Page images
PDF
EPUB

Co. did sign it, in order to safeguard against losing their jobs; and that happened in the case of every man employed by the Island Creek Coal Co., except the five who were discharged because they refused to sign. This fact was brought to the attention of the regional director of the National Labor Relations Board, a copy of this notice was sent by me to the regional director, calling to his attention what the Island Creek Coal Co. was doing in order to force their employees to join the United Mine Workers. We did not receive any consideration from the National Labor Relations Board regarding that matter.

On August 12, 1939, yes, August 12, 1939, after the fourth and fifth men were discharged by the Island Creek Coal Co. because they refused to sign that statement, I called Mr. Philip G. Phillips, director of the ninth region, at his office in Cincinnati, Ohio, by telephone, and told him that the Ísland Creek Coal Co. was discharging its em: ployees because they refused to sign the statement that was presented to them by the company, whereby they agreed to join the United Mine Workers as a condition of their employment, and how it was discharging these men, and the critical situation that had arisen, and asked for some action in the Island Creek Coal Co, situation, in order that that entire matter might be cleared up.

Mr. Phillips, in answer to my request for some action on those cases that were pending both on a petition and on the charge, involving Island Creek Coal Co., stated to me in the language contained in Exhibit W-16, which I call to the attention of the committee, and I would like to have that identified also

Mr. TOLAND. Yes. What is the exhibit?

Mr. OZANIC. Exhibit W-16, a telegram dated August 12, 1939, addressed to Mr. Madden, chairman of the Labor Board, Washington.

Mr. TOLAND. I show you what purports to be a mimeographed copy of a telegram sent by you to J. Warren Madden, August 12, 1939, and ask you if that is a true and correct copy thereof?

Mr. Ozanic. It is.

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

(Copy of telegram referred to, dated August 12, 1939, Ozanie to Madden, as read below, was received in evidence, marked “Exhibit No. 84.")

Mr. Ozanic. May I read the telegram?
Mr. TOLAND. I wish you would.

Mr. OZANIC (continuing). The telegram is addressed to J. Warren Madden, chairman, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C.

I discussed today with Regional Director Philip G. Phillips, of the ninth region, the matter of the Island Creek and Wyatt Coal Companies of West Virginia, and endeavored to learn from him when the Labor Board intended to hear our West Virginia cases, which have been filed by us many months ago and which are still pending before the Board. Mr. Phillips informed me that the decision in the Alston ('oal ('ompany case. Pittsburg, Kansas, would be used as a precedent in our West Virginia cases, and that we could expect our West Virginia cases to be dismissed on the basis of the precedent established in the Alston case. When I protested such action with regard to our cases on the ground that we would prove by authentic evidence that we represented overwhelming ma jorities in each case, he stated that he assumed this was correct, but that he was under orders from the NLRB, and that the dismissal of our cases would eventuate from the Board in Washington, which is beyond his control. I call your attention that a most serious situation has arisen in West Virginia as a result of the company's discharging our members solely because they expressed themselves as members of our union.

The discharged men are being subjected to untold hardships and privations. Each mine of the Island Creek Coal Company, numbering seven in all, and Wyatt Coal Company, where men are being discharged, the overwhelming majority were members of our union prior to and at the time the last so-called union-shop contracts were signed between the United and operators. We demand prompt hearings from the Board on our West Virginia cases, and vigor ously protest intentions of the Board to dismiss the cases without hearing. We request pending hearing of the cases that the Board order the Island Creek and Wyatt Coal Companies to refrain from discharging our members pending final disposition. Please advise. Signed by myself, as President of the International Union, Progressive Mine Workers.

