"Edwin" being Edwin S. Smith, of the Board.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Toland, you made reference there to some complaint he was going to file through a union. Was there any complaint. case ever filed against the National Labor Relations Board by a union on this matter?

Mr. TOLAND. My recollection is, and I wouldn't state this positively until I have had an opportunity to check it further, that I think the matter was taken up through the union. I think a delegation of the union conferred with the Board about his dismissal. They have three unions at the Board, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. What happens when the Board doesn't happen to agree with the union in a matter such as this?

Mr. TOLAND. Well, we will bring that out in the course of our investigation.

On September 16, 1939, a letter to Mr. Maurice W. Howard, National Labor Relations Board, Twenty-first Region, 808 United States Post Office and Courthouse Building, Los Angeles:

DEAR HOWARD: I have your letter of September 7 and am sorry to be late in replying to it. I have been more than ordinarily swamped with current work. We regret very much the decision which we have found to be necessary with regard to your affairs. We fully realize the diligent efforts which you have expended in the Board's work. We think, however, that your very zeal and earnestness have tended to prevent you from doing your work properly.

It is the function of a Field Examiner of the Board, as a public officer, to take a calm and dispassionate attitude toward the interests which the Act and the Board's work touches, doing his part to enforce the law and leaving it to the event to determine whether that means more unions or less unions, or more or less success for any particular union. It is his further duty, as a part of an organization, to do his work within the boundaries of that organization. That means that he should not disclose the information or supposed information which comes to him as a member of the organization to outside interested people, for the purpose or with the effect of impairing the effectiveness of other members of the organization. It means that he should not maintain an undue intimacy with persons representing one interest in relation to the Board's work, thereby making other interests suspicious as to whether he is or can be impartial and objective in his work. It means that he should not be unduly and unjustifiably suspicions of other persons in the organization, assigning improper motives to their conduct, in some cases without reason. It most certainly means that he should not carry on official work outside the rules of the organization, withholding from the official files papers and information which belongs to the Board.

Some indication of tendencies toward improper conduct on your part was disclosed while you were still at Seattle, and I wrote you on April 7, 1937, about it. It seems to the Board that your conduct has fallen short of what we must expect from our Field Examiners in the respects that I have indicated above. As the senior member of the Field Examiner Staff in Los Angeles, you could have done much to maintain the dignity of the Board's work. On the contrary, we think your influence upon your junior associates was unfortunate, and that the Board's work suffered seriously.

We hope that you may find some useful work that is to your liking, and that you may prosper in it.

Sincerely yours,

Mr. HALLECK. Who is that from?

Mr. TOLAND. It is from J. Warren Madden, chairman of the Board. I continue to read from the Los Angeles report.

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Toland, may I interrupt? Is the Howard about whom you have just been reading the same person referred to in the report?

Mr. TOLAND. Yes, sir; and I am coming back to that report now.

Mr. HALLECK. And these matters that you have just read, are they all parts of the records carried in the files of the National Labor Relations Board?

Mr. TOLAND. Yes, sir; the official files.

(Resuming reading from Los Angeles report :)

The first examiner on the scene was Howard, who was transferred from Seattle in March of 1937. He came originally as a trial examiner and remained finally as a field examiner. It perhaps has some significance that Howard during this period sounded out Seward, who was then Regional Attorney, as to Nylander's conduct of the office and asked if he were playing both ends against the middle. Seward replied that he was not; the incident is noteworthy chiefly as showing Howard's oversuspicious attitude, since at that time nothing questionable had happened. This conversation occurred before July 1937, when Seward resigned. In January 1938, Meecham was transferred to the Atlanta office, and in February Oliver was transferred to Fort Worth. Both of them left with certain questions concerning the operation of the office, which are fully set forth in their statements attached hereto.

The beginning of the breach dates from the arrival of Pomerance in April of 1:38. Shortly before this time the Guild had learned of what they characterized as a double-cross on the Examiner case, and it was about this time that the C. I. O. began organizing in Los Angeles in earnest, particularly in the furniture industry. During the preceding month Witt had visited the office and had taken up some of the C. I. O. complaints.

