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

(Memorandum July 25, 1939, Leiserson to Madden, was received in evidence and marked "Exhibit No. 9.")

Mr. TOLAND (reading).

July 25, 1939, to Mr. Madden from Wm. M. Leiserson; subject, Universal Pictures.

Yesterday I sent you a memorandum saying I did not want my name attached to this complaint until I had checked the files carefully for irregularities in handling. I have not yet had time to do that.

If you think immediate action is needed on this you can leave me out of the ease entirely. I would rather not participate in it. I think this is another one of those cases in which the Secretary has put his fingers and balled it up, and I suspect that this telegram from Brackett was inspired.

W. M. L.

Mr. TOLAND. Doctor, who is the Brackett that you referred to? Dr. LEISERSON. He was an officer of the complaining organization out on the Pacific coast.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, I show you a photostatic copy of a memorandum dated the 26th of July, to Mr. Madden, and ask you if that is a true and correct copy of the same?

Dr. LEISERSON. The 26th-also Universal Pictures?

Mr. TOLAND. Yes, sir.

Dr. LEISERSON. That is right.

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

(Memorandum July 26, 1939, Leiserson to Madden, was received in evidence and marked "Exhibit No. 10," and is printed in the appendix of this volume.)

Mr. TOLAND. Now, Doctor, directing your attention to the last paragraph, on page 3, which I will read as follows:

For these reasons and for the reason that my name figured so prominently in the conversations between Dubinsky and his representative in Detroit, as well as in the interesting conversation between Dubinsky and the secretary, which he reported to the Board, I suspect that the Brackett telegram was inspired. In addition there is the changing of the order for a separate hearing in the Plymouth case at the request of the secretary without a report or recommendation from the regional director, and I found nothing in the file to indicate that there was any need for rushing the matter on the basis of a telephone conversation as you seemed to suggest.

Now, directing your attention to the reference to the telephone conversation between Dubinsky and the secretary, would you please tell the committee what recollection you have as to that telephone conversation?

Dr. LEISERSON. We had a case known as the Alpena Garment case, one of those that is listed in that memorandum you already read.

It was a case in which the question was raised as to whether the Board should order an election or certify on the written authorization cards that the International Ladies Garment Workers Union had presented as evidence of the existence of the dispute. And, as you know, the Board has adopted the policy recently of ordering these elections.

Mr. Witt was of the opinion that it was a serious thing for the Board to change the policy it had pursued previously with respect to certifying on authorization cards that were put in the hearing. And after the decision was out, he reported to the Board that our regional director in the city of Detroit had reported to him that Mr. Dubin

sky's representative-Dubinsky is president, as you know, of the International Ladies Garment Workers-his representative in Michigan who handled this case had come into our regional office and said some things about the decision and expressed some dissatisfaction and disappointment, that I don't recall whether it was that I personally or that the chairman and I should have taken this position. And while he was in the office, a call came through from Dubinsky in New York, for him-it evidently was switched from his own office-and they talked over the phone about the decision, and Mr. Bowen listened; he could only hear one side of the conversation and then he informed the secretary about this conversation, and the secretary reported to the Board, and the effect of the conversation as he heard it from one side was that they didn't think I was such a good guy. Mr. TOLAND. Didn't he say, in substance, Doctor, that the President hadn't done a good job when he appointed you?

Dr. LEISERSON. I think it was mentioned that he was disappointed in the President's appointment, something like that. I think that was part of the conversation.

Mr. TOLAND. Do you have any recollection as to any further part of the telephone conversation, with respect to what they paid for? Dr. LEISERSON. No; I have no recollection of such.

Mr. TOLAND. Well, Doctor, I will send for a transcript of the telephone conversation as written up, and I will try and see if I can refresh your recollection.

Dr. LEISERSON. I should say I have never seen a transcript of that telephone conversation.

Mr. TOLAND. It was never brought to your attention?

Dr. LEISERSON. It was never brought to my attention.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, Doctor, referring to the memorandum dated August 7 from you to Mr. Madden, entitled "Method of Handling Cases."

Dr. LEISERSON. August 7-0. K. That is right.

Mr. TOLAND. Will you tell us that that is a true and correct copy? Dr. LEISERSON. That is right.

Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer this in evidence. (Memorandum August 7, 1939, Leiserson to Madden, was received. in evidence and marked "Exhibit No. 11.")

Mr. TOLAND (reading):

August 7, 1939, to Mr. Madden, from Wm. M. Leiserson, Method of Handling Cases.

I should like the minutes of the Board meeting of last Friday to show that I did not agree with the instructions for handling the General Electric cases and the I. A. T. S. E. cases. I think they are being badly handled, and we shall find it difficult to arrive at a decision later, because they are all balled up.

