50 with the other cases. Since the last case involving the question of a corporation-wide unit was already in the hands of the Board on March 27th, I do not see why an order for the single plant was issued first and then changed four days later. This is the same sort of thing that has happened in the ConsoliTo say the least, it is sloppy dated Aircraft and the Chicago Malleable cases. work. Signed with the initials "WML." (Complete copy of Exhibit 29 printed in appendix.) Mr. TOLAND. Now, Doctor, this morning I directed your attention to the third paragraph of Exhibit 10, dated the 26th day of July, to Mr. Madden from yourself, concerning the Universal Pictures, and in the third paragraph I referred to the conversion between Dubinsky and the secretary, which he reported to the Board. Mr. Chairman, I have a photostatic copy of a report to J. Warren Madden dated July 28, 1939, in the Alpena Garment case, R-1366, telephone conversation with David Dubinsky, president, I. L. G. W. U., on July 20, 1939. I have also a photostatic copy of an interoffice communication dated July 27, 1939, to Mr. Witt, from J. Warren Madden, subject, Alpena Garment, R-1366. That photostat reads as follows: Please put in writing your telephone conversation with Dubinsky, as related to me, and to me and Dr. Leiserson. Specify dates if you can. Initialed "J. W. M.” The reply or the report of the secretary to Mr. Madden on July 28, 1939, reads as follows: Alpena Garment Co., R-1366. Telephone Conversation with David Dubinsky. When I returned to my office on the afternoon of Thursday, July 20, after having been out of my office for a while, my secretary informed me that Mr. Dubinsky had been trying to reach me on the telephone from New York. Since the Decision and Direction of Election in the Alpena case had just been issued, When I I suspected that Mr. Dubinsky wished to talk to me about this case. called him back, and after the usual greetings, Mr. Dubinsky said to me:: "So I am not sure of Leiserson gave it to us, didn't he?" I made no comment. what Mr. Dubinsky said literally next, but it had some reference to the President's not having done a good thing and some further comment which I remember as "that isn't what we pay our money for." After these comments, Mr. Dubinsky went on to say that he was not calling me to tell me all that, that the decision had been made and that was that, and that what he was really calling about was to find out exactly when the election would be held. I told him that we in Washington didn't know; that the Direction of Election gave the Regional Director a certain period within which to hold the election; that the precise date was in the control of the Regional Director, and that in each case it depended upon the most satisfactory arrangements the Regional Director could make. Later in the afternoon on July 20, I related to you the substance of the above At the Board meeting the conversation. You listened without any comment. next day, when you and Mr. Leiserson were present and while Mr. Smith had stepped out for a moment you asked me to repeat what I had told you the day before. I did so to you and Mr. Leiserson, and Mr. Smith entered the room while I was finishing my story. Mr. TOLAND. Does that refresh your recollection, Doctor, as to the report by the secretary of the conversation between himself and Mr. Dubinsky? Dr. LEISERSON. That is substantially what he told us at that meeting, and it may even be I had seen that. I said this morning I hadn't but I am not sure. But that would be shown, if I had seen it, it would be shown by an initial. Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence, as one exhibit, the request of the chairman to Mr. Witt The CHAIRMAN. Is that the same thing you have just been talking about? Mr. TOLAND. Yes, sir, and the report of Mr. Witt just read by me. (Memorandum July 27, 1939, Madden to Witt, and memorandum of telephone conversation, July 28, 1939, Witt to Madden, were received in evidence and marked "Exhibit No. 29A.") The CHAIRMAN. Have you finished with that line now, Mr. Toland? Mr. TOLAND. I have concluded, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the episodes concerning the secretary, insofar as this witness is concerned. I have other episodes. The CHAIRMAN. I wanted to ask Dr. Leiserson if the Board made. any investigation, after that telephone conversation, to see who, if anybody, connected with your Board was in the pay of Mr. Dubinsky? Dr. LEISERSON. Why, I don't think the Board did. I don't think that that reference was taken very seriously or was taken to mean that anybody on the Board was in the pay of Mr. Dubinsky. I cer tainly never interpreted it that way and I am quite certain neither the chairman nor Mr. Smith interpreted it that way. Mr. HALLECK. Well, the reference was made, Doctor, to the payment of money. Dr. LEISERSON. Yes. Mr. HALLECK. Don't you think that it was your duty as a member of the Board to give it some significance, inasmuch as it was made over the telephone? Dr. LEISERSON. I don't know. It may be that it referred to money they spent in organizing campaigns or money they spent in political campaigns. I don't know. Mr. HALLECK. Yes; but you can't tell us now what that reference was Dr. LEISERSON. I certainly cannot. Mr. HALLECK. Or the foundation of it. you on guard at that time? Shouldn't that have put Dr. LEISERSON. If you think that is the only squawk we ever got on our decisions, you are mistaken. We are not only told all sorts of things like that, but we are called names and we are berated. Mr. HALLECK. But, Doctor, you