructions warning of the dangers inherent in the practice or make it a prominent part of the agenda for the next regional conference.

5. Nylander's personal attitude in dealing with the examiners also seems to have caused some difficulty. They, as well as Walsh, point out that at various times he unmercifully lashed out at the examiners for trivial faults, such as Howard's and Pomerance's failure to report their trip to San Diego to the office manager and then as promptly apologized. All of them complained of his manner of discussing cases with them and state that ordinarily the only matters discussed were personalities rather than issues or problems. They complained of his inaccessibility. breach.

All these matters contributed to the

6. The result of these matters was that Nylander apparently alienated every examiner who came into the office, with the exception of McKay and perhaps Brown, neither of them strong personalities. In varying degrees, the other examiners did not like him and found it difficult to work under him.

All this does not mean that Nylander did not have legitimate complaints against certain of the examiners. Whether deserved or not, it is clear that he did not receive the cooperation which the Regional Director is entitled to expect. The action of the examiners in withholding materials from the files can hardly be condemned too strongly. Frem about the middle of 1938 most of them. and, in particular, Howard, assumed to set their judgment against Nylander's on many occasions: in surprising number of instances Nylander accepted their judgment in place of his. Though Nylander did not appear to be aware of the depth of the resentment which the examiners felt, he must have been aware of their distrust to some extent. There are no specific instances of a refusal of any examiner to follow instructions, but abundant instances of reluctance to go along with him. Nylander attributed part of this trouble to the fact that he had made no effort to entertain the examiners socially, and said that his other engagements prevented such contacts. Unquestionably, the matter was not one to be cleared up by a few casual meetings; nevertheless, a more friendly interest in the examiners might have gone far to remove the causes of mistrust.

The relations of the examiners with Nylander have already been discussed to some extent. The manner in which the breach developed has the interest of a case history, and may point the way to the avoidance of future difficulty.

The first examiner on the scene was Howard, who was transferred from Seattle in March of 1937.

I would like to stop right here and read from Mr. Howard's personnel file. I am reading from a photostatic copy of a report dated October 30, 1936, addressed to Mr. J. Warren Madden, Mr. Edwin S. Smith. Mr. Donald Wakefield Smith, from Benedict Wolf, I suppose, on the subject of the Seattle office. I am not going to read the whole of this report.

I arrived at Seattle on October 7, and spent a week's time going over all the pending cases in the office. In many of the cases the Board obviously has no jurisdiction. At the same time, there is a good chance that Hope can settle them by making trips to the site of the dispute. Hope seems to have a knack for settling many cass which are "tough nuts."

Howard, according to Hope, is completely unable to settle cases. Hope sends him out to investigate them, in the first instance, and thereafter Hope finds it Levessary to take over the work on the cases himself.

As the Board knows. Hope is not at all pleased with the type of work Howard doe He criticised Howard's tendency to go out and investigate a case in its initial stages, advise the union how to perfect its organization, advise them to further communicate with Hope and ask for his personal intervention, and then return to Seattle without having bothered to interview the employer.

Hope states further that even where there is work to do around the office, Howard spends most of his time in the office reading books.

I had quite a long talk with Howard and he is very frank in his attitude that the Board's chief value is in actively helping labor organize, rather than just to protect their right to organize. He doesn't think the Board is doing enough for labor at the present time and believes hearings should be held even when the Bard obviously has no jurisdiction, if the holding of such hearings will help labor organization.

He was unwilling to see anything done about the Boilermakers' claim for representation in the Long View Fibre case, because he thought any such action on the part of the Board would hurt the C. I. O. and help the A. F. of L. Hope is constantly fearful that Howard's actions will finally give the regional fce a black eye and prejudice the employers and conservative unions to the extent of diminishing the usefulness of the office.

This report was by Benedict Wolf, the predecessor of Mr. Witt and formerly secretary of the Board, and it was addressed to all members of the Board, dated October 30, 1936.

I now read from the personnel file of the said Maurice W. Howard:

Mr. MAURICE W. HOWARD.

National Labor Relations Board, 19th Region,

APRIL 7, 1937.

Federal Office Building, Seattle, Wash.

DEAR MR. HOWARD: It has been represented to the Board that you have been rather closely identified with certain people and certain factions among organized labor; that you attend union meetings, etc. We think that the excellent work which you have done for the Board would not be adversely affected by your refraining from doing these things. We feel sure that you will understand why we think this is necessary.

With kind regards, I am,

Yours truly.

Initiated "Jwm: jeb," being the chairman of the National Labor Relations Board.

Subsequent to that, on the 21st day of April, 1937, Howard was transferred from the Seattle to the Los Angeles office at a salary of $2.600 per annum.

On the 21st day of April, 1937, Howard wrote from Los Angeles to the chairman:

MY DEAR MR. MADDEN: In the rush of Board activity, I have been unable until now to acknowledge your letter of April 7, which was forwarded to me here from Seattle.

