Reading now from Exhibit No. 377, bearing the letterhead of the American Federation of Labor Organization Committee, New Orleans, La., dated October 22, 1938:

Copy to Charles H. Logan, Regional Director, Hibernia Bank Building, New Orleans.

Mr. WARREN G. MADDEN,

Chairman, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SIR: Permit me to again call your attention to the fact that the case of the Godchaux Sugars, Inc., has been pending for more than one year now and is apparently suffering the usual indifference on the part of your board to cases involving the American Federation of Labor.

May I respectfully call your attention to the fact that more than seventy-five of our organization, all dues-paying members, have been discharged for union activity and hundreds more are subject to the most rigorous discipline and coercion on the part of agents and thugs of the Godchaux Sugars, Inc. Conditions have become so intolerable at the Reserve, La., plant of this company that it is with difficulty that we have been able to keep our members from striking. Permit me to state that myself and millions of other workers hailed the pas sage of the National Labor Relations Act as an emancipation for our people. But, on the contrary, we find absolute indifference on the part of the board in cases where our members are involved and find that the board apparently takes no action until practically all of our leaders are discharged and the union, in many instances, broken up because of this indifference.

On the other hand, we find the board ordering investigations, hearings, and elections in cases where we have signed closed-shop contracts with a hundred percent dues-paying membership merely on the petition (without any form of evidence) by the communistically controlled C. I. O. This attitude has forced us to deviate from our organization program and cost us thousands of dollars as evidenced by the recent longshore election in New Orleans, forced down our throat in spite of the fact that we have had closed-shop contracts covering all of these men for more than five years.

I could go on and on citing similar instances, but as there is no one more cognizant of this fact than your board, it is useless for me to tell you something. that you already know. We are again faced with the situation at the Godchaux Sugars, Inc., and the Todd-Johnson Dry Dock, which will leave us no alternative than to strike these places in order that our members may be protected, not only against the employers but against the National Labor Relations Board itself.

The action of your board in the Todd-Johnson Dry Dock situation has forced our members to work without a renewal of their contract since last September. We have no recourse other than the economic strength of our organization as a result of either incompetence of your board or a deliberate attempt by the board to destroy our organization.

It is painful for us to come to this conclusion, but our past experiences force us to the conclusion that we not only have to fight unscrupulous, chiseling employers but the National Labor Relations Board itself. Trusting that I have made myself plain and that you will immediately let me know of your position in this matter so that we may be governed accordingly, I am,

Yours truly,

LEO B. CARTER,

Organizer, American Federation of Labor, 321 Chartres Street. The CHAIRMAN. Is there a reply to that letter?

Mr. TOLAND. I show you, Mrs. Fortas, a copy of a letter dated December 15, 1938, to Charles H. Logan, signed "Nathan Witt" and ask you if you prepared that, or if you recall seeing the original or a copy of it?

Mrs. FORTAS. I prepared that letter.

Mr. TOLAND. I offer this in evidence.

(Communication from Nathan Witt to Charles H. Logan, dated: December 15, 1938, was received in evidence and marked "Exhibit. No. 378.")

Mr. TOLAND. I have the reply to the letter of Mr. Leo B. Carter just read by Mr. Shaughnessy, dated the 25th day of October, 1938 (Exhibit 379):

Re: Godchaux Sugars, Inc., Case Nos. C-499, R-613.

Mr. LEO B. CARTER,

Organizer, American Federation of Labor,

321 Chartres Street, New Orleans, La.

DEAR SIR: The Chairman has referred to me your letter of October 22 regarding the above noted cases.

We regret to have to advise those who inquire about the status of cases before the Board that it is not possible to say when a Decision will be issued. We assure you, however, that the Board is doing everything possible to expedite matters and that it appreciates the necessity for the most prompt action possible in the matters which it handles.

Very truly yours,

ESTELLE S. FRANKFURTER,
Administrative Assistant.

I offer the copy that I just read in evidence.

(Copy of communication from Estelle S. Frankfurter to Leo B. Carter, dated October 25, 1938, was received in evidence and marked "Exhibit No. 379.")

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. This is a copy of a letter dated December 15, 1938, to Mr. Charles H. Logan, regional director (Exhibit 378):

Re: Matter of Godchaux Sugars, Inc., and Sugar Mill Workers' Union, Locals No. 21177 and No. 21188, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. Case No. C-499.

