or not connected with your organization, any person whose name is brought into this matter in a critical way, this committee proposes to afford him an opportunity to be heard. As to the question when such person shall be heard, that of course, as you realize is clearly within the province of the committee.

Mr. FAHY. There is no question about that.

The CHAIRMAN. My opinion is that to make suggestions to the committee as to the order in which the committee shall call witnesses in making the investigation might be termed "a little presumptuous,' though I do not mean to be offensive to you.

Mr. FANY. That is all right.

The CHAIRMAN. So far as my personal views are concerned, this committee will conduct the investigation and will decide the order in which the witnesses will be called. The committee will also see that every Board witness has an opportunity at some time to be heard; but to undertake to permit anyone to determine the order in which witnesses should be called would result in a great deal of conflict because various parties would feel that they ought to be called at this moment because their names happened to be mentioned at this moment.

I think the suggestion you make, aside from the reason that I have stated, is impractical. I will be glad when the other member of the committee comes to have an informal discussion with the rest of the members of the committee to see if they agree with my views, but I want to state to you very frankly in his absence what my views on the subject are.

Now, as to the suggestion that you make that the other two members of the Board should be called immediately, I want to make this statement-that the purpose of the committee, in order to save time and not to clutter up the record here daily, is to introduce as a part of its record the very voluminous and extensive hearings that have been held by the Senate committee, and also the hearings held by the House committee; and, if the rest of the committee agree with me, my own nding on that would be that where a witness has testified at length and fully we would not care for a repetition of the same thing that has already taken place before the Senate or the House committees.

However, if any new matter is raised here, or such witness desires to make any supplemental statement not covered by his previous testiLony, we will give him that opportunity to be heard.

Now, I say, if you will defer your request, I will have an informal discussion with the committee at recess.

Mr. FAHY. Mr. Chairman, may I just say this?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. FAHY. I realize that the control over the calling of witnesses is entirely in the hands of the committee. I was making a request that the chairman and Mr. Smith be called after Dr. Leiserson with respect to the new matter. That is entirely up to the committee. The reason that I was somewhat lengthy about it was that I thought my request would have a better chance of being granted if I enlarged upon the reasons for it.

Mr. TOLAND. His reading of the statement was for the benefit of the press and the gallery.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Mr. Toland.

Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence 21 volumes of the testimony entitled "National Labor Relations Act and Proposed Amendments, Hearings Before the Committee on Education and

Labor, United States Senate, Seventy-sixth Congress, first session." I ask that the volumes be made a part of the record but not printed. (The 21 volumes of testimony entitled "National Labor Relations Act and Proposed Amendments, Hearings Before the Committee on Education and Labor, United States Senate, Seventy-sixth Congress, first session," were received in evidence and marked "Exhibit No. 38," and are on file with the Committee.)

Mr. TOLAND. I offer in evidence nine volumes of the hearings on proposed amendments to the National Labor Relations Act, entitled "Hearings Before the Committee on Labor, House of Representatives, Seventy-sixth Congress, first session." I ask that the volumes be marked as exhibits, made a part of the record, and that they not be printed.

(The nine volumes of the hearings on proposed amendments to the National Labor Relations Act, entitled "Hearings before the Committee on Labor, House of Representatives, Seventy-sixth Congress, first session," were received in evidence and marked "Exhibit No. 39' and are on file with the Committee.)

Mr. TOLAND. I offer in evidence, Mr. Chairman, in support of the record of the hearings before the Senate and the House Committees, our correspondence with all of the witnesses, and their replies. I ask that the correspondence be made a part of the record and not be printed.

(The correspondence with witnesses referred to, together with replies, was received in evidence and marked "Exhibit No. 40" and is on file with the Committee.)

TESTIMONY OF DR. WILLIAM LEISERSON-Resumed

Mr. TOLAND. Doctor, will you direct your attention to your file and look at the memorandum of November 8, 1939, in the Yale & Towne Manufacturing Co. matter? I show you what purports to be a photostatic reproduction, and ask you if it is a true and correct copy?

Dr. LEISERSON. Yes, sir.

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

(Letter dated November 8, 1939, from WML to Mr. Madden, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Emerson, as read below, was received in evidence and marked "Exhibit No. 41.")

Mr. TOLAND. Reading from Exhibit No. 41, addressed to Mr. Madden, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Emerson, from William M. Leiserson, November 8, 1939:

Yale & Towne Manufacturing Company, C-928.

