The CHAIRMAN. Now, then, do I understand from this sentence in your memorandum that on this occasion, or possibly on some others, you had found some discrepancies between the oral report of the facts and the facts as finally written up for the record?

Dr. LEISERSON. I don't think that was it. You see, I opened it by saying, "I do not recall agreeing to any such decision as this."

You see, we have a meeting together, the three of us. The review attorneys come in and tell us the details. The Board considers them and then instructs them what to find and what to write out. And then afterwards the draft they make is circulated to the three members of the Board and we go over it very carefully and we write memoranda to each other, that we think this isn't quite our idea, or that we think that isn't quite our idea. And then, if there are any differences, we meet again to go over and iron those things out.

Now, here there was a proposed majority decision, because apparently there were some differences; there was a proposed majority decision and a proposed minority decision here, or not a decision, a direction of election, or something like that, and I didn't recall having agreed to that decision, the proposed majority decision, that it should be written in that way. It may well be that I hadn't even attended the meeting. I can't recall that now. And I referred then, merely. that I couldn't be sure of the facts as they were written out there.

The CHAIRMAN. Just one further question. Were you reported or recorded as having agreed to the decision rendered in this particular case?

Dr. LEISERSON. Well, that raises a very interesting question. I am not sure that that decision is out yet. I want to raise the question with you, Judge Smith, as to whether it is quite proper for us to discuss here cases that we are still in the process of working out among ourselves. I am not sure whether this is out yet or not, but I know that for a time we remanded it for another hearing to bring it up to date and that other hearing was held, and that a report was made on the other hearing by the review division, and whether the decision actually went out or not I don't know. I think it did not, because I don't recall signing any such decision.

The CHAIRMAN. I will say to you, Doctor, we will pass on those questions as we come to them. However, the authority of this committee is very broad and I doubt the committee would permit itself to be handicapped very much by the fact that you had some phase of that kind in mind. But I am not ruling on it at this time and we will do it after the question arises.

Mr. TOLAND. Doctor, will you look at the memorandum you wrote on the 26th of July, listing the Chrysler, the Consolidated Aircraft, Universal Pictures, Alpena Garment, Chicago Malleable, and the General Electric cases (exhibiting paper to the witness)?

Dr. LEISERSON. That is right.

Mr. TOLAND. I show you a photostatic reproduction of that memorandum, marked "Exhibit 5 for Identification," and ask you to tell us if that is a true and correct copy?

Dr. LEISERSON. That is.

Mr. TOLAND. I would like to offer this in evidence, Mr. Chairman. (Memorandum, July 26, 1939, WML to Madden, was received in evidence and marked "Exhibit No. 5.")

Mr. TOLAND. This memorandum, Mr. Chairman, is from Dr. Leiserson to Mr. Madden:

Referring to your memorandum of July 26 (Todd-Johnson, R-754), when Ised the phrase "usual irregularities in procedure characteristic of the secretary's office" I had in mind the irregularities in the following cases which were called to your attention: Chrysler, Consolidated Aircraft, Universal Pictures, Apera Garment, Chicago Malleable, General Electric (letters of protest against gocedure by both pattern markers' and machinists' organizations).

The last cases (General Electric) involve the reopening of records of hearings two cases that were definitely closed and consolidation of cases, the same is in the Chrysler cases. The minutes of the Board meeting where this condidation was ordered do not indicate that the Board approved the issuing of instructions to ask for the local unions in all the cities where the plants are ated against which the pattern makers and machinists protest, and which ave now been rescinded.

(Signed) WML.

Mr. TOLAND. NOW, Doctor, will you tell the committee the "usual rregularities" that you refer to in your memorandum concerning Chrysler and the other kindred cases listed therein?

Dr. LEISERSON. This memorandum is really the answer to your first gestion, what do I mean by "usual irregularities." The chairman sked me that question and I sent him this memorandum as an answer to that question. We had discussed each one of these cases. Now, the Chrysler case, for example, there was a petition filed in New Castle, Ind. A hearing was held. The hearing was closed. Later anther Chrysler case arose in Detroit, at the Plymouth plant. Then later another petition was filed. All the cases were consolidated, and the New Castle one was opened up to put it into the consolidation. Now, in my judgment that is a bad and irregular way of doing things, and I talked with the other members of the Board, that I don't think that is the way to organize it efficiently. They said there were no irregularities of procedure in that, that legally no party as prejudiced by those procedures.