DEAR MR. LOGAN: You are advised that an Order Overruling Ruling of the Trial Examiner has been issued in the above-entitled proceeding. The Order restores to the record certain sections and subsections of the respondent's answer, and exhibits attached to the answer, which were stricken therefrom by the Trial Examiner, to wit: All of Sections 2 and 3 of said answer and all references to said sections contained in the said answer; the first paragraph in Section 5; all of subsection A of Section 6, all of subsection A of Section 7, and those portions of subsection B of Sections 6 and 7 which refer to Sections 2 and 3 of said answer; the first paragraph of subsection A of Section 9, all references to Sections 2 and 3 contained in Section 9, and all of Section 11 of said answer, together with Exhibits "A," "B," "C," "D," "E.” “F," "G," “H,” “I‚” “J," "K," "L," "M," and "N," attached to and incorporated in said

answer.

The Board requests that you file with and in behalf of the Board within twenty (20) days from the receipt hereof, a written reply to the portions of the respondent's answer listed herein, which have been restored to the record; to serve copies of such reply upon the following parties: Emile Godchaux, Esquire, Godchaux Sugars, Inc., Reserve, Louisiana; Eugene D. Saunders and William West, Jr.. Esquires, Maritime Building, New Orleans, Louisiana; C. H. Levet, Esquire, Lions, Louisiana; Sugar Mills Workers Union, Locals No. 21177 and No. 21188, Reserve, Louisiana; and that you make proof of such service to the Board.

Very truly yours,

This is initialed "CA/mep/mp."

NATHAN WITT, Secretary.

Mr. TOLAND. I show you what purports to be a photostatic copy of the pink memorandum from you, Mrs. Fortas, to Mr. Allan Rosenberg and ask you if that is a true and correct reproduction?

Mrs. FORTAS. That is right.

Mr. TOLAND. I offer it in evidence.

(The photostat of memorandum to Mr. Allan Rosenberg from C. Agger, dated December 10, 1938, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 380," and is included in the appendix of this volume.)

Mr. TOLAND. Now, Mrs. Fortas, after the case was assigned to you, I believe you stated you made a summary of the evidence and that you reported it orally to the Board. Is that correct?

Mrs. FORTAS. NO; I didn't; but I took up with my supervisor at first the problem presented by the action of the trial examiner in striking from the record these portions of the answer, and I also took that matter up with the Board thereafter. There was at that time no extended, at least, discussion of the evidence in the case. I had read it, but I was not prepared to discuss it in detail at that time.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, thereafter did you appear before the Board at any time and outline to the Board your summary of the evidence in this particular case?

Mrs. FORTAS. Certain portions of it were outlined to the Board. The portion dealing with the alleged interference by the respondent of the consent election was gone into with the Board. There was some discussion also as to persons who had been discharged. We did not go into the evidence with regard to the alleged domination of the so-called company union.

Mr. TOLAND. Did you go into that with the Board at any time? Mrs. FORTAS. At no time did I ever tell them the details of that evidence.

Mr. TOLAND. Would you tell the committee why?

Mrs. FORTAS. The reason was that the Board decided that it would not consider any evidence relating to incidents which occurred prior to the date of the consent election. This evidence relating to the alleged domination of an independent labor organization all related to events which took place prior to that date and, therefore, the Board did not even consider it.

Mr. TOLAND. Did there come a time in the course of your duties in this case that you prepared or caused to be prepared a tentative decision?

Mrs. FORTAS. Yes.

Mr. TOLAND. Do you have any recollection as to what the proposed decision in this case contained?

Mrs. FORTAS. Well, I prepared several different things prior to seeing the Board. I, at one time, wrote out a sort of tentative draft for my own information and to sort of summarize the evidence before me and also for future use in event the Board decided the case in one way. Then after I had seen the Board with regard to this matter of the answer, I wrote another decision based upon their views expressed at several conferences we had. There was one in particular with reference to the answer and subsequently we took up what the effect of the Board's action in reinstating would have in the evidence presented, and thereafter I prepared another draft.

Mr. TOLAND. Have you any recollection as to whether the Board at any time instructed you to prepare a decision finding the respondent guilty of violations of section 8 (1), (2), (3), or (5)?

Mrs. FORTAS. No; the Board never so instructed me.

Mr. TOLAND. Will you tell the committee what conclusions the Board reached as a result of your presentation and what instructions they gave you as to what decision, if any, you should prepare?

Mrs. FORTAS. The Board came to the conclusion that there should be a finding that there had been no interference with the election, the

consent election; that there should be a statement to the effect that the Board would abide by the representations made by its agents to the respondent. My recollection also is that the Board instructed me to dismiss all of the cases involving the alleged discriminatory discharge.

Mr. TOLAND. Didn't you at one time prepare a proposed decision in this case ordering an election?

Mrs. FORTAS. I may have in this preliminary draft which I wrote out before I ever saw the Board; I may have done that. I don't recall.

Mr. TOLAND. Well, now, to refresh your recollection, I show you the decision and order, original draft sent to the pool February 25, 1939, and I ask you if that refreshes your recollection?