This telegram received not as much as the courtesy of a reply from the chairman of the National Labor Relations Board. I want to call the attention of the committee also to the fact that, just for example, at the Island Creek Coal Co.'s mine 21, Holden, W. Va., which employs approximately 260 men, that over 200 of them were members of the Progressive Mine Workers, and actually signed to our application for membership cards. The evidence which we have in

. the file we are ready to produce to any governmental agency, including the National Labor Relations Board itself, to prove that we did represent the majorities at that time, and that we do represent them now. In the case of mine No. 20 of the same company, employing approximately 250 men, we have 220 actually signed to membership cards in the Progressive Mine Workers of America.

In the case of Mine 14 of the Island Creek Coal Company, employing 285 men, 240 actually signed to membership cards in the Progressive Mine Workers, and in the case of mine No. 1 of the same company, employing 300 men, 250 actually signed to membership cards in the Progressive Mine Workers. These cards were shown to the representative of the Regional Director's office when he was there, and if I am not mistaken, to the Regional Director personally, to satisfy them that our claim was not based on any false grounds, that we actually represented these men that we claimed we did at these various mines.

That case is pending before the Board now; no action has been taken on it, on either the charge or the petition, and we have no reason to believe that the Board is ever going to act on those charges or on the petition, except that when they do act, that it will be dismissed without any hearing whatsoever--as told to me by the regional director over the telephone on last August 12, 1939.

Mr. TOLAND. May I read something right at this point from a memorandum prepared by my staff from the files of the Board:

Island Creek Coal Co., IX-R-290.

The informal file in this case is also the master file for the Island Creek Coal Co., IX-R-291, R-295, R-299, C-948, and C-1077. Pertinent materials in the informal file: There is an inter-office communication from Regional Director Phillips, at Cincinnati, to the Secretary, Mr. Witt, dated February 13, 1939, marked "personal and confidential,” concerning the West Virginia situation. On page 1 the following appears :

"The West Virginia situation is loaded with dynamite."

Page 2: "Most difficulty is that the United has been promising to the workers in West Virginia mining region that the Board did not dare to tackle any of the Progressive's charges because the Board was all C. I. 0."

Further quote:

“The United Mine Workers for some time have been insisting that any company which has a contract with them is absolutely protected from proceeding against it by the Board." Further quote:

"Some of the investigations would indicate that where men on local committees get too obstreperous in pressing right against the companies, they are discharged, and the United Mine Workers invariably backs up the company."

On page 3, the following:

"The United Mine Workers take the position that the Progressives are a dual union, destroying their amicable relations with employers. They resent any steps that the Board might take to stop violations."

Interoffice communication from Regional Director Phillips, at Cincinnati, to Mr. Witt, dated May 29, 1939, referring to the West Virginia coal cases filed by the Progressives:

“I suppose if we have to go after anybody we ought to go after Carter Coal Company just for the sake of letting Mr. Justice Butler write a brilliant decision in the event that we get up to the Supreme Court."

A further interoffice communication from Regional Director Phillips to Secretary Witt, dated June 10, 1939, subject : "The Progressive Mine Workers."

Further quote:

"I may say I am very troubled about how to sit on the lid in West Virginia coal cases, and so forth. I am beginning to be bombarded by requests for action. Apparently the answer that the Alston case will furnish the key to the whole situation is no longer satisfying the locals in West Virginia, but I will continue to give that as the answer, unless and until I hear from you."

The CHAIRMAN. What is the date of that?
Mr. TOLAND. That is June 10 of this year.

A further interoffice communication from Regional Director Phillips to B. M. Stern, dated June 27, 1939, concerning the West Virginia cases, giving information concerning operators' association, and the Appalachian agreement and contracts arising therefrom, and on page 5, presenting Phillips' ideas concerning the difficulties involved in the West Virginia situation, the following appears :

"I do know that the situation is fraught with danger, and so forth.

A further memorandum from Regional Director Phillips to Mrs. Stern, dated August 4, 1939, concerning West Virginia coal cases, the following appears:

"I have not changed my original impression, however, that a hearing would do more to clean up the West Virginia coal situation than a straight dismissal.”