The first overt act taken by the examiners to indicate their dissatisfaction with conditions was the sending of the letter from Howard and Pomerance on May 18. 1928. We have found nothing to connect this letter with the letter of May 21, Res, from Robertson, which is discussed elsewhere. The letter is addressed to Mr. Witt at his home address and requests a reply to Howard's home address, a not unusual request under the circumstances in which the letter was written. It makes no specific charges and confines itself to stating generally that "things have been steadily growing worse."

Pomerance had been in the office only about six weeks at the time this communication was sent; it seems clear that he must have obtained the bulk of the facts on which his suspicion was based from Howard or from union representatives; we infer that it was the former. Witt replied to this letter at Howard's home and informed them that Gates was coming out and the examiners could lave confidence in him. Shortly before this time Muir had arrived at Los Angeles, bat had not yet, so far as appears, any complaints to make concerning the handling of office matters.

Some days before this communication was sent in, the “Arizona incident" of May 8, 1938, had happened. Although Howard discussed this matter with Gates, it was not done in detail, and Gates' memorandum indicates that Howard told him that he had not actually been on the party. The attention of the Board was next directed to the incident by the garbled account contained in the Hull letter many months later. Incidentally, the field examiner referred to in the Hull letter is Muir. Muir said that Howard had not told him of the incident but that he had learned it from his wife, who had previously learned of it from Mrs. Howard.

Gates did arrive in June and heard their complaints and talked with certain union representatives. The examiners thereafter assumed that some definite action would be taken, but none was. Gates at the time suspected leaks in the ffice. about which no warning was given the examiners. No results of the investigation were communicated to any of the parties concerned. Here, again, is illustrated the difficulty of examining charges such as those that had been made through what purported to be a "routine" check-up. Gates was forced to behave as though there were no charges and no investigation being made; it seems that Nylander assumed that Gates was there on the job he said he was. The examiners, on the other hand, knew, through Witt's communication, that Gates' mission was broader. As a result there was no opportunity to get Nylander's account of the charges, and no chance to report to the examiners the resnits of the investigation. Had Gates' report been submitted to the examiners, it would have shown them that many of their suspicious were unfounded; left in the dark, they expected some immediate and drastic action.

Muir came into the group about the same time; he states that he had had similar difficulties with his cases and that he had discussed them with Gates.

I am going to skip some of this now.

It appears that the group became fully organized about this time. All the examiners were members of the Examiners' Union, though McKay resigned in early 1939 in protest against being posted for nonpayment of dues, when they, in fact, had been paid. Howard had heard in Washington that Krivonos was coming out, and it was their understanding that this would occur sometime before Christmas. Davies arrived in early November 1938 and was assigned to the Aetna case; his troubles with that case arose in early December. Davies and the examiners state that there was no effort made to get him into the group at the time of his arrival, but that dissatisfaction with the handling of the Aetna case brought him into the group. There is no evidence that any pressure was put on Davies to alienate him from Nylander, and this alone seems strong evidence that the examiners, in their efforts to straighten out matters in the office, were motivated by what they felt to be mishandling of cases rather than any personal or political interests.

His political leanings

Speaking of Howard

seems to have led him to prefer working with organizers of the left wing or near it. In Los Angeles these included Scotty Orr of the U. A. W., Ray of the U. C. A. P. A. W. A., Epstein of the Cracker Workers, and others; in Arizona, Cunningham of the U. C. A. P. A. W. A., Williams of the Meatcutters, and others. It is not our impression that these preferences affected the quality of his work or led him to neglect or slow up A. F. of L. cases or cases filed by the right-wing C. I. O. There is no evidence that he is now or has been a member of the Communist Party or a fellow traveller. He has, however, formed friendships among the left-wing organizers and has befriended them in various ways. For example, the U. C. A. P. A. W. A. is always short of money and when Cunningham comes to Los Angeles it is generally by hitch-hiking. Howard has taken Cunningham into his home on some of these occasions. On other occasions he has made statements or adopted a position so that Ken Hunter of the S. W. O. C., who is friendly to Howard, feels quite sure that Howard is very far to the left. Hunter remarked that Howard would quote the "People's Press" as authority for his statements.