This tentative draft seems all right to me, but why did it take so long to prepare the draft if the case was reported in June?

(Initialed) WML.

I would like to read into this case a brief outline made from the records of the National Labor Relations Board. The caption of the case is "Yale & Towne Manufacturing Co., North Chicago, Ill., XIIIC-672; C-928."

Chronology of Events:

(a) Charge filed February 17, 1938, alleging 8 (1) and (2).

(b) Complaint filed June 13, 1938, alleging violations of 8 (1), (2), and (3). (c) Hearing, June 23, 1938.

(d) Amended charge, June 13, 1938, alleging violations of 8 (1), (2), and (3).

(e) Intermediate report; September 21, 1938.

(f) Decision and order November 13, 1939, finding a violation of 8 (1) only and ordering the posting of notices.

The file discloses a communication from Brownlee, C. I. O. to Chairman Madden:

We respectfully ask your assistance in expediting the decision of the Board and request some information as to the status of the matter.

September 8, 1939, communication from Riffe, of the C. I. O. to Madden :

We have been patiently waiting for many months for action in the matter of the Sager Lock Company, North Chicago, Illinois.

Will you kindly inform us when we may expect the decision of the Board. In the margin, in pencil, was written "usual," and then erased. On October 20, 1939, a communication from Brownlee to Witt: The Intermediate Report of the Trial Examiner in the above matter was issued September 21, 1938. We cannot understand why the Board has waited over a year to render its decision, unless the case has been lost in the great volume of files you must have in your office.

We will appreciate having some word from you as to the present situation and as to whether or not we may expect a decision in this matter.

On November 28, 1939, Emerson to Fahy, Witt, Watts, and Pratt:

Review Attorney's comments on the record:

Board attorney. Moved at the conclusion of Board's case to dismiss complaint as to three employees alleged to have been discriminatorily discharged, but did not disclaim testimony as to lay-offs in so far as showed 8 (1) with result that respondent put in rebuttal evidence which lengthened hearing.

Board counsel. Had the 8 (3) cases dismissed on motion of the Board's attorney been more thoroughly investigated it is probable that they might not have been presented.

Then there is a note in the file concerning the irregularities in the trial examiner's action:

(a) Cyganek, an employee, testified to a conversation with his foreman at which no one else was present. Careful reading of his testimony shows that be did fix the date as either November 17, 18 or 19. The Trial Examiner found it occurred on the 19th although documentary evidence offered by the respondent showed it could not have occurred on that date.

(b) The Trial Examiner admitted a newspaper, but ruled that it would not be used to establish the truth of statements made therein. However, he so used it in his intermediate report.

(c) Without explanation the Trial Examiner credited the testimony of Latina, a Board witness, as to her observation of the circulation of a petition in her foreman's presence but disbelieved her testimony as to the number of dies she had broken, although in both instances the witnesses who denied Latina's testimony were substantially the same persons.

Mr. TOLAND. Doctor, do you have any statement to make in supplement to your memorandum thus offered in evidence?

Dr. LEISERSON. No.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, will you look at your file, Doctor, and get a copy of your memorandum of August 16, 1939, in the Union Manufacturing Co. case? I show you what purports to be a photostatic copy, 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.

(Letter dated August 16, 1939, signed WML to Mr. Madden and Mr. Emerson, was received in evidence and marked "Exhibit No. 42.")

Mr. TOLAND. Reading from Exhibit No. 42, addressed to Mr. Madden and Mr. Emerson, from William M. Leiserson, August 6, 1939:

Union Manufacturing Co., R–1376.

This is O. K., but notice that the petition was filed in November 1938, and the investigation was not ordered until April 1939, and now the election probably will not be held until September. On looking up the files I find that Feidelson held up the petition many months in an effort to get an agreement for a consent election. B. Stern traced him several times to get action in the case. I think instruetions ought to go out that representation cases should not be delayed for the purpose of getting consent agreements. We are in a position now to handle such cases here quickly, and delay like that in the present case can be avoided if the case is submitted here as soon as the first effort to get a consent arrangement fails.

On page 6 May 5th is taken as the eligibility date. That seems to me too far back if the election is to be held in September. W. M. L.

I am now reading from an analysis prepared from the Board's file of this case by my staff. The caption is "Union Manufacturing Company, Inc., Union Point, Ga.: R-150; R-1376."

Petition filed by C. I. O. union on the 18th day of November 1938.

Order directing investigation and hearing, April 15, 1939.