Now, I am not enough of a lawyer to know whether parties were prejudiced by those procedures, but I just think that it was not the ient and proper way to do it, and in each of these cases something f the same kind comes up, consolidation, and so on.

Now, the last one, the General Electric, a letter was sent out-or I will put it this way:

There had been cases filed by an individual plant of the General Electric, perhaps two plants-I don't recall the details. Later anther petition was filed, or an intervention request was made--I don't all now-that the bargaining unit ought to be all the plants tother. Immediately the secretary's office notified the regional diector to send out to all the local unions of the pattern makers and the machinists, asking them all the agreements they had in all the plants, and so on. I thought that was a crazy way of handling the thing. The organization protested, too.

I have some notions of administrative efficiency-and other people may think that those notions are very inefficient-that that is not the way I want to do business, is not the right way, and the other members of the Board sometimes felt that way, and this side of heaven neither of us knows who is really right. But anyway that was what I directed myself to in these memoranda.

Mr. TOLAND. Now will you look at the memorandum of the 27th of July, from Mr. Madden to yourself. I show you a photostatic copy and ask you if that is a true and correct copy?

Dr. LEISERSON. That is right.

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

(Memorandum July 27, 1939, JWM to Leiserson, and below, note signed W. M. L. was received in evidence and marked "Exhibit No. 6.")

Mr. TOLAND. This is the memorandum from J. W. Madden, dated July 27:

Please specify on separate sheets the alleged irregularities in the cases named in your July 26 communication, including the Todd-Johnson case.

Below that appears the following:

I have nothing to add to my memorandum of July 26, except to say that I agree with your statement at the conference Wednesday afternoon that the Universal Pictures case "smelled."

I think it is time we looked around for a secretary who understands the administrative duties of the job and sticks to them.

W. M. L.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Toland, I didn't get the first part of that. Will you read the first sentence? Mr. TOLAND (reading):

I have nothing to add to my memorandum of July 26, except to say that I agree with your statement at the conference Wednesday afternoon that the Universal Pictures case "smelled."

I think it is time we looked around for a secretary who understands the administrative duties of the job and sticks to them.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, will you tell the committee, Doctor, what you mean by saying that the Universal Pictures case "smelled," and that you agreed with the chairman?

Dr. LEISERSON. Well, you notice the Universal Pictures was on that list on the previous memorandum.

Mr. TOLAND. Yes, sir.

Dr. LEISERSON. We had several conferences on that. And it is a

case

Mr. Chairman, I am perfectly willing; I am no lawyer, and I just believe in telling all that is on my mind. It is a case that is still before the Board that has just been heard. The Board is in the process of discussing among themselves what to do with this case, just as the members of any court do, or the Supreme Court does. Now, if you think it is proper for me to tell what we discuss in such a conference, why I am perfectly willing to go right ahead and do it. And the only thing I would like to call to your attention, all the boards-you know the previous board I was on-and all administrative agencies in doing their business, when they talk over their problems and disagreements, they say all sorts of things to each other. Lord, what scraps we used to have on the National Mediation Board. That is the way we ironed things out in order to understand each other's position and get the best decision possible.

Now, we write memoranda of this kind to each other to make the points. And if all such things, especially while the case is still in the process of being decided, are to be discussed publicly, it may well be that every one of these agencies will just not be able to have a

thorough exchange of views. I am just putting it up to you, Mr. Chairman. I am perfectly willing to go ahead.

The CHAIRMAN. How long has this case been pending?

Dr. LEISERSON. This is quite an old case. I haven't the file here with me.

The CHAIRMAN. If we shut the door on all the cases that have been pending perhaps for years before this Board-why one of the chief complaints is made by certain people that the delay of the Board is causing a chaotic condition in that industry-we simply saw this committee off a limb. Now, I don't want you to go into the secrets of this Board. But where you have made a statement such as this, that the particular case "smells," and that case has been pending for several years, I think you are asking the committee to handicap itself almost too much.

Dr. LEISERSON. Well, I am perfectly willing to tell you, if that is what you want. I just only raised the problem, Judge. Now, as a matter of fact, I didn't make that statement. I quoted that.

Mr. TOLAND. That you were in agreement with the chairman. Dr. LEISERSON. I quoted that statement about "smelled." I can tell you what it was, if that is what you want."

