HEARINGS BEFORE THE STANFORD LIBRARY NOV 1940 с SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATENT DIV.. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SEVENTY-SIXTH CONGRESS THIRD SESSION PURSUANT TO H. Res. 258 (76th Congress) A RESOLUTION CREATING A SELECT COMMITTEE Volume 6 JANUARY 9-JANUARY 10, 1940 Printed for the use of the Special Committee to Investigate MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE HOWARD W. SMITH, Virginia, Chairman ABE MURDOCK, Utah CHARLES A. HALLECK, Indiana CONTENTS Testimony of 1. Boyls, Fannie M., Washington, D. C., review attorney, National Page 1289-1293 1258-1289 2. Fortas, Carolyn E. Agger (Mrs. Abe), Washington, D. C., review 1222-1258 5. Schlezinger, Mrs. Julius (Miss Anne Freeling), Arlington, Va., review attorney, National Labor Relations Board (resumed). 1177-1222 Appendix..__. 1295-1368 1177-1201 1201-1233 1235-1268 1268-1293 1177-1220 1227, 1240 1227, 1231 1227, 1237 1261-1276, 1283 1227, 1231-1232, 1237 1227-1231, 1236–1258 1221-1222 1227 1277-1283, 1287-1289 EXHIBITS NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 1940 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE The committee met at 10:20 a. m., pursuant to adjournment on Monday, January 8, 1940, in room 362 of the Old House Office Building, Representative Howard W. Smith, chairman, presiding. Present: Representatives Smith of Virginia, Arthur D. Healey of Massachusetts, Abe Murdock of Utah, Charles A. Halleck of Indiana, 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. TESTIMONY OF MRS. JULIUS SCHLEZINGER (MISS ANNE Mr. TOLAND. Miss Freeling, yesterday I asked you to compare with Mr. Sills the difference between the tentative draft, being Exhibit No. 338, and the final decision, Exhibit No. 339. I don't believe that we completed the comparison, and I am going to ask you to tell the committee what further changes, if any, appear between the two exhibits. Mr. Sills, will you go over these? The last one we talked about was the change from no lock-out to a lock-out. Miss FREELING. The draft of the decision reads as follows: Benedict, however, had been presented by the Association that afternoon with its claim to represent a majority of the employees, the presentation of their claim having obviously been arranged by the respondent and the Association to forestall the demands of the Union. Benedict told the Union committee that both the Union and the Association claimed to represent a majority, that he did not know which organization really represented the majority, and that there was nothing to bargain about in any event since the plant was closed and the respondent therefore had no employees at Litchfield. However, the respondent claims that the plant is closed only temporarily, and will reopen as soon as business conditions warrant. The men employed at the Litchfield plant can reasonably expect to return to work when the plant reopens. Moreover, the respondent continued to treat these men as employees. On June 23, 1937, the respondent sent letters to its employees stating that "If you have a Group Life Insurance Policy, our company has made arrangements so that it can be continued through the present lay-off, provided the monthly premium is paid by you on or before the 25th of each month." Accordingly, they have not lost their status as employees of the respondent, and therefore have a right |