But the handling of our cases in the preliminary stages, they go through the secretary's office, where, this stuff that we have been reading here refers altogether to about six people, that is all, out of the total of 900. Most of the people under the secretary are all right so far as what they know. I would not want any impression to go out that I think by the use of the term, for instance, "amateur detective," that was in there-I am inclined to get literary when I write, and that comes from my professional training-I do not want any impression to get out that I think they are bad people.

Bob Gates, for instance, one of those special examiners, is a highgrade man whom I personally recommended to be transferred to the trial examiner's job, because I think he is good for trial examiner's work. He is an experienced lawyer with some judgment, and he could do that kind of work; but in the secretary's office, working under the secretary, he is out of his place. That is what a manager has to watch-take the man out from the place where he does not fit, and stick him in the place where he does fit. The only other person in the secretary's office that I have felt ought to be relieved of his services is Mr. Krivonos.

Now, I went to the Board, or to the other members of the Board, and proposed that we reorganize the secretary's office and set up a division independent of the secretary for handling what we call the authorizations and appeals; that is, authorizing complaints and investigation of representation disputes, appeals from dismissal, and also handling the compliance work. The other members of the Board thought that I was not familiar enough with the work of the Board at that time when I made that suggestion. They had reason for believing it, because I made that suggestion within a month or so after I came to the Board, and I did not pretend to know all about it, and they did not feel that it needed to be done; but after some discussion and some time, I induced the Board to have a management survey made of the secretary's office, and that is the way, the proper way, to do it; and we all agreed, and we called in four regional directors from the outside to make that survey.

Mr. TOLAND. Would you name them?

Dr. LEISERSON. What is that?

Mr. TOLAND. Would you name them?

Dr. LEISERSON. Yes. Mr. Howard Myers, regional director of the Boston region: Mr. Aicher, of the Baltimore region; Mr. Elliott, of the Fort Worth region, Fort Worth, Texas; and Mr. George Patterson, of the Chicago regional office. Mr. Frank Bowen was also to be on the committee, but he got tied up in the Chrysler elections and could not come. They made a very excellent report, I think, which you may have seen.

Mr. TOLAND. May we have it. Mr. Fahy?

Mr. FAHY. You have it, Mr. Toland.

Mr. TOLAND. Have we got it?

Mr. FAHY. I am sure it is in the files. If you do not have it, we will give it to you.

Mr. TOLAND. Go ahead, Doctor.

Dr. LEISERSON. And I felt that that was a very intelligent management study, and the other two members of the Board felt the same way; all three of us agreed on that; and it was the sort of thing I was driving at in these memoranda-I wanted improvement-and the

Board started to take some steps in the direction of carrying it out; but there again we began to disagree, and it has been decided now by the Board that there would be some reorganization there. was not satisfactory to me, because the reorganization, the setting up of this authorization and appeals unit will still be, according to the majority of the Board, under the direction of the secretary, and he will report the cases to the Board; and I think that that is not the proper way to handle the cases; and I give that explanation merely to show here that there was complaint from the regions, that we were dealing with the problem, and we disagreed as to the best way of working it out.

Mr. TOLAND. Doctor, would you look at your file and find the memorandum of August 16, described "Instructions to Staff"? Dr. LEISERSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TOLAND. I show you a photostatic reproduction, and ask you if that is a true and correct copy?

Dr. LEISERSON. Correct.

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

(Letter dated August 16, 1939, WML to Madden, was received in evidence and marked "Exhibit No. 22.")

Mr. TOLAND. Reading from Exhibit 22, to Mr. Madden from William M. Leiserson, "Instructions to staff":

AUGUST 16, 1939.

Here are the instructions to mediators which serve as rules of procedure for handling cases under the Railway Labor Act. They are not the formal legal rules, such as we recently adopted, but they are the instructions for regulating the administrative procedures in all the cases before formal action by the Board is required. It is a set of regulations of this kind that I suggested as necessary to supplement the regulations we have published.

In my judgment a set of regulations like this for managing the business of the Board and for clearly explaining the duties and responsibilities of the members of the staff is very much more important than the formal printed regulations that we have issued. If we had such a set of regulations, the Board would not have to spend half its time trying to untangle balled-up cases.

I do not think that Tom Emerson can get up such a set of regulations. He already has more than a full-time job, and he ought to concentrate all his efforts on reducing the backlog of delayed cases. It seems to me unfair to him as well as poor management of our business to ask him to fix up things that a properly managed Secretary's office would do as a matter of course.

