INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION To: Mr. Madden. Mr. Emerson. From: Wm. M. Leiserson. Subject: New York Post, Inc. R-1369. Date: August 15, 1939. This is O. K. except for the questions raised on the following pages of the manuscript: Page 6. The word "directly" should be omitted. I think the Mailers' Union is indirectly affiliated with the A. F. of L. through the Typographical Union. Pages 14, 15, and 18. Statements about expirations of agreements should be omitted. If the fact that employees have been covered by agreements is used in determining bargaining units, then the expiration of the agreements is of no importance. Page 17. I think a proviso should be added at the end of the first paragraph indicating that the composing room boys may have a separate vote when the I. T. U. is ready to represent them and a sufficient number indicate that they desire such representation. Page 19. I cannot agree to the exclusion of McClung and Vander Does from the group of executives included within the unit. The only reason given is that they have not designated the Guild as their bargaining representative. We cannot exclude employees from a unit for any such reason. We must certify exclusive representative designated by a majority regardless of whether the employees belong to labor organization or not. Pages 19 to 21. This long paragraph is rather awkwardly written and may be confusing. I think an attempt should be made to simplify it and make it more clear. -WML INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION Date: August 15, 1939. To: Mr. Madden. From: Wm. M. Leiserson. Subject: Shell Oil Co., Inc.-XXI-R-855. Since this informal report raises a question about the petitioner refusing to put in his evidence and the trial examiner recommends that the petitioner be informed that he can have another hearing, I think the matter ought to be attended to at once. A sensible explanation to the petitioner probably can clear up this whole matter, and we could go ahead with an election. To: Mr. Madden. -WML INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATIONS Date: August 16, 1939. From: Wm. M. Leiserson. Subject: Milton Bradley Company, R-1377. I have found out from Howard Myers that the craft election for the printing pressmen applied only to the McLoughlin Bros. employees and not to the Milton Bradley employees. This was not plain on the election notice that I showed you. For the employees of the Milton Bradley company proper the pressmen were voted as a single unit with the rest of the employees. This arrangement was part of the consent agreement. -WML INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATIONS To: Mr. Madden. Date: August 16, 1939. Referring to your memorandum of August 14th regarding the I. S. U. contract, the paragraph you quote sets up what is known as a preferential union shop agreement. This is a common form of collective bargaining agreement in many industries, and as its name implies it recognizes that the members of the union which holds the agreement shall have preference over all other employees. Under such agreements employees who are not members of the contracting union often have to be let out in order that the obligation to prefer the union members might be carried on. The proviso that employees shall not be discharged who do not desire to join the union or who do not apply for prompt reshipment or who are absent due to illness or accident apparently refers to those who were employed prior to the time the agreement was made. Otherwise the statements about absence or failing to apply for prompt reshipment would be meaningless. On the other hand, if employees. who are not members of the union cannot be discharged when there is a qualified union man available to fill the position, then the contract providing for preference in employment is meaningless. Of course, this opinion is based entirely on the language of the paragraph that you quote. Union agreement, however, must be interpreted in the light of the customs and practices of the employers and the unions in applying their agreements to the conditions of their business. Also, if there are joint committees or arbitrators for interpreting the agreements, their interpretations and methods of settling cases under the agreements are controlling as to the meaning of the agreements. I think it would be well to study all the other clauses of the agreement for any light they may throw on the meaning of the preferential clause, and also the record ought to be searched to find out how the preferential clause was actually applied in practice. On questions of this kind the Division of Economic Research has a lot of information, and there are men over there who can quickly advise on common interpretations and practices in applying agreements. Copy to Mr. Madden. -WML. To: Mr. Madden. Mr. Emerson. INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATIONS Date: August 16, 1939. From: Wm. M. Leiserson. Subject: A. Goodman & Son, II-R-1344. The trial examiner filed his informal report in this case on July 28th, and he recommended an election. No request for an oral argument has come in. I am ready to approve an order for an election with the bargaining unit as recommended by the trial examiner. WML INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION Date: August 18, 1939. To: Mr. Madden. Mr. Emerson. From: Wm. M. Leiserson. Subject: Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company, R-1402. This decision is O. K., except that I question the exclusion of the watchmen from the appropriate unit. The trial examiner who heard the evidence recommends their inclusion, and the only reason given in the decision for excluding them is that one organization wants them excluded. The same reason could be used for including them, because the other organization wants them included. To leave the 20 men without representation and without an opportunity to vote for representation after they have petitioned that they desire the A. F. of L. to represent them seems to me wrong. They are parties to this case by the authorizations that they signed, and there are in evidence authorizations signed by 19 out of the 20 watchmen, stating that they desire the A. F. L. to represent them. It would be sensible to say they constitute a separate unit and to order a separate election for them. But I do not see how we can ignore them entirely and leave them without an opportunity to vote for rep‐ resentatives in this case. WML INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION Date: August 18, 1939. To: Mr. Madden. From: Wm. M. Leiserson. Subject: Shawnee Milling Co., XVI-C-407. I In accordance with your suggestion I have read the file in this case. think there is plenty in the file to justify a complaint on the 8 (1) charges. If only half of the allegations are proved, it would be sufficient to establish an 8 (1) violation. With respect to the 8 (3) I have serious doubts. The company claims that Wilson was not discharged but quit of his own accord. The regional office apparently did not inquire carefully into this matter, but on account