For me, a former pedagogue who has heretofore been safely sheltered from life's evil ways, to become suddenly identified as a labor factionalist is something which I cannot avoid viewing with mixed emotions. It is so reminiscent of the chaste cleric who, thrilled at the accusation of being a roue, is ashamed to confess his innocence.

However, I have been for the last three weeks safely removed from tempta

tion.

I agree with you that my work need not include the doing of the things that I have been represented as doing. They will not be done.

With kindest regards to yourself and the Board, I am, with great respect, Faithfully yours,

MAURICE W. HOWARD.

On the 25th day of May, 1937, the following communication appears in the file, from Benedict Wolf to Mrs. Stern:

Subject: Maurice Howard.

The Board directed that Maurice Howard be made a Field Examiner, Grade CAF-9, $3,200.

Mr. HALLECK. Is that a promotion or a demotion?

Mr. TOLAND. A $600 increase.

On the 19th of August 1938-and I am reading from an order signed "Beatrice M. Stern":

United States of America, Before the National Labor Relations Board. Order Designating Acting Regional Director

By virtue of the authority vested in it by the National Labor Relations Act, approved July 5, 1935, and Article I, Section 4, of Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended the National Labor Relations Board hereby designates Maurice Howard as Acting Regional Director for the Twenty First Region, this designation to take effect August 22, 1938, and to remain in effect until September 3, 1938.

Dated Washington, D. C., August 19, 1938.
By direction of the Board:

BEATRICE M. STERN,
Assistant Secretary.

On the 19th day of August 1938, there appears a memorandum to Claude B. Calkin, chief of accounts and personnel records, from Dorothy E. Gordon, personnel record and time clerk:

Subject: Change in Status.

The Board has authorized the change in status of:

Name: Maurice W. Howard.

Position: Acting Regional Director.

Place of Employment: Los Angeles, Calif.

Date of Authorization: 8-19-38.

Effective Date: 8 22 38 to 9-3 38, inclusive.

Grade and salary: CAF 9, $3,500.

The following memorandum appears in the files dated September 7, 1939:

EXTRACT OF BOARD MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 1, 1939

The Board decided to dispense with the services of Maurice W. Howard Field Examiner, Twenty-first Region, for the good of the service; that he is to be given the opportunity to resign on thirty days' notice, plus his annua! leave.

On September 1 a copy of a letter from Mrs. Stern to Howard as follows appears in the file:

Mr. MAURICE W. HOWARD,

National Labor Relations Board, Twenty-first Region,

September 1, 1939.

808 United States Post Office and Court House, Los Angeles, Calif. DEAR Mr. HOWARD:

The Board today decided that for the good of the service your services must be terminated. The Board's usual procedure is to allow a 30-day notice under such circumstances, and to allow the accrued annual leave to be taken. The Board feels that you may prefer to resign than to be separated by its action. 1 regret very much having to be the bearer of such a message. I trust that you will inform me of your wishes as to resignation.

Sincerely yours,

Personal and Confidential. bins:rr.

BEATRICE M. STERN, Acting Secretary.

And the letter is marked "personal and confidential."

I am reading from a letter dated September 7, 1939, to J. Warren Madden, chairman, National Labor Relations Board from Howard:

DEAR MR. MADDEN:

On September 5 I received a letter from Beatrice M. Stern advising me that the Board on September 1 had decided that "for the good of the service your services must be terminated." No reason was offered in explanation of the Board's decision.

By next month I will have completed 5 years of service with the Board. During this period I have had every reason to believe my work was satisfactory. Dozens of union representatives, regardless of affiliation, have the highest confidence in me through my handling of their cases. As far as I know, no Lion has filed with the Board any valid criticism of either my work or my enduet.

If the Board has evidence that I have improperly performed my duties I request this evidence be presented to me and that I be given a chance to defend myself. I am keeping this matter confidential in line with Mrs. Stern's letter, but as a member of the Field Examiner's Union I will be obliged to present it to them unless I am presented with charges. I believe that my dismissal without charges or a chance to defend myself against those charges is a union matter. If I cannot answer the charges against me, you may rest assured that I will cheerfully resign.

May I have your immediate answer to this letter?

Sincerely yours,

EDWIN S. SMITH.

WILLIAM LEISERSON.

MAURICE W. HOWARD.

Now I am reading from a letter dated the 24th of August from Mr. Smith at Eastham, Mass., to Chairman Madden:

DEAR WARREN:

Briefly my ideas about Howard are these:

I am willing to believe that he is a zealot and that this quality, unless drastically curbed, could well result in making his work for the Board not what we would wish. However, I also believe that he is both intelligent and conscientious. My definite inclination would be to give him another chance in an office where we have confidence in the director or where he could be closely supervised from Washington. I would suggest Chicago, Philadelphia, or Baltimore.

He certainly has given devoted service to the Board under two different directors, whose own temperament and activities would be most likely to call out Howard's weaknesses. In an office more normally run, and with a good stiff lecture, I think he might still be made into an asset. I would definitely put him on a six months' probation in such a situation, and that is my recommendation. From what you say Spreckels should be O. K., and I hope he works out all right. Best to you and yours.