A further memorandum from Regional Director Phillips to Secretary Witt, dated November 13, 1939, concerning West Virginia coal company cases, showing the position in which the Board's decision in Kelley Creek Colliery Company case, No. 0-1255, places Phillips with respect to the other cases filed by the Progressives, particularly in view of the proviso appended to that decision.

On page 2 mention is made of riots and bloodshed, assaults committed by United Mine Workers upon Progressives, and the fact that the Mine Workers have been saying that the Board can't ever do anything to help the Progressives.

Interoffice communication from Phillips, regional director at Cincinnati, to Secretary Witt, dated November 25, 1939, in which Phillips covers completely West Virginia cases listel above, namely the Island Creek Coal ('o., the Wyatt Coal Co., the Kelley Creek Co., and the Carter Coal Co., the following remarks appear, page 2 :

"If I may be so bold, I predict that if a hearing in one of these cases is denied, the situation will become more complicated, especially politically. In addition I feel that the Board itself by its decision in the Kelley Company case has definitely raised a question which cannot be determined unless and until we know for a fact what the unit is in coal."

On page 5 of Phillips' discussion of "determination of representatives," he gives a factual summary in each case.

On page 12 Phillips states as the effect of Kelley Creek decision, 1255— their (CMWA), United Mine Workers of America, organizers troop down the Taller and shout, "The Labor Board is pro-C. I. O. You cannot get a hearing." Of course, we are not responsible for the action of the United Mine Workers.

Now, I have here, Mr. Chairman, the report in full from Mr. Phillips, dated the 25th day of November, 1939, excerpts from which I have just read. I have no copies, and this is an original taken from the Board files; but, because of the statements that appear therein, and in connection with the testimony of the witness, I would like to have the complete report spread on the record. I offer it as an exhibit, Mr. Chairman, with that request.

(The report referred to, from Regional Director Phillips, dated November 25, 1939, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 85," and follows:)

EXHIBIT No. 85

(Interoffice communication, National Labor Relations Board]

November 25, 1939. To Nathan Witt. From Philip G. Phillips, Ninth Region. Subject: Island Creek Coal Company et al., IX-R-290 et al.; IX-C-948 et al.;

Keller's Creek Colliery Company, IX-C-855; Wyatt Coal Company, IX-C-866, IX-6-950, IX-R-284.

I recommend that the Progressive Mine Workers be permitted to select one "R" case in which to hold a hearing, or, in the alternative, all the “R” cases herein be consolidated and set down for hearing. I feel, however, that the first step is preferable to the second, as each of the cases, as will be hereinafter seen, present the same issues, with the possible exception of Carter Coal Company, and for that reason multiple hearings, or a large consolidated hearing, seem an unnecessary waste of time.

IX-C-954 Carter Coal Company.
IX-C-855 Kelley's Creek Colliery Co.

IX-C-866-IX-R-284 Wyatt Coal Company. It should be noted that the documents filed in these cases are poor in form and that in some of these three "C" cases there is a combination "C" and "R" document filed. It requests action under 8 (5) but states that failing this the Board should consider the matter as a petition under 9 (c). Even petitions are not in proper form. We are informed by the attorney for the Progressive Mine Workers that when we originally denied a straight petition filed on our form in Kelley's Creek Colliery Company (IX-R-260), Joseph Padway, counsel for the A. F. of L., filed them in this particular form. Normally, when documents are filed which are not in proper form, we send them back to the union so filing them and point out the defects and tell them about an amended proper pleading. Because of the peculiar nature of these cases, however, we did not do that, and accepted the charges and/or petitions exactly as they were. Of course, if the Board decides to dismiss, the form in which they are filed is immaterial. If the Board decides to proceed, we can get papers filed in the proper form.