of the anti-union activities of the company assumed that Wilson must have been discharged and that the employer was not telling the truth. B. Stern sent a letter to Elliott asking additional information about the request for authorization, but she also overlooked the contention of the company that Wilson quit and did not ask Elliott for any further evidence on this point. It is true that Elliott wrote Ford and Abernathy to come to his office for a conference in March and that they did not come. But when Abernathy wrote to Elliott on July 28th asking him to come to Shawnee and make a personal investigation, I think it was a mistake for Elliott to stand on his dignity and say that he was very busy but would be glad to see them in his office. It would have been better for Elliott to say that while he was very busy he would arrange to go to Shawnee to oblige Mr. Abernathy and adjust the case on the established facts. He probably could have squeezed a settlement out of the case that way and won some good will and understanding too. Whether it would be desirable for him to do that now is a question, because Abernathy will think that by going over Elliott's head through a Senator and by writing to you the regional director could be forced to make a personal investigation regardless of the customary procedure in such cases. -WML INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION Date: August 19, 1939. To: Mr. Madden. Mr. Emerson From: Wm. M. Leiserson. Subject: Charles Cushman Company et al. C-664, etc. This is O. K. I do not think that we should omit either of the bracketed findings. The boycott of the election is an important part of the picture showing the attitude of the company organization. The fact that the company refused to give the payroll data is very essential in showing that it did not want to carry out the purposes of the Act either to ascertain the true representative or to deal with such representative after it was certified. With respect to the bracketed portion on pages 18 and 19 regarding the affidavits, I would strengthen it a little by pointing out that Section 9 (c) authorizes the Board to use any other suitable method to ascertain the repre sentatives in just such cases where the employer refuses to cooperate and declines to give necessary payroll data. With respect to the refusal to bargain collectively, it might be well to add a sentence to the effect that every effort was made by the Board to adjust the dispute, and the company could easily have settled the case by meeting the request of the employees' representatives to sit down with them in negotiations in the manner that is customary between employers and employees who desire to bargain collectively in accordance with the provisions of the Act. INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION WML. Date: August 19, 1939. To: Mr. Madden. Mr. Emerson. From: Wm. H. Leiserson. Subject: Jersey City Dry Docks Company, R-1256 (Tentative draft). This is 0. K., but see note on page 9. I think it is better to omit the broad statement that eligibility to vote is to be determined by the nature of the company's business. -WML INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION Date: August 21, 1939. To: Dr. Leiserson. From: J. Warren Madden. Subject: Hazel Atlas Glass Co., VI-C-233. I have your memo of August 19th. What action do you recommend in this case? To: Mr. Madden. Mr. Emerson. JWM INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION Date: August 21, 1939. From: Wm. M. Leiserson. Subject: International Shoe Company, R-1406. This is O. K., but please note on page 6 whether the word "members" was not intended instead of "employees". Also, pages 9, 10, and the first paragraph of page 11 seem to me unnecessary and should be omitted, also the next-to-the-last sentence on page 12. -WML INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION Date: August 21, 1939. To: Mr. Madden. Mr. Emerson. From: Wm. M. Leiserson. Subject: Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Company, R-1438. This is O. K., but please note page 5. I think it is desirable to add a statement that the certification as desired by the union is in accordance with the provisions of the Act. -WML INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION Date: August 21, 1939. To: Mr. Madden. Mr. Emerson. From: Wm. M. Leiserson. Subject: Wade Manufacturing Corporation, R-1365. This is O. K., except that I do not see any reason for including in the descriptions of the organizations involved on pages 4 and 5 the statements as to whom they admit or do not admit to membership. A person or a firm can act as representative, and they do not have any membership. On the other hand, organizations may act as representatives for people whom they do not admit to membership as well as for their members. -WML INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION Date: August 22, 1939. To: Mr. Madden. Mr. Emerson. From: Wm. M. Leiserson. Subject: Buckley Hemlock Mills. R-974 and C-985. Buckley Logging Company. I disagree with the finding that the employees of both companies constitute a single appropriate unit. I think the employees of the milling company and those of the logging company should be voted separately. In the absence of any agreement combining the employees of both companies into a single unit, the employees of each company must be given an opportunity to determine for themselves whether they want separate units or a combined unit. We should afford them this opportunity for the same reason that we would permit members of different crafts to vote separately when there has been no collective bargaining contract which combined them into a single unit. The fact that the employees of both companies were organized in a single local union is not controlling, because the local unions of most organizations include members working for different employers that have no connection with each other. Since the Board excludes employees from a unit where one organization asks for their exclusion while another wants them included, why should the logging employees not be excluded when Local 2613 contends that the employees of the mill company alone constitute a separate unit? INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION -WML Date: August 22, 1939. To: Mr. Madden. From: Wm. M. Leiserson. Subject: Hazel Atlas Glass Co., VI-C-233. This is in reply to your memorandum of the 21st. I sent you my recommendation in this case in a memorandum on August 17th. In the last paragraph I stated that we ought not to issue an amended complaint, because it isn't clear from the facts at hand on what that amended complaint could be based. I suggested that "perhaps the best way out would be for the regional director to get the union president and Ralph Lind, who represents the employers, together and ask them if a final decision cannot be secured in one way or another." The national conference committee under the existing agreement has not made a decision, and I think the best way is to press them for a final decision in accordance with the provisions of their agreement. WML |