« PreviousContinue »
lar telegram from Stuyvelaar, Secretary, San Francisco Industrial Union Council. Witt wired parties that votes of employees hired after strike would be segregated peading disposition of C. I. 0. protest.
Telegram from the cannery attorneys to N. L. R. B., dated February 9, 1999, asked that decision be amended to allow ballots also be counted on industry-wide basis Were willing to appoint Sardine Institute as agent for bargaining. Mentioned wire of February 3, 1939, which is not in file.
Motion of A. F. of L. Union on February 24, 1939, that decision be amended to allow Monterey unit denied on February 9, 1939.
Offer of attorneys for canneries renewed in letter of February 25, 1939. Again denied March 1, 1939.
Rosseter submitted report on objections to elections on October 6, 1939, that found all kinds of bias, prejudice, etc., exerted by the companies and the A. F. of L. against the C. I. O. This report, however, was disregarded by the Board.
The informal file discloses: Memo from Rosseter to Witt dated December 22, 1938, gave field examiner's reprt. In the course of the report Rosseter said (at p. 7): "The unions named abure (C. I. 0, and A. F. of L.) and the respondents have indicated that they favor a bargaining unit comprised of all cannery workers employed by all the eteren canneries named in the report
This shows clearly that C. I. O. later changed its position, and the Board agreed with it.
Memo from Jennings, Board attorney, to N. L. R. B., dated January 13, 1939, urged immediate action, as unless canners give A. F. of L. Union notice before May 1, their contract automatically extended.
Informal report dated January 24, 1939, recommended that the appropriate bargaining unit be all the employees in each plant as a single unit.
C. I. 0. national headquarters wrote January 16, 1939, asking that decision be eipeiited.
Telegram from canneries' attorneys dated February 4, 1939, protested the selection of eligibility for voting on a plant basis but approved it on an industry basis.
Telegram from A. F. of L. union, dated February 6, 1939, protested selection of targaining unit and holding of election February 13 in face of stipulation to the effect that election to be before February 4 or in August. Must be error, as Witt, in telegram to Rosseter on February 6, 1939, speaks of February 15 as last day of stipulation.
Viemo from Rosseter to N. L. R. B. dated February 27, 1939, dealt with the conduet of the election and the tactics and attitude of the C. I. 0. representative. Breveter felt the election was fair and that the C. I. 0. union had created the greatest difficulties. Compare this memo with Rosseter's report on objections, dath October 6, 1939, where Rosseter found the A. F. of L. guilty of every kind of chichanery and malpractice. The difference between the two is too tremendous for anything but a change in attitude. This should be investigated. Unfortun. ately, both reports are too long to reproduce here verbatim. See also telegram from Rosseter to Witt dated March 1939, along the same lines.
Memo from Hvague, review attorney, to Fahy et al., dated March 10, 1939, made various comments on trial examiner's errors. Memo attached.
Memo from Rosseter to Witt dated July 24, 1939, stated that the report on hiretions to the election was about complete. Inquiry was made as to whether it should be served on all interested parties. Note that the report was not actu. ally issued until October 6, 1939, some two and a half months later. Wire from Stern to Rosseter dated July 26, 1939, stated such report should be served on all interested parties. Pink memo “FGK" to "BMS,” dated July 26, stated that Emerson and Shaw also agreed that such report should be sent.
Telegram from Stern to Rosseter dated July 27, 1939, requested draft of propel report on objections for approval. Such proposed draft not in files.
Memo from Stern to Leiserson dated September 6, 1939, stated that the delay in the case was due to the difficulty in checking the objections made and the lack of an intermediate report. In view of the facts that the report on the objections Tas almost ready on July 24, and a request was made for a draft of such report
de on July 27, this excuse is untruthful, as that was not the reason for the delay. Furthermore, although Rosseter's intermediate report on the ballot had pot been received, a telegram giving the results had been, and Rosseter had offered to send a copy of the results on March 30, 1939. Thus Stern's excuses for the delay as set out in the memo are untenable. Memo attached,
Telegram from Stern to Rosseter, dated September 1, 1939, stated no copies of intermediate report on ballot, objections to the election, and report on objections had been received.
Memo from Rosseter to Stern, dated September 5, 1939, forwarded copies of intermediate report and objections to election and promised to send report on objections.
Telegram from Witt to Rosseter, dated September 15, 1939, inquired as to inconsistency between Rosseter's memo of February 27 and the report on objections. Witt requested the full supporting memo for such report, and Rosseter wired back on September 16, 1939, that it would be air mailed.
Memo from Rosseter to Witt, dated September 18, 1939, set out the reasons Rosseter's report on objections differed so fundamentally with the memo of February 27. The memo attempted to fasten the blame on the Board employees, Jennings and Knowlton, who conducted the elections and also on the canneries.
Letter from A. F. af L. attorney to N. L. R. B., dated August 26, 1939, complaining of the delay in issuing certifications after the A. F. of L. won the February elections. The delay of Rosseter in submitting her report on objections and the delay of the Board on the certifications are inexcusable and should be inquired into.