In this connection I should like to call your attention to the Times Publishing Company case of Detroit, as a similar example of inefficient handling. This case arose as a combined R. and C. case. The two were consolidated for a hearing. After the intermediate report was filed the respondent moved to reopen the hearing for the purpose of taking further evidence. On July 26, 1938, this motion was denied. But on February 8, 1939, the Board, apparently on its own motion reversed itself and ordered the record reopened to take further evidence.

On February 27 the Guild filed a motion to vacate this order to reopen the record, and on March 3 the Board denied the Guild's motion. But on July 18 the Board dismissed the whole case without carrying out its order to reopen the record and take further evidence.

There is a long memorandum from Cranefield in the files severely criticizing the handling of the case and protesting particularly against the Board repeatedly taking action and reversing itself without consulting the regional office, which knows most about the case. I think Cranefield's criticisms are well taken, and there was no excuse at all for not answering his memorandum, on which he had apparently put a good deal of work. (Signed) W. M. L.

Mr. TOLAND. Doctor, do you have any recollection as to the memorandum of Cranefield and what he said regarding the case?

Dr. LEISERSON. No; that was a long memorandum and this about summarized it, that this case is opened and closed, and opened again, and he felt he wasn't consulted about it, and that was his protest. And I felt—and this is an example of what I consider irregularities in handling. I should say, however, that the other members of the Board did not think so and felt it was fully justified; in fact, I recall an answer, but I don't see it, from Mr. Madden, saying that Craneheld did not deserve an answer. That is the memorandum Mr. Madden sent me.

Mr. TOLAND. You think everybody deserves an answer, Doctor, when they write you?

Dr. LEISERSON. Well, I don't know. If you read Mr. Cranefield's Demorandum and you are a lawyer like he is, maybe you will agree he didn't deserve an answer; I don't know.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is Mr. Cranefield?

Dr. LEISERSON. Mr. Cranefield is regional attorney in the Detroit regional office.

The CHAIRMAN. An employee of the Board?

Dr. LEISERSON. Yes; he has charge of the regional staff in the regional office at Detroit.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think it is ever excusable for a home office nt to answer a communication from one of its employees in the field when it is made seriously?

Dr. LEISERSON. Well, I indicated here he should have had an answer. The chairman thought otherwise.

Mr. TOLAND. Doctor, I show you what purports to be a photostatic copy of a memorandum to Dr. Leiserson from Mr. Madden, dated the 9th of August, in answer to your memorandum of the 7th, on the method of handling cases, and ask you if that is a true and correct copy?

Dr. LEISERSON. That is right.

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

(Memorandum of August 9, 1939, Madden to Leiserson, was received in evidence as "Exhibit No. 12.")

Mr. TOLAND. This is from Mr. Madden to Dr. Leiserson:

I would like to have your suggestions as to how the General Electric and 1. A. T. 8. E. cases should be handled. They both have the possibilities in them of becoming difficult and complicated and I think it is not fair to simply disclaim any responsibility for them but reserve the right to criticize what someone else does. Someone has to go forward with the work.

As to the Detroit Times case, the company had no right to have the case reopened. It had simply failed, for no reason, to put in its evidence. We denied its motion and that was right. We thought, from our review of the record, that some cloudy matters could be cleared up one way or the other and we directed a further hearing on our own motion. That was right. We did not asult our regional attorney because it would not have been fair to consult him behind the back of the adversary party, and that was right.

We denied the Guild's motion to vacate our order reopening the case becaus we had done it on our own motion and for our further enlightenment and i was none of the Guild's affair. That was right.

Cranefield wrote, in effect, that he couldn't clear up any cloudy spots in th record by a further hearing, and that made a further hearing useless. He ha no right to make a long argument to the Board behind his adversary's back so he deserved and got no answer. Thereupon we dismissed the complaint which was what we thought it deserved on the basis of the record, and tha was right.

Mr. TOLAND. Now I show you, Doctor, a photostatic copy of memorandum dated August 15, from you to Chairman Madden, and ask you if that is a true and correct copy?

Dr. LEISERSON. Yes.

Mr. TOLAND. I would like to offer this in evidence, Mr. Chairman (Memorandum Leiserson to Madden, August 15, 1939, was received in evidence and marked "Exhibit No. 13".)

