lack of appreciation and sympathetic understanding of the problem that is faced in the Regional Office. This criticism is not the criticism of individuals but is criticism of the administrative set-up.

We conclude that proper attention cannot be given to the administrative and supervisory problems that arise in the field by the Secretary's Office, when that office is at the same time handling the administration of the Washington office and the multitude of other matters that now clear through the Secretary's office. The continuation of our present method involves a continued danger of a recurring situation such as arose in the Los Angeles office. There must, in order for the Board to function effectively in the field, be a greater degree of understanding, cooperation between the Regional Offices and the Washington office. There must be administrative methods devised to convey to the Regional offices what the Board is thinking and considering concerning the problems that confront it. Essentially, the duties of the Secretary's office are threefold.

(1) The administration of the Washington office and the duties usually performed by the Secretary of an organization, the keeping of matters in regard to formal orders, attendance of Board meetings, and keeping the Board's agenda. (2) Personnel problems, applications, salaries, new appointments, training of staff, and complaints.

(3) Regional office supervision, requests for authorization, requests for review, direction of field work, decisions on policy matters, reference of matters to the Board for decision, and contacts with the day-to-day office work of the field staff. With the volume of business now being carried on by the Board, it is our opinion that this load is impossible for one person to handle. We, therefore, recommend: (1) That the duties of the secretary be confined to those usually covered by the title and enumerated above.

(2) That one individual shall be charged with the duties roughly covered by the designation Director of Personnel so far as the administrative staff of Washington and the field is concerned. His duties would cover those enumerated above.

(3) That a new Division to be known as a Regional Office Division be created. Such division should be in charge of a chief who would be responsible for the handling of administrative problems and the supervision of the work in the Regional Office. This post should be filled only by someone in whom the Board has implicit confidence who could act as the alter ego of the Board in deciding all matters not considered sufficiently important to warrant submission to the Board itself concerning the handling of cases in the field. He must be a person skilled in administrative work and trained in the field of labor relations. He should at all times have free access to Board meetings and Board Members and should be kept fully conversant with Board policy. He should be given all necessary assistance. In this connection, it is our belief that the Chief of the Regional Office Division should have in addition to the necessary stenographic and clerical assistance at least six assistants who would each be assigned particular regions and who would familiarize themselves completely with problems in the regions to which they had been assigned. It would be preferable to draw these assistants from the personnel at present in the field. The purpose of such assignment would be to bring about the closer coordination previously referred to. The duties of the Chief of the Regional Office Division would be as follows: (1) To authorize or deny requests for hearings subject to submission to the Board in his judgment of unusual or important cases.

(2) To advise the Regional Directors with the same reservation on any matters arising in their offices.

(3) To check the work of the Regional Office either through a system of periodic reports or periodic inspections and to install such methods as he deems appropriate for the efficient conduct of regional business.

(4) Subject to Board approval to make such transfers of staff or to discharge or hire such persons as he deems fit. In this respect the duties of the Director of Personnel would be solely that of recommending such changes as the director of Personnel might deem proper.

(5) To approve or disapprove settlements of cases subject to Board consideration of unusual or important cases.

(6) Generally to have charge of all Regional Office business and problems and the final authority except in unusual cases where he considers that Board approval should be obtained.

GEO. O. PRATT,
G. P. VAN ARKEL

218054-40-vol. 1- -9

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Toland, who made that report?

Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Pratt, the chief trial examiner, and Mr. Van Arkel, who is connected with the settlement division of the National Labor Relations Board.

Mr. HALLECK. They are connected with the Board, and was this investigation made at the instruction of the Board?

Mr. TOLAND. Yes; it was made largely, as the Doctor has testified, because he was not satisfied with the first investigation made by Krivonos and at a further discussion the Board directed Mr. Pratt and Mr. Van Arkel to go to Los Angeles and make another investigation.

Mr. TOLAND. Is that a correct statement, Doctor?

Dr. LEISERSON. Yes.

Mr. MURDOCK. I might say, too, Mr. Chairman, there was a very interesting recommendation with reference to the enormous tasks which had developed upon the secretary of the Board, and certain recommendations were made as to how that might be cleared up. And I think also there is a recommendation for the creation of some new division to relieve the secretary of what is referred to in the report as very enormous tasks. And my inference from the report was that they just couldn't expect one man to perform those tasks with efficiency. I don't know whether the chairman feels the same reaction about that, but to me it was rather interesting.

Mr. TOLAND. It can be read at some future time.

Mr. MURDOCK. I was not referring to a reading of it at this time. Mr. TOLAND. Let us go back to Dr. Leiserson and his file. Doctor, would you look at your file and locate the memorandum of August 17, 1939, in the Bendix Products Corporation case?