Mrs. FORTAS. Yes; you are right. I had forgotten.

Mr. TOLAND. So that at the direction of the Board, at one time you did on the 25th day of February, 1939, recommend that an election be ordered in this particular case?

Mrs. FORTAS. That seems to be true. I cannot recall this as clearly as I would like to.

Mr. TOLAND. Well, take your time and look at it.

Mrs. FORTAS. Well, I think this is as much as I can say, that it is clear that I did draft a direction of election which was attached to a draft opinion, and I cannot recall the Board directing me to do that, although I should think that was the result of their directions.

Mr. TOLAND. Well, would you do it on your own?

Mrs. FORTAS. I might, in this respect, that I often drew up drafts more or less for my own use and had them typed before the Board made a complete decision on any particular points, and it is possible that that is what had happened here. I am not at all sure.

Mr. TOLAND. Well, isn't it a fact that on this date, the 25th day of February, 1939, the Board had reached its decision, and as a result of that decision you prepared this, which was the original draft, to be sent to the pool, of the final decision and order of the Board? Mrs. FORTAS. This is one of them. There were several drafts in this case. This is the original one, apparently; yes.

Mr. TOLAND. I would like to offer this in evidence.

(The original draft sent to the pool February 25, 1939, was marked "Exhibit No. 381" and is included in the appendix of this volume.) Mr. HEALEY. Mr. Toland, before you put the next question, may we have from the witness the explanation of the word "pool" as used? Mr. TOLAND. Oh, yes. Will you state for the record what the pool is.

Mrs. FORTAS. The pool is the stenographic pool, and anything to be done is sent to the pool.

Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Toland, if I might interrupt you, do I understand at one stage of the proceedings, or at this point, there was some direction of the Board indicating a finding in behalf of the union in this case?

Mr. TOLAND. There was a direction of election, an order of the Board that an election be held between the independent union and the American Federation of Labor union.

Mr. HALLECK. Was that based upon the fact that the independent union which participated in the election that had been held was claimed to have been company dominated?

Mr. TOLAND. There had been that charge in connection with the case, and the trial examiner, at the consolidated hearing, in his intermediate report, found that the company was guilty of violation of sections 8 (1), 8 (2), and 8 (3), and section 2 (6) and (7) and recommended a general cease and desist order, disestablishment of the Employees' Labor Council, posting of notices, offering reinstatement to former employees with back pay.

Mr. HALLECK. Was that Lacy that made that finding?

Mr. TOLAND. Lacy heard the case and made that report.

Now I show you, while Mr. Shaughnessy is looking for the intermediate report, a decision of the Labor Board dated April 29, in the consolidated cases of Godchaux Sugar Mills and ask you if you prepared the written decision?

Mrs. FORTAS. Yes; I prepared a number of drafts. This is one of them.

Mr. TOLAND. Would you look at it and see if there is anything contained therein that orders an election to be held between the independent union and the American Federation of Labor Union? Mrs. FORTAS. There is not.

Mr. HEALEY. What is the name of this case?

Mr. TOLAND. Godchaux Sugars, Inc.

I offer in evidence the decision just identified by the witness and ask that it be marked as an exhibit.

(Decision of the Labor Board, dated April 29, 1939, in the consolidated cases of Godchaux Sugars, Inc., were received in evidence, was marked "Exhibit No. 382," and is included in the appendix of this volume.)

Mr. TOLAND. Now, will you tell the committee, Mrs. Fortas, between the 25th day of February, 1939, and the 29th day of April, 1939, if you had any conference with the Board or with any employee of the Board, and if so, what was the nature of the conference, and if you were ordered to strike out the order of direction of election, and, if you were told, why and what the purpose was?

Mrs. FORTAS. With regard to that matter of the election, a number of conferences were held. I held one with my supervisor, one with my supervisor and Mr. Emerson, and I believe Mr. Hawes was present on one occasion, and a discussion was held with the Board at least on one occasion. It is my present recollection that either Mr. Emerson or Mr. Morris also took the matter up with the members of the Board on some occasion I wasn't there, and the Board directed, I think, through them, not me directly, that no election order be issued at this time.

Mr. TOLAND. Did anyone tell you that any particular person was interested in this particular case between February of 1939 and April of 1939?

Mrs. FORTAS. Was there at that time an investigation?

Mr. TOLAND. No; I beg your pardon.

Mrs. FORTAS. That doesn't help me.

Mr. TOLAND. I say between February 1939 and April of 1939, did the Board or any employee of the Board ever state to you any individual was interested in the decision of this case?

Mrs. FORTAS. I don't recall it now. I remember Senator Ellender made an inquiry concerning it on one occasion, but whether it was