I think we need to get a high-grade person who understands matters of this kind and who is capable of directing the work of the regional offices in the matter of handling cases. Such a person, assisted by a regional director and a good field examiner, ought to be set to work immediately as a committee to review all the instructions and so-called policies of the Board that have been issued and to codify them all into a set of consistent and understandable regulations.

(Initialed) W. M. L.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, Doctor, that is a part of the statement that you just made heretofore?

Dr. LEISERSON. Yes.

Mr. TOLAND. Now I am reading for the purposes of the record from the Third Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1938, from page 9:

As will be seen by the accompanying chart, the following major divisions in the Washington office have been established by the Board: administrative, legal, trial-examining, economic research, and publications. The administrative division under the general supervision of the Secretary is responsible for the coordination of all the divisions of the Board and also for the administrative activities

of the Board, both in Washington and the regional offices. The clerical and fiscal work is under the direct supervision of a chief clerk, who is responsible for the following sections: Accounts, Personnel Dockets, Files and Mails, Purchase and Supply, Duplicating and Stenographic. The Secretary, together with the Assistant Secretary and an administrative staff, directs and supervises all case development in the field to the point where hearings are held, and specializes in the labor problem phases of these problems as well as the more formal procedure under the Act. The executive office conducts liaison activities with other Government agencies and establishments in matters germane to the handling of the Board's cases.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, Doctor, would you look at your file for the memorandum of July 25, 1939, the American Viscose Company? Dr. LEISERSON. Here it is.

Mr. TOLAND. I show you a photostatic reproduction and ask you ir that is a true and correct copy?

Dr. LEISERSON. Correct.

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

(Letter dated July 25, 1939, from WML to Mr. Madden and Mr. Smith was received in evidence and marked Exhibit No. 23.) Mr. TOLAND. Reading from Exhibit No. 23:

[Interoffice communication, National Labor Relations Board]

To Mr. Madden,

Mr. Smith.

From Wm. M. Leiserson.

Subject: American Viscose Co., IX-C-986.

JULY 25, 1939.

Here is the file you asked me to look up in the case where the American Viscose Company is charged with discriminating against its employees when, as a matter of fact, the men are employees of the Hughes Foulkrod Company, which is a construction company.

For regional office to accept and docket a charge against the wrong employer shows sloppy work in the first instance. But, assuming it was an oversight, the matter could have been cleared up in one interview. Instead of that, we have worked on the case spreading over a whole month. Then, finally, when the proper employer tells the office the facts as to who is the employer, a conference is arranged "with all parties," i. e., the wrong employer as well as the right one.

Note also that the weekly reports are as unrevealing as the charge itself with respect to the true nature of the dispute. Presumably these weekly reports are sent into the office here for the purpose of reviewing what the regional offices are doing and giving them the proper instructions. I take it that this is the kind of work that Gates and Krivonos [sic] are supposed to be doing. I think they haven't done the job and they don't know how to do it. When they review the work of the offices they are supposed to catch things like this, but they don't even know how to catch it when the reports are sent in here.

(Signed) W. M. L.

Mr. TOLAND. Doctor, if you will look at your file, the memorandum of August 7, entitled "Administrative Instructions." I show you, Doctor, a photostatic reproduction and ask you if it is true and correct copy?

Dr. LEISERSON. Correct.

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

(A memorandum dated August 7, 1939, WML to Mr. Madden, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 24.") Mr. TOLAND. Reading from Exhibit No. 24:

To Mr. MADDEN.

From Wm. M. Leiserson.

Administrative Instructions.

AUGUST 7, 1939.

Here is a copy of the regional orders of the United States Housing Authority. Note particularly the Manual of Operating Instructions. Compare this with our

instructions to the staff, and you will see the sort of thing that is needed to assure prompt and efficient handling of cases. But somebody with administrative experience is needed to put in time studying our present procedures and recommending new ones. It cannot be done by your present administrative staff or by men from the Review Division.

(Signed) W. M. L.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, Doctor, if you will look at your file for a memorandum dated November 27, 1939.

Dr. LEISERSON. November 27?

Mr. TOLAND. Yes, Doctor, entitled "Memorandum attached thereto." Dr. LEISERSON. That is right.

Mr. TOLAND. Doctor, I show you a photostatic copy and ask you if it is a true and correct copy of the copy in your file?

Dr. LEISERSON. Correct.

