Page images
PDF
EPUB

now with respect to representation. If the case was held up because of a pending complaint, we should know whether the complaint case has been finally settled.

W. M. L. Mr. TOLAND. Doctor, would you look at your files for the memorandum of November 13, 1939, in the Magnolia Petroleum Co. case?

I show you a photostatic reproduction and ask you if it is a true and correct copy?

Dr. LEISERSON. Yes.

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

(Memorandum to Mr. Madden, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Emerson from William M. Leiserson, November 13, 1939, was received in evidence and marked “Exhibit No. 35.")

Mr. TOLAND. Reading from Exhibit 35:
Magnolia Petroleum Co., C-940, R-735.

I do not want to participate in this case. The petitions for representation were confused with the complaint, and I do not think that we ought to issue a direction of election on a record made a year and a half ago. The oral argument was heard December 1, 1938, and I cannot understand why the drafting of the decision was so long delayed.

W. M. L. Mr. TOLAND. Doctor, will you look at your file and find a memorandum dated July 10, 1939, in the Aronsson Printing Co. case!

Dr. LEISERSON. July 10?
Mr. TOLAND. July 10; just one sentence.

I show you a photostatic copy 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 from William M. Leiserson, July 10, 1939, was received in evidence and marked “Exhibit No. 36.")

The CHAIRMAN. Shall we adjourn when we finish this, Mr. Toland ? No hurry. Mr. TÖLAND. I am trying to finish these (reading from Exhibit 36):

Date, JULY 10, 1939, To Mr. Madden. From Wm. M. Leiserson. Subject: Aronsson Printing (ompany, ('ase No. ("-517.

The oral arguments in this case were heard on October 6, 1938. I do not want to participate in the decision.

W. M. L. And noted thereon: “Copy to Vír. Emerson."

In that connection, in connection with this case. I am reading a copy of a communication, an interoffice communication from the seventh region, Detroit, Mich., to Benedict Wolf, Esq., dated November 2, 1937, from Frank II. Bowen, director, seventh region:

DEAR DIK: I am enclosing herewith copy of a letter sent by our Mr. Anderson to the Aronsson Printing Co. This is a weak case and we are trying to break down Aronsson rather than go to a hearing. Yours very truly,

FRANK H. BOWEN,

Regional Director, The CHAIRMAX. Who is Aronsson? Mr. TOLAND. The respondent.

The CHAIRMAN. The employer?
Mr. TOLAND. I beg pardon?
The CHAIRMAN. The employer?
Jír. TOLAND. The printing company. It is the employer.

Doctor, will you look at your file for a memorandum dated August 19. in the Burroughs Adding Machine Co, case, a short memorandum? I show you a photostatic reproduction and ask you if it is a true and correct copy?

Dr. LEISERSON. Yes.

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

(Memorandum to Mr. Madden from William M. Leiserson, August 19.1939, was received in evidence and marked "Exhibit No. 37.")

Mr. TOLAND. We will adjourn after this one, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. I would like to know a little more what these memoranda are about.

Jr. TOLAND. Yes; we are putting in our statement when we finish with the witness. Reading from Exhibit 37:

AUGUST 19, 1939. To Mr. Madden From Wm. M. Leiserson

Burroughs Adding Machine Company, R-1343. Why should it take until August 19th to get this decision out when the oral arguDent was held June 2d and we decided what to do shortly thereafter? Two months unnecessary delay in an election case.

W. M. L. Now, Mr. Chairman, may we excuse the witness with the request that he appear again at 10 o'clock in the morning?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.
That is all you have at this time?
Mr. TOLAND. I can continue on and finish these.

The ('HAIRMAN. The committee will stand adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 4:10 p. m., the hearing was adjourned until Tuesday, December 12, 1939, at 10 a. m.)

218051-40-vol. 15

VITIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1939

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to adjournment Monday, December 11, 1939, in room 362 of the Old House Office Building, Representative Howard W. Smith, chairman, presiding.

Present: Representatives Howard W. Smith of Virginia, Arthur D. Healey of Massachusetts, Abe Murdock of Utah, Charles A. Halleck of Indiana, Harry N. Routzohn of Ohio.