Melnikow named Howard as one of the examiners

I will skip that. There is so much of this that I am not going to read any more, except the conclusion. I would like to reserve the right, Judge, from time to time to refer to this report that is spread upon the record, the parts I want to read. There was a great discussion this morning about the conclusions, which are six pages long, as against the letter I read this morning, which was two pages long. And so that the record may have the conclusions, I shall read six more pages.

Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Chairman, may I ask this question of Mr. Toland? I have a copy of the report here, and the major conclusions, coming under paragraph 3, are very short.

Mr. TOLAND. I understand you to mean the conclusions of the report. They are six pages, being "Conclusions and Recommendations." Mr. MURDOCK. They are "Conclusions and Recommendations." But I am referring to the forepart of the report, under paragraph 3, under the heading "Major Conclusions."

Mr. TOLAND. Well, if that is less, I will be glad to read that:

III. MAJOR CONCLUSIONS

In view of the complex nature of the inquiry and the necessary length of this report, it seems wise to state in brief the major conclusions that were reached, the basis for which is found in the body of the report. Recommendations will be made at the end of the report.

(1) No evidence is found which would connect anyone employed by the Board with a plot, plan, or conspiracy to cause the resignation or the removal from office of Nylander.

(2) Nylander's administrative work was unsatisfactory in many particulars, no one of which, however, would have constituted cause for removal and most of which could have been corrected if appropriate action had been taken when first known or discovered.

(3) The relationship between the Secretary's office and Nylander suffered because of lack of adequate supervisory technique and a failure on the part of Nylander to keep the Board fully advised. The lack of confidence on the part of the Secretary's office was engendered by reports received as early as March, 1938, which was the cause of still greater misunderstanding and consequent faulty handling.

(a) The routine investigations made by Krivonos and Gates do not afford a satisfactory medium for the investigation of particular complaints against staff members. The failure of Krivonos and Gates to discuss the charges made by the field examiners and the unions against Nylander with Nylander himself was a serious error.

(b) The investigation conducted by Krivonos was one-sided and failed to take into consideration factors that might be favorable to Nylander. As a result, his report was inevitably unfair.

(c) The treatment given to field examiners' complaints by the Secretary's office was an inappropriate method of handling the management problem involved.

Is that sufficient, Judge?

Mr. MURDOCK. I think you can complete it with one more paragraph there.

Mr. TOLAND (reading):

(4) Due both to inexperience and to lack of confidence in Nylander, the field examiners undertook to carry out their work independently of Nylander's direction and supervision. Certain of the field examiners were indiscreet in talking about Board matters outside the Board.

(At the later request of Congressman Murdock, an excerpt from Exhibit 46 is inserted at this point, as follows:)

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

(1) It is concluded that Nylander has been unjustly accused of certain conduct of which he was not guilty, and that he did nothing, deliberately, to sabotage the work of the Board, or to favor one group of labor organizations over another. On the other hand, our investigation convinces us that his handling of the office was such as to prevent its functioning efficiently and that by temperament and personality he is unsuited to hold the position. In view of the conditions for reinstatement which he laid down: The right to make such speeches as he wished on the subject of labor relations and the dismissal from the Los Angeles office of all of the field examiners except McKay, it is recommended that no offer to restore him be tendered.

(2) It is concluded that the examiners have been unjustly accused of certain conduct of which they were not guilty, but that five field examiners undertook to operate independently and refused to cooperate with Nylander. It is further concluded that they were not parties in a plot with outside groups to have Nylander removed, and that they have not in their work favored one group of labor organizers over the other. On the other hand, we feel that they have been guilty of serious breeches of discipline and that by indiscreet action they have merited the loss of confidence in them that is felt by certain labor representatives.