I am now going to take up the episode concerning the memorandum of Dr. Leiserson in regard to the appropriate unit.

Doctor, I show you what purports to be a photostatic copy and ask you if it is a true and correct copy thereof?

Dr. LEISERSON. Correct.

Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence the copy just identified by the witness.

(Memorandum, August 17, 1939, Leiserson to Madden and Emerson on Bendix Products Corporation, was received in evidence as read below and marked "Exhibit No. 53.")

Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Chairman, may I ask this question of Mr. Toland?

As I understand it, the entire report

Mr. TOLAND. Is in evidence.

Mr. MURDOCK. Of Mr. Pratt is in evidence?

Mr. TOLAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. HEALEY. It is part of the record?

Mr. TOLAND. It is in evidence and is part of the record, but it is not being spread on the record, but parts I have read will be spread on the record, and the rest of it will be an exhibit.

Mr. HEALEY. Just referred to?

Mr. TOLAND. Yes, sir; and it is a part of the record. I am reading from Exhibit 53 of the Committee, to Mr. Madden and Mr. Emerson from William M. Leiserson, August 17, 1939:

Bendix Products Corporation. R--1127, R-1128.

I cannot agree with this decision, first, because it orders an election for the policemen. The U. A. W. was certified by the Board as the true representative of these policemen in an appropriate unit in September 1937. The B. I. P. A. secured an injunction which in effect set aside our certification. The company refused to deal with the representative we certified because of this injunction. What reason have we to believe that the company will deal with the U. A. W. if it wins now in another election and is certified as the representative of the policemen? On the other hand, if the B. I. P. A. wins and the company does deal with them, then it violated the law in refusing to honor our first certificate and by that violation is given another certificate more to its liking. I do not think we ought to hold another election until our first certificate is honored. With respect to the pattern makers, we made a finding that a unit of all the production workers was appropriate when we issued the certificate in 1937. By ordering an election for the pattern makers now we are in effect saying that the Board was in error. If we were wrong in the previous case, we should frankly so state, and we should announce that the production workers who are left after excluding the pattern makers do not constitute an appropriate unit but that any craft group that are now included in that unit, such as machinists, electricians, metal polishers, etc., constitute separate units appropriate for collective bargaining. W. M. L.

Mr. TOLAND. Doctor, do you have anything further to say in explanation of your memorandum?

Dr. LEISERSON. No.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, let us see if we cannot run these through fast. Doctor, I show you a photostatic copy of this memorandum dated October 2, 1939, in the Bendix Products Corporation case. I show you what purports to be a photostatic copy of your memorandum, together with your dissenting opinion, and ask you if it is a true and correct copy?

Dr. LEISERSON. Yes.

Mr. TOLAND. I offer in evidence the photostat just identified by the witness.

(Memorandum October 2, 1939, Leiserson to Madden, Smith and Emerson, transmitting dissenting opinion in Bendix Products Corporation case, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 54," and is printed in the appendix of this volume.)

Mr. TOLAND. Doctor, I now show you what purports to be a photostatic copy of your memorandum of October 2 on the Milton Bradley Co. case. Attached thereto is a dissenting opinion by yourself. Dr. LEISERSON. That is right.

Mr. TOLAND. And I ask you if that is a true and correct copy ?
Dr. LEISERSON. Correct.

Mr. TOLAND. I offer in evidence the copy just identified by the witness.

(Memorandum October 2, 1939, Leiserson to Madden, Smith, and Emerson, attaching revised opinion in the Milton Bradley Company case, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 55," and is printed in the appendix of this volume.)

Mr. TOLAND. Doctor, I show you what purports to be a photostatic copy of a memorandum of August 7, 1939, in the Chicago Malleable Casting Co. case, and ask you if that is a true and correct copy? Dr. LEISERSON. Correct.

Mr. TOLAND. I offer it in evidence, Mr. Chairman.

(Memorandum August 7, 1939, Leiserson to Madden and Emerson on Chicago Malleable Casting Co., was received in evidence as read further below, and marked "Exhibit No. 56.")

Reading from Exhibit 54 of the Committee, to Mr. Madden, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Emerson, from Wm. M. Leiserson:

Bendix Products Corporation, R-1127, R-1128.

Attached hereto is a copy of my dissenting opinion in this case

and the initials, "W. M. L."

Mr. Chairman, if it is not necessary, I will dispense with the reading of the opinion.

Dr. LEISERSON. Those have been printed; they are out.

The CHAIRMAN. Has it been printed in the record at this point? Mr. TOLAND. No, it hasn't; this is an exhibit. I would like to have it printed, not spread on the record, but printed as an exhibit.