Edmund M. Toland, general counsel to the committee.
Charles Fahy, general counsel to the National Labor Relations
Board.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.
Dr. Leiserson, will you resume the stand!

(The witness, Dr. William M. Leiserson, resumed the witness stand for further examination.)

Mr. Fahy (reading). Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I would like to make a request. Some time ago, on behalf of the Board, I requested that the committee afford the Board through counsel an opportunity to examine or cross-examine witnesses. Mr. Toland, your counsel, has formally advised me that this request has been denied. The Board also requested an opportunity to present to you, at timely intervals, testimony bearing upon testimony previously given. Your counsel informally advised me that this request had been neither granted nor denied, but that I should make specific requests as occasion might arise, and that the committee would rule upon the requests #hen so made. I make such a request now.

I respectfully ask that immediately following the testimony of Dr. Leiserson, the chairman of the Board and the third member of the Board, Mr. Edwin S. Smith, be permitted to testify on matters covered by the various memoranda introduced yesterday during the testimony of Dr. Leiserson. The Board, as you know, has a chairman, J. Warren Madden. He has been chairman since the Board was organized, upon approval of the enactment of Congress by the President. The Board also has in addition to Dr. Leiserson another member, Mr. Edwin S. Smith, who has also been with the Board since the beginning, and indeed was a member of the predecessor Board. These gentlemen have borne not only the burdens of the Tears, but, as Dr. Leiserson pointed out, the organization was largely built up under them.

The memoranda introduced before you yesterday are almost entirely, I believe, communications between the three members of the Board; that is, between Dr. Leiserson and the chairman and Mr. Smith. They deal with only a few of the thousands of cases handled by the Board, and relate primarily to the secretary and the office of the secretary.

Mr. Witt, the secretary, has also been with the Board since its beginning, first as assistant general counsel and then as secretary. Indeed, hie was a part of the organization of the old predecessor Board.

Dr. Leiserson, whose criticism of his work you have heard, has had a shorter and less adequate acquaintance with it than either the chairman or Mr. Smith. Ilis memoranda now in the record pose certain questions and make certain criticisms. What are the answers, specifically and generally? The chairman would like to be heard on the subject immediately. So woull Mr. Smith. I have myself made an analysis of some of the cases referred to in the memoranda, and have reported on them to the chairman. When analyzed, the specific criticism of the handling of cases by the secretary fades away.

Dr. Leiserson pointed out the freedom with which the organization has indulged in self-criticism, as a proper means of improving its work, and he has frankly indicated that there is at least more than one side to the matter. He has also pointed out that his criticism is rather isolated and rims primarily in one direction.

But it is important, in view of the nature of the memoranda, that the views and solutions of those to whom they were sent be knownnot simply that they were the bare contents of the memoranda themselves. What are the facts about the cases mentioned! These matters were taken up and acted upon. You should know what was done and why.

And what of the secretary himself, who has been with the work from the beginning! He was with the Board under Lloyd Garrison, who knew him well, and whom all men respect. What does Garrison think of him and his integrity, ability, and qualifications? He knew him longer than Leiserson. The present secretary was with the old Board under Francis Biddle, now an honored jurist of one of our higher Federal courts. He knew Witt well and saw his work. What did he think of him and his work? What does John Carmody, the Administrator of the great Federal Works Agency-a frank, able, and honest public servani-think of the secretary of the Board! He was a member of the Board when Witt was assistant general comsel; and there is Professor Millis, also of the old Board. How did he appraise Witt and his work? And what did Donald Smith, until recently a member, think of him?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Faly, I think you were present yesterday, at which time I indicated very clearly that this committee did not intend to have prepared statements jead, certainly without permission.

Mr. ToLand. Mr. Fahy's statement sounds like an apology on behalf of Mr. Witt, Mr. Chairman.

The CHARMAN. I am a little surprised, Mr. Fahy, at your taking the liberty of reading a long prepared statement, in view of the ruling of the committee yesterday upon that subject. I thought that you just wanted to make a motion, or a request, which the committee could pass upon. I do not think this is an appropriate time for you to read a brief on the subject of the qualifications of any member of your staff.

May I state now that, as far as the question is concerned as to criticisms of Mr. Witt, or anybody else connected with your organization,

« PreviousContinue »