It seems clear that there is outstanding an “R” case against Carter Coal Com. pany which has never been docketed as such because the paper as filed apparently was intended to be first used as a “C” case; if the "C" part of it was denied, to then suddenly transform itself into an “R” case. However, for the purposes of this discussion, I will assume that procedural defects can and will be cured in the event action is to be taken, and that there is a potential “R” case at all times against Carter Coal Company. Because of the fact that there were some mines in Wyatt which were only "C" cases, and others which were combination "C" and "R" cases, I did enter the Wyatt cases, where the papers clearly indicated the desire for an “R” proceeding, as an “R” case. You will note that I originally wrote the Board on December 14, 1938, calling its attention to procedural defects

218051--40vol. 2

in this matter, and again on December 16, 1938. In view of the fact that no comment was made, I hesitated to do anything about changing the matter with the Progressives. These defects, however, can obviously be straightened out.

I am not unmindful that the facts as herein presented will show that the Alston case is clearly applicable, with perhaps the exception of the Carter Coal Company, wherein Alston apparently has no application whatever. I am also of the firm conviction that the Operators Association's unit is the only applicable and feasible one in the bituminous-coal industry; nonetheless, until the Board definitely determines in a West Virginia case what the unit is, there will be constant turmoil, more and more cases filed, and uncertainty among both the miners and the operators as to just what unit the Board will hold appropriate when finally called upon to do so.

I call your special attention to the chronology appearing in the report showing you, as a result of our previous denials, serious results prevail. If I may be so bold, I predict that if a hearing in one of these cases is denied, the situation will become more complicated, especially politically. In addition, I feel that the Board itself, by its decision in the Kelley's Creek Colliery Company case, has definitely raised a question which cannot be determined unless and until we know for a fact what the unit is in coal.

Technically, because of the decision in the Alston case, there may be no legal question presented by these petitions, but from a practical standpoint the very existence of the number of cases which we here have, plus the turmoil which has been caused by these petitions, indicates that in a real sense the question is far more in existence than if there were no Alston case whatever.

I am not recommending any hearings in the "C" cases, for reasons which I will later state. The facts in them, however, you will find completely summarized herein, and when I treat the "C" cases I will give my specific reasons for the action I propose.

THE COMPANIES AND THEIR BUSINESS

Island Creek Coal Company, IX-R-290, IX-R-291, IX-R-295, IX-R-299,

IX-C-948, IX-C-1077

The Island Creek Coal Company operates six mines in and around Holden, Logan County, West Virginia. It is one of the largest coal companies in West Virginia, annually producing several million tons of coal, and employs more than 2,000 men; ships its coal by rail and by water to many sections of the United States. It is clearly engaged in interstate commerce.

Wyatt Coal Company, IX-R-284, IX-C-866, IX-C-950 The Wyatt Coal Company is a West Virginia corporation operating three mines in the Kanawha district. The company ships approximately 750,000 tons of coal annually, of which 51% is shipped to points outside the State of West Virginia. Its shipments are made by rail to all sections of the Middle West with large shipments going into Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. It employs approximately 280 men at its Sharon Mine, involved in IX-C-866, and about 280 men at its Laing No. 2 Mine, involved in IX-C-950 along with the Sharon Mine.

Kelley's Creek Colliery Co., IX-C-949 and 855

The Kelley's Creek Colliery Company is a West Virginia corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of the Valley Camp Coal Company. Its Ward operations, involved in IX-C-949, has a daily average production of about 4,000 tons of coal, 70% of which is shipped to points outside the State of West Virginia. Its River View Mine at Coalburg, West Virginia, involved in IX-C_835, employs in the neighborhood of 200 men. Its exact tonnage is not known but it is clearly engaged in interstate commerce.

Carter Coal Company, IX-C-954 The Carter Coal Company operates four mines in McDowell County, West Virginia. It employs approximately 2,800 employees in its operations. Its exact tonnage is not known but it is clear that a preponderant portion of its production is shipped to points outside the State of West Virginia.

« PreviousContinue »