With respect to Howard, it is felt that his zeal for his conviction and an overly suspicious nature led him to set himself up as opposition to Nylander without any adequate evidence that Nylander was disloyal to the Board. The task of any Director who succeeds Nylander in the office will be impossible with Howard there as the center of the group of examiners. While Howard might function properly in another Regional Office under a strong Director with adequate and close supervision, it is felt that the Board should not assume such further responsibility and it is therefore recommended that he be dismissed. If not dismissed, he should be strongly reprimanded for his part in the affair and made to understand not only his subordinate position to the

Regional Director but the necessity of loyalty to his superior and he should be transferred to a region on the East Coast on probationary status.

With respect to the other examiners. it will manifestly be difficult to carry on the work of the office if they are all discharged or transferred. On the other hand, it would be desirable as a matter of public relations to make a clean sweep of the office by transferring all of the remaining examiners to other offices and staffing the Los Angeles office with a new group of examiners.

In view of all the circumstances, it is believed that the interest of the Board would best be served by the latter course. It must be recognized, however, that the implications of such action would be unjust as far as some of the examiners who are now there are concerned. If it is determined not to make a clean sweep. it is felt that it would be best to transfer Muir and Davies. In any event, all of the examiners, with the exception of McKay, should be reprimanded for their part in the affairs. It is our feeling that the reprimand

should cover the following points:

(a) Failure to insert materials in the files.

(b) Talking about intra office matters with persons outside the office, including union representatives.

(c) Close social and other contacts with labor leaders.

(d) An overly suspicious attitude toward others in the office.

(e) Failure to cooperate with the Director of the Office.

(3) It is our feeling that copies of this report should be made available to the examiners concerned and to the Regional Director to succeed Nylander.

(4) With respect to handling of this and other similar problems by the Washington Office we have the following conclusions and recommendations:

(a) We conclude that the so-called routine investigations conducted by Gates and Krivonos are not suitable for and should not be combined with an investigation of charges concerning Board personnel since without a full disclosure of the purpose of such investigation, and without authority to go into all sides of the question such investigations must necessarily be biased.

In the particular instance of Gates' investigation of this office, he arrived at a fairly accurate result by the exercise of considerable shrewdness. Krivonos' investigation since he approached the Los Angeles Office as a result of the various rumors and stories with an almost closed mind, and then heard only one side of the story, led him to conclusions which the facts did not justify. Recommendations based on such conclusions arrived at without having heard the entire story are clearly unfair.

We recommend that in the future all charges made against any person on the Board's staff, whether made by other members of the Board's staff or persons outside the Board, should be required to be made in writing before being considered in any way. The entire supervisory personnel should as far as possible disregard cral complaints of the conduct of Board personnel. When proper routine complaints are received they should be brought to the attention of the Board and transmitted without delay to the person complained of who should be required to furnish a written reply or explanation. If this is satisfactory the matter should be dropped. If unresolved questions remain the complainant and the persons complained against should confront each other before the Board or some Board Agent or an investigation should immediately be made by someone in whom the Board has confidence. It is our feeling that the Board should not discourage the filing of such complaints by Board personnel if made in good faith and reasonable manner. It is not felt that the right to make such complaints would be abused but if it is the Board should determine in that particular case whether disciplinary action should be taken against the one who filed such charges without adequate cause or in bad faith. If the charges are found to be substantiated disciplinary action should be taken immediately. The situation existing in the Los Angeles Office where for a period of nearly a year the field examiners had lost confidence in and the Washington Office distrusted the judgment, and in certain respects the motive of the Regional Director should not be permitted to recur.

(b) From what has been said it will be evident that part of the difficulty lies in the administrative supervision given the Regional Office by the Secretary's office. The volume of work has increased so tremendously that proper attention carnot be paid to the progress reports on the warious cases from the field, nor can sufficient attention be paid to requests for advice and help on problems arising in the field. When suggestions are made correcting the handling of enses in the feld, very often the suggestions are based upon insufficient information and a