This is dated August 15, 1939, and is addressed to Mr. Madder from Wm. M. Leiserson:

I. A. T. S. E. cases, General Electric cases, Detroit Times case. Referring to your memorandum of August 9, regarding methods of handling cases, my criticism of the I. A. T. S. E. cases was directed against taking an action on the basis of the partial and unintelligible oral recitations of th secretary and his assistants. They didn't know the facts in the cases, and their conversation showed they would not understand the significance of th facts if they did know them. I think you make the mistake of acting on in complete information or misinformation supplied by the secretary's office That is what balls up the cases. Not having had the opportunity to study al the files in the I. A. T. S. E. cases myself, I can make no suggestion in regar to them. I approved a recommendation of George Pratt to order a hearin because I can rely on his judgment and accuracy. Your secretary then tool it upon himself to order all the cases consolidated in the name of the Board In regard to the General Electric cases, I made it perfectly plain that thought the consolidation of the cases was gross mishandling and that w ought to proceed to a decision with the Fort Wayne cases. Later I sent you a memorandum stating that the consolidation order should be revoked an that we should handle each case separately as filed. I suggest that the Boar follow that recommendation.

You say that the General Electric and I. A. T. S. E. cases have the possi bilities of becoming difficult and complicated. They are already in a mes because you persist in acting on the advice of the secretary and his amaten detectives. If I had not been present yesterday, he would have rushed yo into consolidating the Illinois Glove cases and tangled those up. I think it i rather disingenuous to ask me to suggest how to get out of the messes the get you into. It is necessary to go forward with the work, as you say; but w do not need to go forward on the wrong track. I have explained repeated! that it is necessary to remove the secretary and his assistant amateurs fro the top management of the Board's work, and to replace them with people wh are competent to analyze our cases and to pass judgment on the recommenda tions of experienced regional directors. That is the most important suggestion I have for making the work go forward instead of getting into tangled messes With respect to the Detroit Times, I am sorry that I cannot agree wit your ideas either of the efficiency or of the propriety with which that cas was handled. The method of directing the work of regional attorneys by re fusing to answer their letters is, to say the least, unique.

Signed WML.

Mr. TOLAND. Doctor, you meant what you said when you wrot that, didn't you?

Dr. LEISERSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, Doctor, with reference to that exhibit, you refer to Mr. Witt and his "amateur detectives." I show you wha purports to be a copy of a telegram, New York City, dated February 21, 1939, "Personal and Confidential," to Hon. J. Warren Madden

National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., and ask you if you ever saw the original, or if the contents of that telegram were ever brought to your attention?

Dr. LEISERSON. That was before I was a member of the Board, in February, 1939.

Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I have a copy of a telegram that was copied at the General Accounting Office under my direction and supervision, as general counsel to this committee. It is copy of a telegram sent by Elinore M. Herrick, regional director, New York, to the chairman of the Board, and I ask that it be admitted in evidence.

(Telegram, February 21, 1939. Herrick to Madden, was received in evidence and marked "Exhibit No. 14.")

Mr. ROUTZOHN. Mr. Toland, I wonder if I might ask a question of you for the purposes of the record?

Mr. TOLAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. Was that an official telegram?

Mr. TOLAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. An official telegram filed by the Government? Mr. TOLAND. Yes, sir; official business.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. Ånd paid for by the Government?

Mr. TOLAND. Yes.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. And came from the files of the General Accounting Office?

Mr. TOLAND. Yes. To the National Labor Relations Board (reading telegram):

Personal and Confidential. Hon. J. Warren Madden, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C.

Conceding unreservedly the Board's right to investigate any N. L. R. B. office or agent. I nevertheless protest the method of investigation which has been pursued in the New York regional office since January nineteenth by two agents of the Board. This investigation has been conducted virtually behind locked doors, in secrecy and in such a thoroughly objectionable manner that, far from being conducive to improved administration, the investigation has caused a Geplorable slump in the morale of the Board's largest and most important field ffice. At the outset of the investigation which I was told was a "routine check to improve and coordinate administration." I asked what standards your agents had developed as a result of their work in other regions, what were the criteria by which the performance of this region was to be judged. Information in reply to this question was curtly refused me. Nevertheless, everything in the fire was made freely available to your agents, although I question their expetency.

Every subsequent request on my part to ascertain the standards by which We were being judged has been denied. Throughout the investigation the ordimary amenities were ruthlessly brushed aside by your agents. After nearly four weeks my request as to how much longer they thought the investigation would require was answered with the words quote we have no idea unquote. Yet the very next day, on February fourteenth, they took an abrupt departure. Even at the very threshold of the office they refused to tell me if their investiration was completed. Three days later I was notified that they would return on the twentieth and wished to confer with me after office hours. At this conference they announced that they were quote under orders unquote to proceed to Interrogate each member of my field staff individually. To discuss their work and to suggest improved methods and changes. I pointed out, as I have done in a previous memorandum, that as the official responsible for the work of the office criticism or changes should first be discussed with me. Again I asked for * general explanation of the standards by which our work was being judged, what type of change in procedure or improvement in method their weeks of tensive reading of files had indicated was necessary. All explanation or infornation was refused point blank. A procedure which keeps the chief executive offer in the dark, blindfolded, without opportunity after nearly six years of 218054-40-vol. 1-3