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

(Letter dated November 27, 1939, WML to Mr. Madden, Mr. Smith, Mr. Fahy, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 25.") Mr. TOLAND. Reading from Exhibit 25, to Mr. Madden, Mr. Smith, Mr. Fahy, from William M. Leiserson:

Memorandum attached hereto :

NOVEMBER 27, 1939.

This is stupid nonsense. We should not waste any more time in issuing elaborate instructions like this which merely serve to confuse and burden the regional offices. Rules and regulations relating to 9 (c) cases need to be revised completely by people who know the problems that are involved in handling representation disputes.

(Signed) W. M. L.

Mr. TOLAND. Doctor, I have here the file which contains the instructions referred to, and, at this time, unless you want to make a statenent concerning it, I am not going to put it in the record, except to say that it is a copy of a draft of instructions to regional officers on procedure for certification by the Board on stipulation for consent election, dated November 20, 1939, addressed to "Charles Fahy, Esq.,' from Fred G. Krivonos, special examiner. I will let you have the file if you want to make any comment.

Dr. LEISERSON. No. I do not need it. I know what is in it. I ought to say a word about that.

Mr. TOLAND. Go ahead, Doctor.

Dr. LEISERSON. As you see from these memoranda, the Board has been discussing improvements in our instructions to staff, and one of the things that bothered me most was our procedures for handling representation cases. It was perhaps inevitable that in getting up a of rules and regulations for procedures, that they should be prepared from the legal point of view, because those published rules and regulations are intended for lawyers who appear for the parties, so they will know how to do business before the Board. But when it comes to the section 9 regulations of the Board, those hearings are not trials. They are an investigation of a representation dispute. The dispute is not settled by the Board except as it may have to. In most cases there is no dispute about the unit; the unit is agreed upon. Except as it may have to find a unit, or to find the existence of a spute, the Board is not deciding anything. The employees decide for themselves by their votes, and that is the most important fact that We have to find.

Nevertheless, the lawyers unconsciously transferred all the procedures for handling the trial of cases on complaints, and said "We will follow the same procedure under section 9." I felt that would be a mistake, and it has turned out to be a mistake. Then we have a great many elections arranged today by consent. In those consent elections, they really never appear before the Board. They are handled in the regional office, and the regional office reports the results of the consent election to the employers and the unions, or the parties, and no certification is issued. I have felt that was a mistake. We were talking about that, and came around to the point where we wanted to revise those procedures, and Mr. Fahy undertook it, and Mr. Krivonos wrote the arrangement. It is an elaborate memorandum of how to do it, and I won't say that it is not first-class law, because I have a great deal of respect for their legal knowledge, but it is not the sort of thing that is actually needed, and any one who has been trying to run one of these elections would know that, because that is a very practical problem. Now, that is why I objected to that, and I must say at this point that after some discussion the Board agreed, we unanimously agreed, that I should take some assistants from within the Board and make a new set of regulations for handling these representation cases, draft them, and the Board can discuss them; so that we are making progress on that point. Mr. TOLAND. Have you finished?

Mr. HEALEY. What do you mean by "consent" cases?

Dr. LEISERSON. When one union asks for an election, or a group of employees files a petition with the Board for an election, that goes to the regional office. The regional office assigns it to a field examiner. The petition has to say who the employer is and to mention the name of any other representatives of the employees that may be in the picture. The field examiner then goes to the employer and to these other representatives, and, if he can, he arranges with all of them to agree voluntarily that we will have an election here to settle this dispute on this and that basis, and they write out an elaborate consent agreement under which it will be run, and then if that is done the case is settled right in the regional office and never comes to the Board up in Washington. It is a good method if it is properly managed from this end.

Mr. TOLAND. In connection with your statement, Doctor, regarding the secretary's office, I would like again to read into the record from the Third Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board for the period ending June 30, 1938, the following, on page 5:

When charges are filed by individuals of labor organizations, they are investigated by the Board's field agents who are subject to the general supervision of the Secretary of the Board. The Board itself decides whether complaints should be issued in only a very small proportion of the cases, and then only if the preliminary investigation indicates that the case involves a particularly difficult question of fact or law or an important new application of the statutory policy. The members of the Board themselves are therefore rarely familiar with the details of the case in its investigative stages and never at first hand.

Now, Doctor, will you look at your file for the memorandum dated July 24, 1939, concerning the Chicago Malleable Casting Company? I show you, Doctor, a photostatic reproduction and ask you if it is a true and correct copy thereof?

Dr. LEISERSON. Correct.