Pink memo from “HK” (?) to Stern, dated September 14, in response to another pink memo to answer letter from A. F. of L. attorney: "I haven't even been able to retain this file long enough to draft a letter. However, I don't have to answer Janigan's letter or justify the actions of the Regional Oflice except on the basis that delay was inevitable because the men had dispersed at the end of the fishing season. The formal report on objections may show why the delay was so prolonged. Shall we wait for this, or have the Regional Office attempt a detailed answer, or stick our necks out by trying to justify the delay?"
Memo from Leiserson to Madden and Siuith, dated September 20, 1939.
Telegram from Witt to Rosseter, dated September 27, 1939, ordered Rosseter to issue report on objections five days after service.
Pink memo from “JKM" to Witt, dated September 25, 1939, stated: “I should like to have a general discussion of the problem, with Fahy and Emerson in."
This analysis or outline was prepared by my staff in an examination of both the informal and formal files, and in connection with the memorandum of the Doctor, I think it should be spread on the record.
(The memorandum continues :) Mr. ToLand. The following letters appeared in the informal file:
March 10, 1939. Messrs. Fahy, Watts, Witt, Pratt, and Emerson. Francis Hoague. Comments on the Record. Case: F. E. Booth & Company, et al., and Monterey Bay Area Fish Workers Union No. 23.
Cases Nos. R-1181 through R-1191. Board's Attorney: John Paul Jennings. Trial Examiner: Thomas H. Kennedy. Review Attorney: Francis Hoague. Place of Hearing: Monterey, California. Date of Hearing: January 9 through 11, 1939. Pages of Transcript : 589).
These cases involved the employees of 11 fish packing and reduction plants in Monterey. The petitions were filed late in the fishing season and the hearing and decision had to be rushed in order to allow the elections to be held before the season ended and the employees left town for work elsewhere.
In his desire to shorten the hearing, the Trial Examiner made some rulings which although fortunately not prejudicial, seem to have been unwise. They were as follows:
(1) The denial of the right of cross-examination by the companies or the intervening union as to the authenticity of signatures on membership cards introduced by the petitioning mion. It should be pointed out that the petitioning union was asking only for an election, and cross-examination of the organizers would have resulted in very little helpful evidence. However, it would seem that if membership cards are admitted on authentication hy organizers, the opposing parties should be permitted a reasonable opportunity to
question that authentication by cross-examination. The denial was perhaps more dangerous here, inasmuch as the intervening union contended that it had a majority and asked that the proceedings be dismissed because of this. Had the intervening union been able to show a prima facie majority the Board might bare found difficulty in determining whether the petitioner's membership cards were effective to destroy such majority by duplications.
(2) The admission into evidence over objection of some of the petitioner's membership cards without any authentication of the cards or the signatures. Again this was not prejudicial because a substantial membership had been adequately proved, but it would have been prejudicial had the intervening union proved a prima facie majority membership.
(3 A ruling that the companies could not cross-examine as to the appropriate unit.
(1) The exclusion of some membership cards of the intervening union on the ground that sufficient cards had been introduced to show a substantial membership. The signatures to the cards which were admitted had been obtained with the help of supervisors and therefore were not considered competent to show a
1:1 jority. However, I should think it would have been better to have admitted them all for the benefit of the Board's consideration regarding their effectiveness.
151 The exclusion of cards of some employees who had been fired by the comquries because of joining the petitioning union. Later on similar cards were admitted.
F. H. FH/sg
SEPTEMBER 6, 1939. William M. Leiserson. Beatrice M. Stern. F E. Booth & Company. Case No. R-1181.
In accordance with your request for information as to the delay in this case :
The election was held February 14, 15, 16. Mrs. Rosseter's report of February 27 shows flagrant and obstructionist tactics on the part of the petitioner before ald during the conduct of the election. A motion was filed by the respondent 2011 the AFL protesting the Board's finding of individual employer units. The tellots were not counted until that was disposed of on March 1. The Regional (95 e was directed to count the ballots on March 2 and to issue its Intermediate Rewrt to the parties under the Rules and Regulations effective April 27, 1936. The Intermediate Report was issued on March 10 and served on the parties on March 11. No copy was ever forwarded to the Board, although it was requested UD reral occasions.
Objections were filed by the petitioner on the conduct of the election after a three-day extension had been granted (you will note that the old Rules and Regulations limited the time for filing of exceptions to the Intermediate Report to fre days after the service of the Intermediate Report). Presumably the objections have been on file since March 20 in the Regional Office. We have been adTie since that date on one or two occasions of the difficulties inherent in an
namination by Lubliner, Field Examiner, because of the dispersal of the people participating in the election at the close of the season, February 15.
(A marginal note (in pencil): "Leiserson 9/8?") It is not apparent from the regional file that Knowlton was used on this investigation at all. He conducted the election with Jennings, attorney. The reason for the change in personnel probably lay in the bitterness of petitioner's attitude toward Knowlton.