Hearing. May 15, 1939. 92 pages of record and the case was transferred to the Board on the same day.

Draft made of informal report, but no such report in files.

Board's direction of election, September 7, 1939. Election held. September 14, 1939, won by the C. I. O. union. Certified on the 29th day of September 1939.

There is a memorandum in the files, Mrs. Stern to Feidelson, who was regional director at Atlanta, dated March 10, 1939, suggesting contacting the company's former counsel at his home in New Orleans and going on further to say:

"I do not know whether in view of the changed circumstances it might not be better for you first to find out from the T. W. O. C. whether they still want an election."

There is a further note:

Note solicitude throughout for feelings of Judge Sibley, of the United States Circuit Court, formerly connected with the company. For example, a pink memorandum from Kurasch to Stern, dated April 15. reads as follows:

"Judge Sibley is involved. You may want to instruct the regional office to continue efforts to reach an amicable consent arrangement in this situation." A further memorandum, from Feidelson to Pratt, dated April 21, 1939, states in part as follows:

"This company was originally organized by Judge Sibley now a Federal Cireuit Judge in New Orleans. You may care to assign an examiner who would be careful to avoid putting an unpleasant taste in the mouth of the company's president (the Judge's brother-in-law). On advice of Judge Sibley, the company has refused to agree to a consent election."

Mr. TOLAND. Doctor, do you have anything further to say with respect to your memorandum?

Dr. LEISERSON. No.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, will you look for the memorandum, Doctor, of August 1, 1939, American Machine & Foundry Co.?

Dr. LEISERSON. Here it is.

Mr. TOLAND. Doctor, I show you what purports to be a photostatic copy of your copy, and ask you if it is a true and correct copy thereof? Dr. LEISERSON. Correct.

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

(Copy of memorandum dated August 1, 1939, signed WML to Mr. Madden, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Emerson, was received in evidence and marked "Exhibit No. 43.")

Mr. TOLAND. Reading from Exhibit No. 43, to Mr. Madden, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Emerson, from William M. Leiserson, dated August 1, 1939:

Subject: American Machine & Foundry Company C-683 R-730.

I shall not participate in this case.

I should like to point out, however, that the decision makes the Board look a bit ridiculous. The case originated in October 1937 as a representation dispate. The same union that filed the petition filed charges eight days later. The cases were consolidated, and in May, 1938, the trial examiner found that the employees' association was not company-dominated.

An election might then have been ordered and the whole dispute would probably have been settled. But because of a single statement by the employment managers which indicated there might have been an 8 (1) violation we hold Se case until August, 1939, and still do not order an election, although we find the association is not company-dominated.

If we had more confidence in our own elections we would not let ourselves get into situations like this.

(Initialed) WML.

Mr. TOLAND. Doctor, do you have any further comments to make? Dr. LEISERSON. No, sir.

Mr. TOLAND. I have no analysis of the case, because it was impossible for us to get the files from the Board at the time that we requested them.

Doctor, if you will look for your memorandum of August 29, 1939. Mr. FAHY. Mr. Toland, did I understand you to say that you had difficulty getting the file from the Board?

Mr. TOLAND. We asked for the file, but we did not get it; somebody was using it.

Mr. FAHY. You do not mean to imply we had been withholding files?

Mr. TOLAND. I made no such statement, Mr. Fahy.

I show you, Doctor, what purports to be a photostatic reproduction of the copy of your copy, and ask you if it is a true and correct copy thereof?

Dr. LEISERSON. Correct.

Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I am now going to take the episode of the investigation of the Los Angeles office.

I offer in evidence the photostatic reproduction just identified by the witness.

(Memorandum dated August 29, 1939, was received in evidence and marked "Exhibit No. 44.)

Mr. TOLAND. Reading from Committee Exhibit No. 44:

[Interoffice communication, National Labor Relations Board]

Date August 29, 1939.

To Mr. Madden
From Wm. M. Leiserson
Longhand note to Mr. Madden attached to letter to Mr. Madden from E. S.
Smith:

I think Howard's performance in connection with the Los Angeles situation justines his dismissal. It is important also that his services be discontinued in order to establish confidence in the Los Angeles office. He should be given an portunity to resign if he prefers that.

(Initialed) W. M. L.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, Doctor, will you tell us briefly what it was that caused you to write the memorandum just identified by you that has been marked Exhibit 44, and tell us briefly the incidents concerning the investigation of the Los Angeles office, directing your attention. first to the investigation made by Mr. Krivonos.