The CHAIRMAN. I don't recall what the question was, but whatever it was, I think you should answer it.

Dr. LEISERSON. This was an old case that had been adjourned, after the hearing had been started. It looked as if the parties could get together. Then they didn't get together. And the question up before the Board was, "Shall we issue an amended complaint?" Now, after those conferences, I went through the files because I did not know the details of the previous case that had happened before I got on the Board, and when I looked through it I thought that we ought not amend the complaint. Now, maybe I thought that because I wasn't a lawyer. Every time I see these complaints, amended and re-amended and supplementally amended, I just think that is not an efficient way to do business. It hits me the wrong way, just the same as decisions or supplementary decisions. But the lawyers tell me that is the usual way.

Mr. TOLAND. Doctor, to refresh your recollection, may I show you a photostatic copy of a memorandum which is dated July 24, to Mr. Madden and Mr. Smith, concerning this case (exhibiting to the witness)?

Dr. LEISERSON. That is right.

Mr. TOLAND. I would like to read this into the record in connection with the doctor's statement:

[Interoffice communication, National Labor Relations Board]

To Mr. MADDEN,

Mr. SMITH,

From: WM. M. LEISERSON.

Subject: Universal Pictures, etc. Cases C-1055 to C-1063.

JULY 24, 1939.

I do not want my name attached to this complaint until I have checked the files carefully for irregularities in handling, and until I hear from the men who went out to arrange for reopening the hearing.

W. M. L.

There is a note on here, "Original sent to Witt with a note to bring to Board with Watts."

Dr. LEISERSON. I was going to add that we had a conference on that and I did not, as a matter of fact, sign that complaint. It was signed by only two members of the Board. I found things in the file that indicated to me what really is a question that we will have to decide. I don't like to bring this up again here, but the Board has to decide whether there was a refusal to bargain collectively or not, and we have to decide that on evidence and records. Some of us, on looking over the evidence, may feel that there was a refusal; others may not. And in a preliminary form, too, before we issue a complaint, some may feel one way and some another. I just felt in this case that it was not proper to issue the amended complaint. Now, from a legal point of view I may be all wrong; certainly the legal department thought I was all wrong, and they know their business, I think. But from an administrative point of view, I thought I was right, and we had a conference on that and in the course of the conference the chairman-in opening it we brought in all the people that knew anything and had worked on the case-he mentioned this case was kind of "smelly," or something like that, and I just quoted that.

(Memorandum July 24, 1939, WML to Madden and Smith, was received in evidence and marked "Exhibit No. 7.")

Mr. TOLAND. Now, Doctor, will you look at this photostatic copy dated July 28, 1939, and tell us if that is a true and correct copy of a proposed minute of the Board meeting on that date?

Dr. LEISERSON. That is right.

(Minute of one item of business of Board meeting, July 28, 1939, was received in evidence and marked "Exhibit No. 8.")

Mr. TOLAND (reading).

Minute of one item of business of Board meeting, July 28, 1939.
Present, the members of the Board, Secretary Witt.

Motion by Mr. Leiserson that Nathan Witt be relieved of his duties as Secretary of the Board. Mr. Leiserson stated that he felt that Mr. Witt was not qualified for the position either by training or experience. From observation of Mr. Witt's work, Mr. Leiserson said, he had concluded that Mr. Witt lacked understanding of the problems of administration that are required in managing a large organization such as the Board has. Mr. Leiserson also stated that Mr. Witt's manner of handling certain cases made it impossible for him to have confidence in Mr. Witt's ability to perform his duties impartially as between various parties who appear in cases before the Board.

The foregoing motion was handed by Mr. Leiserson to his colleagues in writing just before he left the meeting to catch a train.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, Doctor, is it a fact that you moved, as set forth in this memorandum, that Mr. Witt be relieved of his duties for the reasons set forth therein?

Dr. LEISERSON. Oh, yes; both here and at another time, also.
Mr. TOLAND. Yes, sir.

Dr. LEISERSON. There is another memorandum.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, Doctor, referring back to the Universal Pictures case, I am going to show you what purports to be a photostatic copy of a memorandum written by you on the 25th day of July, and ask you to tell us if it is a true and correct copy?

Mr. LEISERSON. The 25th? Yes; that is right.