(A marginal note): (In pencil): "g k.” Note that I have wired Mrs. Rosseter again for a copy of the Intermediate Rejust and her report on the objections. The delay has apparently occurred in *he investigation of the objections, although it is not clear how long the investigation has been completed. The matter should have been followed up more aggressively from Washington, although it is clearly the function of the Regional Cifre to handle representation cases with dispatch, and the burden lies with the Regional Office,
BMS: IMK: ab.
(Interoffice communication, National Labor Relations Board)
Date: SEPT. 20, 1939.
After many months of inexcusable delay, the final report on these cases is now in. This report puts the regional office in the ridiculous position 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.
W. M. L.
SEPTEMBER 23, 1939. Mr. Leiserson, Edwin S. Smith.
Your memorandum of September 20 re F. E. Booth & Company.
I have been over Mrs. Rosseter's supporting memorandum on objections dated September 16, and also her memorandum to Mr. Witt dated September 1, and also her memorandum to Mr. Witt dated September 18, as well as looking through the files on the same case. Like you, I am disturbed at the delay in making the final report on these cases, and I think Mrs. Rosseter should be asked about the reason for the delay, although I can well understand the difficulties that the investigator was under because of the considerations set forth by Mrs. Rosseter in her letter of September 5 to Mrs. Stern.
I find nothing "ridiculous" in the fact that the memorandum presents evidence of lack of impartiality and inefficiency by the Board's agents in the conduct of the election. I think it is quite proper for the Director to present the Board with such facts and quite improper if this were not done.
The evidence that our agents did not conduct the election with thoroughimpartiality as well as the evidence of employer interference set forth in the report on objections and the supporting memorandum indicate to me quite clearly that the Board should not certify the results of the election. Inasmuch as the conduct of the Board's agents is involved, it seems to me that we could well set aside the election on our own motion without going through the timeconsuming process of a hearing. ess/v1
('opy to Mr. Madden.
Dr. LEISERSON. I should say that most of the events that happened there were long before I came to the Board. Mr. TOLAND. Yes, that is true and the record, Doctor, will so show.
, Now, Doctor, if you will look at your file you will find the memoianduin of September 21 in the Cornbleet Bros, case.
Dr. LEISERSON. I have it here.
Mr. TOLAND. Doctor, 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 to Madden and Smith from Leiserson, September 21, 1939, was received in evidence and marked "Exhibit No. 32.")
Mr. TOLAND. Reading from Exhibit 32, to Mr. Madden and Mr. Smith from William M. Leiserson, dated September 21, 1939:
('ornbleet Bros., XI-( 499.
The request for authorization in this case has been in the office here for five months. Five different people-Witt, Stern, Kurasch, Garrett, and Gates
have superficially handled it. None of them got to the bottom of the case. Many letters were written to the regional office asking for much unnecessary information. A competent person could have analyzed the case and disposed of it within a week.
The information submitted by the Regional Director in the first instance was sufficient to indicate that the charges here are by members of a union against their own officers whom they charge with improperly administering an agreement which the complainants as well as the union officers considered Talid because both appealed to it as justification for their action. The Director should be instructed to dismiss the charges.
WML. Mr. TOLAND. Doctor, would you look at your file and find the memorandum on September 18 in the Ansley Radio Corporation case?
Dr. LEISERSON. The 18th?
Mr. TOLAND. Yes, sir. I show you, Doctor, a photostatic reproduction and ask you if it is a true and correct copy?
Dr. LEISERSON. Yes.
Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I offer the copy in evidence just identified by the witness.
(Memorandum to Mr. Madden, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Emerson from Wm. M. Leiserson, September 18, 1939, was received in evidence and marked "Exhibit No. 33.")
Mr. TOLAND. Reading from Exhibit 33:
The draft decision shows utter confusion, and the reason for this is that the whole case was improperly analyzed at the beginning. Had an election been held in October 1937, when the petition was filed, it would have been possible to settle all the real issues in dispute. At this late date an election is impossible, as the draft decision points out, and the reinstatement of the two men becomes absurd brause of our belated discovery that the contract provided for a closed shop.
W. M. L. Mr. TOLAND. Doctor, will you look at your file and
Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Toland, I wonder if we might have a little explanation-just in a word-of what the case was?
Mr. TOLAND. I have it here and will be glad to explain that for the record. When the Doctor finishes, I plan, on behalf of the committee, to submit a complete analysis of the cases referred to.
Mr. HALLECK. Very well.
Mr. TOLAND. Doctor, if you will look at your file for the memorandum of October 14, 1939, in the Isthmian Šteamship Co. case?
Dr. LEISERSON. October 14?
Mr. ToLand. I show you a photostatic reproduction and ask you if it is a true and correct copy?
Dr. LEISERSON. Yes.
Mr. TOLAND. I offer in evidence, Mr. Chairman, the copy just identified by the witness.
(Memorandum to Mr. Madden, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Emerson from William M. Leiserson, October 14, 1939, received in evidence and marked "Exhibit No. 34.")
Mr. TOLAND. Reading from Exhibit 34: Isthmian Steamship Company, R-847: This case is almost two years old. The hearing was held in June 1938. I do Dot think we ought to order an election without knowing what the situation is