are evading the issue now. Dr. LEISERSON. What is the issue? Mr. HALLECK. Here was a member of your organization reporting a conversation, in which the use of money was mentioned. You as a member of the Board should have been put on your guard to ascertain what that meant. Dr. LEISERSON. Well, perhaps I should, but I didn't-and if that was wrong, I plead guilty. I just didn't think it was very important. Mr. HALLECK. You thought it might have reference to the payment of campaign funds? What campaign funds, and for what purpose? Dr. LEISERSON. Oh, I didn't have any very definite idea about it. All these organizations endorsed various candidates, and contributed to campaign funds. Mr. HALLECK. Yes; but this had to do with the payment of funds. that would be reflected in some way with the action of the Board, if it had anything to do with campaign funds? Dr. LEISERSON. I don't think it referred to action of the Board. I think it referred to action of the President. Mr. HALLECK. All right. Then you still gave it so little significance that you didn't care to follow it up? Dr. LEISERSON. That is correct. Mr. HALLECK. Either as an individual or as a board? Dr. LEISERSON. That is correct. Mr. HALLECK. All right. Mr. TOLAND. Doctor, I have one question I would like to ask you. Referring to Exhibit 28-and I will show you the exhibit-would you tell me who it was who inspired Brackett to send the telegram in the Universal Pictures case? Dr. LEISERSON. That was part of my general criticism of the secretary. I thought that he inspired it in order to get quick action. That was my idea. Mr. TOLAND. You thought the secretary inspired Brackett to send the telegram? Dr. LEISERSON. I have no proof of it. Mr. TOLAND. And the record shows that Brackett is the attorney for the union? Dr. LEISERSON. No; I think he is an officer of one of the unions. Mr. TOLAND. Affiliated with the C. I. O.? Dr. LEISERSON. I think so; I am not sure about that. It is one of those screen writers' guilds. Mr. TOLAND. Now, Mr. Chairman, I propose to take up memoranda written by Dr. Leiserson in cases that involved delay in the action of the Board. Doctor, would you look at your files for the memorandum of August 11 in the American Viscose case! I show you a photostatic reproduction and ask you if it is a true and correct copy? Dr. LEISERSON. Correct. Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence the copy just identified by the witness. (Memorandum, August 11, 1939, Leiserson to Madden, was received in evidence and marked "Exhibit No. 30.") Mr. TOLAND. Reading from Exhibit 30, to Mr. Madden from William M. Leiserson, August 11, 1939, American Viscose Co., IX-C-986: The charge in this case was received in Charleston, W. Va., by a field examiner. Is that an approved practice? I did not know it was done. On June 12 the company gave a definite answer to Mr. Phillips. Phillips says that this letter was "merely formal" and that the company was told we were further investigating the matter. Then on July 5 Wagner wrote to the company again, and he makes the statement that the construction company implied in a letter that the discharge of the men was at the request of the Viscose Co. In this company's reply, dated July 31, however, the statement is made that the construction company wrote to Phillips about the same thing that the Viscose Co. wrote him on July 12, There is no copy of the construction company's letter in this file. Then the Viscose Company goes on to repeat to Wagner on July 31st what it had already written to Phillips on June 12th. It seems to me that there was a lot of wasted time and effort here, resulting from inadequate analysis of the charge. Perhaps it was hasty action on the part of the field examiner in accepting the charge out in the field. But this sort of thing may happen in the best kind of regional office. The real point is that it was not caught by our organization here in Washington although we receive weekly and biweekly reports. It is another example of the lack of proper supervision and direction of our field organization which causes so many of our cases to be messy and so much delay in handling cases. Dr. LEISERSON. May I say here that since August 11 I have visited the Cincinnati regional office where this man Wagner is a field examiner, and if there is any implication in this memorandum that Wagner did anything wrong, I want it corrected, I found him to be a very high-grade person. And when he goes out in the field-the Cincinnati office is headquarters for a large territory; it covers the mining districts and so on, and these people cannot get to the office very easily, and therefore it is customary for them to file complaints with the regional office Mr. TOLAND. Charges, you mean? Dr. LEISERSON. When he is around. I didn't intend to criticize it, though I thought it was a slip, that he didn't catch the difference between the two companies, but it was the business of our office to catch that. Mr. TOLAND. Doctor, would you look at your file for a memorandum of September 20 in the F. E. Booth & Co. case? Dr. LEISERSON. September what? Mr. TOLAND. September 20, 1939. Dr. LEISERSON. All right. Mr. TOLAND. Doctor, I show you what purports to be a photostatic reproduction and ask if it is a true and correct copy? Dr. LEISERSON. Yes. Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence the copy just identified by the witness. (Memorandum September 20, 1939, Leiserson to Madden and Smith, was received in evidence and marked "Exhibit No. 31".) Mr. TOLAND. Reading from Exhibit 31, to Mr. Madden and Mr. Smith from William M. Leiserson, September 20, 1939, F. E. Booth & Co., cases R-1181 through R-1191: After many months of inexcusable delay the final report on these cases is now in. This report puts the regional office in the ridiculous situation of making charges against itself. At the same time it contains evidence of partisanship in submitting information on which the Board is asked to take action. I think the San Francisco office needs to be investigated immediately to get rid of the partisanship, and a certification should be promptly issued in these cases to keep the Board from becoming mixed up in the partisanship. Initialed "WML.” Doctor, will you please tell the committee the basis for the statements you made in this memorandum? Dr. LEISERSON. Yes. There was a report from the regional office months before this final report that I mentioned here, maybe 6 months before, and that report took one position. In this final report, also from the same regional office, it took an opposite position and was somewhat critical of the first report. And because of that I thought it was a serious thing that we ought to look into. Mr. TOLAND. Well, Doctor, do you think you have fully stated the basis of the statement that appears in your memorandum, that this office is partisan? Partisan in what connection, Doctor? Mr. LEISERSON. Well, in reviewing the evidence, you see. Mr. TOLAND. Who was involved in the case? Dr. LEISERSON. A couple of field examiners, you see. Now that sort of thing can happen. I have seen it all the time. We have hundreds of these field examiners, and one of them writes a certain kind of a report. Then we get another report that takes the opposite position on the same case. It is the sort of thing we ought to make sure of that we get a definite statement by one field examiner on all sides of the case in one report. Mr. TOLAND. Well, Doctor, isn't it a fact that the reports that were made refer to the bias and the prejudice exerted by the companies and the A. F. of L. against the C. I. O.? Dr. LEISERSON. Well, the cases were a lot of cannery cases, in which the A. F. of L. unions had made a contract, and the C. I. O. unions wanted an election, and there were all sorts of charges back and forth, and finally an election was held and the A. F. of L. won. The certification, however, was not issued for a long time because of certain charges that were filed, and the investigation of these charges made by these two field examiners is what I referred to. Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Chairman, may I read certain excerpts from a report prepared by my staff from the files of the National Labor Relations Board concerning this case? The CHAIRMAN. Identify the case. Mr. TOLAND. The case is that of the F. E. Booth & Co.., Monterey, Calif: The number is XX-R-316 and R-1181 through 1191: On November 15, 1938, the C. I. O. petitioned in the alternative for designation as the bargaining representative for all the cannery employees of the company or all the cannery employees of all canneries in Monterey represented by the California Sardine Institute (five of the eleven companies belonged). At the time an A. F. of L. union had a contract with each of the cannery companies members of the Institute. Eleven petitions by C. I. O. unions in sardine cannery companies, members of the Institute, were ordered consolidated by the Board on December 30, 1938 (Nos. X-R-316 to 326), and a hearing was ordered. Hearing, January 9, 1939, Thomas H. Kennedy, trial examiner, 592 pages of record. Oral argument, January 24, 1939 (was mentioned as enclosed in letter from Kennedy to Pratt, dated January 19, 1939.) Direction and order of election, January 31, 1939, amended February 6, 1939, to allow two weeks for holding election from date of amendment; election held February 14-16, 1939; intermediate report on election, March 10, 1939 (not in file); report on objection (recommended hearing), October 6, 1939; certification of the A. F. of L. union in each election, October 19, 1939. The formal file discloses that the C. I. O. petitions asked in the alternative for certification as the bargaining agent for all the employees of each company or all the employees of all the cannery companies in Monterey. In their brief the C. I. O. unions changed their position and asked for either a single plant unit or a coastwise unit (as in the Longshoremen's case) saying that a Montereycanneries unit was undesirable. No amendments to the petitions, which had requested a single plant unit or an all canneries in Monterey unit, appear to have been made. Thus, the Board allowed a change of position by the petitioners in their brief and accepted that change by deciding on a single plant unit. It would appear that in the absence of an amended petition, the Board should have given weight to the original petition, especially to the part of the alternative concurred in by the A. F. of L. From the Board decision it appeared that while an identical agreement had been secured from each cannery in Monterey, and that cannery workers were "floaters," each such agreement had been secured individually from each cannery. The canneries had appointed a committee to negotiate, but the committee was without authority to bind the canneries. On this single factor, even though the C. I. O. and A. F. of L. unions had wanted a Monterey unit (the C. I. O. changed in its brief), the Board ordered a single cannery unit. The file discloses a telegram from Harry Bridges to Witt, dated February 3, 1939, protesting against allowing employees who replaced strikers to vote. Simi |