Mr. MURDOCK. Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt at this point, I am going to ask that immediately following the reading by Mr. Toland of what are styled "Major Conclusions," that the "Conclusions and Recommendations" of the Pratt report be printed in the record, without reading them at this time, and in order to save time.

Mr. TOLAND. That was what I wanted to read first, Mr. Chairman. Is it agreed that the dissenting opinion already printed with respect to Exhibit 54, may be printed as an exhibit, but not spread on the record?

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. TOLAND. I am now reading from Exhibit 55 of the Committee, to Mr. Madden, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Emerson, from William M. Leiserson, in the Milton Bradley Co. case, dated October 2, 1939:

Attached hereto is the revision of my opinion in this case.

Notice that the tentative draft prepared for Mr. Smith's signature is improperly captioned "Direction of Election."

Initialed "W. M. L."

And may I have the same ruling with respect to the dissenting opinion and the concurring opinion on the part of Dr. Leiserson? That is, to be printed as an exhibit, as the former exhibit?

Reading from Exhibit 56, this is a memorandum to Mr. Madden and to Mr. Emerson from Dr. Leiserson, August 7, 1939, the Chicago Malleable Castings Co. case, R-1297:

In order to break the deadlock I will participate in this case provided the facts in the record are followed and not the doctrinal dogmatics of the Globe decision. I have checked the record, and it clearly shows that the powerhouse employees bargained separately in 1934 and that the company was on notice (letter March 24, 1937), when it signed the exclusive contract with the S. W. O. C., that the S. W. O. C. had no authority to represent the engineers and the firemen.

These facts create a representation dispute for the power-plant employees. An election is therefore justified, in my opinion, but separate ballots should be taken of the engineers and of the firemen and oilers. If the two petitioning organizations win the election they are then free to combine the employees in the power department into a single unit by collective bargaining with the company.

(Signed) W. M. L.

Mr. TOLAND. Doctor, will you look at your file-the memorandum of October 21, 1939, in the case of Coos Bay Lumber Co.?

Dr. LEISERSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TOLAND. I am now taking up the episode of the run-off election, the dissenting opinion by Dr. Leiserson in a memorandum that will be introduced hereafter. Doctor, I show you what purports to be a photostatic copy of a memorandum you wrote on the 21st of October,

and ask you if this is a true and correct copy (showing a document to the witness)?

Dr. LEISERSON. Correct.

Mr. TOLAND. There is attached thereto your dissent?

Dr. LEISERSON. That is right.

Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence the papers just identified by the witness.

(Memorandum, October 21, 1939, Leiserson to Madden, Smith, and Emerson, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 57" and is printed in full in the appendix of this volume.)

Mr. TOLAND. Doctor, will you look at your file and find the memorandum of July 21 to Mr. Madden and Mr. Smith on the question of balloting? I show you what purports to be a photostatic reproduction and ask you if that is a true copy?

Dr. LEISERSON. Yes.

Mr. TOLAND. I offer in evidence the document just identified by the witness.

(Memorandum July 22, 1939, Leiserson to Madden and Smith, "Ballots," was received in evidence as read further below, and marked Exhibit No. 58.")

Mr. TOLAND. Doctor, I show you a memorandum dated October 4, 1939, in the case of Great Lakes Steel Corporation, and attached opinion of yours, and ask you if it is a true and correct copy (showing a document to the witness)?

Dr. LEISERSON. It is.

Mr. TOLAND. I offer in evidence, Mr. Chairman, the document just identified by the witness.

(Memorandum, October 4, 1939, Leiserson to Madden, Smith, and Emerson, "Great Lakes Steel Corporation," was received in evidence as read further below, and marked "Exhibit No. 59.")

Mr. TOLAND. Doctor, I show you a photostatic copy of a memorandum dated July 25, 1939, in the Aluminum Company of America case, and ask you if that is a true and correct copy (showing a document to the witness)?

Dr. LEISERSON. Correct.

Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence the photostatic copy just identified by the witness.

(Memorandum, July 25, 1939, Leiserson to Madden, Smith, and Emerson. "Aluminum Co. of America," was received in evidence as read further below, and marked "Exhibit No. 60.")

Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Fahy, will you arrange with the Board to have the file of the General Motors election case brought here?

Mr. FAHY. I am sorry, but I didn't hear you, Mr. Toland.

Mr. TOLAND. Will you arrange, please, for the file of the General Motors case, in which the General Motors filed petition for election, to be brought here?

Mr. FAHY. Yes.

Mr. TOLAND. Is there any chance of getting that now?

Mr. FAHY. There are a number of cases. I will send for them now. They are at the office in the Shoreham Building. It will take about half an hour, I guess.

Mr. TOLAND. I would like to have it before we finish with Dr. Leiserson, if I may.

The CHAIRMAN. I don't know whether the committee wants to sit that long tonight.