Dr. LEISERSON. When I came to the Board on June 1, the first meeting I attended, which may have been the night before June 1, because it was an evening meeting

The CHAIRMAN. Doctor, we are not hearing you very well.

Dr. LEISERSON. I will talk directly into this microphone. The Board was considering a report from Mr. Krivonos.

Mr. TOLAND. May I interrupt you there, Doctor? Did the Nylander incident occur during your tenure of office as a member of the Board?

Dr. LEISERSON. The events occurred before my membership on the Board.

Mr. TOLAND. And wasn't the investigation largely the result of the Nylander incident that happened prior to your being appointed to the Board?

Dr. LEISERSON. Well, I don't know what you mean by the "Nylander incident."

Mr. TOLAND. The statement which he was reported to have made at the public meeting where he was making a speech, in which he was reported to have said that "the employer does not have a chance in my office, or before the Board."

Dr. LEISERSON. No, sir. That investigation was completed, and that incident was entirely out of the picture when I came to the Board. The Board appointed a special examiner, someone from Stanford University, I think

Mr. TOLAND (interposing). Yes.

Dr. LEISERSON. Who heard the events of that incident, made the recommendations to the Board, and Mr. Nylander, who had been suspended, was reinstated by the Board. The investigation with which I became acquainted at that first meeting had to do with personal misconduct, drunkenness, and Mr. Krivonos was reporting of his investigation of the charges made. You perhaps have it. The letter was sent in, saying that the man who had an appointment with Mr. Nylander at some city in New Mexico or Arizona, when he came to keep that appointment, said that when he went to the room of Mr. Nylander he found that there had been a drinking party, or something like that, and that was what started the thing. And then there were other things of a similar nature, relating to personal misconduct, in which this man Howard was also concerned. He made some charges. Then there were charges against Mr. Howard, that he was trying to get Mr. Nylander's job. We called Nylander. Their stories did not jibe. I was not satisfied with Mr. Krivonos' investigation.

Mr. TOLAND. Did he make any written report, Doctor?

Dr. LEISERSON. No; I think he made only an oral report, save from notes. He had a lot of notes, and he made an oral report to the Board.

Mr. TOLAND. Can you tell us whether it is the custom of the National Labor Relations Board to have their investigators report orally and not in writing?

Dr. LEISERSON. Well, the investigators ordinarily report in writing, but they may just report to the Board orally from written memoranda or actual written reports.

Mr. TOLAND. You don't know, Doctor, whether or not in this instance, of your own knowledge, Mr. Krivonos ever wrote a report on his investigation, and filed it with the records of the Board?

Dr. LEISERSON. I think in this case-because I questioned, at the time-in this case the report was never written out, but I won't say that is a general practice. There were elaborate notes, which afterward were turned over to Mr. Pratt and Mr. Van Arkel, when they made an elaborate investigation and made a long report in writing, something like 70 pages, I think there were.

Mr. TOLAND. Doctor, did you ever see any written report of the investigation made by Krivonos and Gates of the New York office that was referred to here yesterday in the telegram from Mrs. Herrick?

Dr. LEISERSON. I did not.

That happened long before I came to

the Board, and I did not ask for it.

Mr. TOLAND. Isn't it a fact, Doctor, that four or five of the examiners at the Los Angeles office wrote a letter to the Board complaining about the conduct and the attitude of Dr. Nylander?

Dr. LEISERSON. That is correct; that is part of this incident.

Mr. TOLAND. Isn't it a fact that one Robinson, of Los Angeles, representative of the C. I. O., was largely connected with and responsible for the investigation of the Los Angeles office?

Dr. LEISERSON. I think, though I am not quite positive, that he was the man who wrote the original letter about the drunkenness incident. I am not sure, though.

Mr. TOLAND. Did Mr. Krivonos report to the Board any of his conversations with Mr. Robinson?

Dr. LEISERSON. Yes; he reported that.

Mr. TOLAND. Give us your best recollection as to what Krivonos said as to his conferences with Mr. Robinson.

Dr. LEISERSON. I would not remember the details about that, but he said that-if that is the man, if that is the one that wrote the letter about drunkenness-he said that he had received a wire-that Robinson said he had received a wire from Mr. Nylander to meet him about a certain case, I think it was in Phoenix, Ariz., at a certain time, at the hotel; that when he got to the hotel he phoned up from downstairs, and Mr. Nylander said, "Come upstairs." He went upstairs, and he found some several people there from an A. F. of L. organization, and that they had been drinking, and that they started to talk with Mr. Robinson, and that the A. F. of L. man, whose name I do not recall, said that he would not stay in the room with him, and went out, and then Robinson walked out, too. That was the beginning of that Robinson incident.

Mr. TOLAND. Doctor, do you think the fact that Dr. Nylander visited some members of the A. F. of L. and had some drinks with them played any part in his being suspended and then being permitted to resign?

Dr. LEISERSON. Now, I do not think that incident, the drinking, was connected with the suspension about his remark, but that incident about the drunkenness, together with another one of a similar character which is described in the report, had everything to do with his dismissal, so far as I was concerned-not dismissal. He resigned. Mr. TOLAND. Well, wasn't it a fact, Doctor, that he was suspended then reinstated, at a time when Donald Wakefield Smith was not present, and then permitted to resign? Isn't that your understanding? Dr. LEISERSON. No, no. I think that you have that mixed, Mr. Toland. Now, when Mr. Nylander

Mr. TOLAND (interposing). Well, if Donald Wakefield Smith told me that he was not present when he was reinstated, you would accept my statement?

Dr. LEISERSON. Oh, yes; but I think the incidents are disconnected. I do not know what happened before I got on the Board. Donald Wakefield Smith was my predecessor on the Board, and when Mr. Nylander was suspended it was on those charges of that incident that you mentioned in California, and after the hearing he was reinstated, and that all happened before I came to the Board; and this investigation that I heard about was an entirely different one.

Mr. TOLAND. But Dr. Nylander was regional director when you were appointed, was he not?

Dr. LEISERSON. Yes. He had already been reinstated at that time.
Mr. TOLAND. Yes; and he resigned after your appointment?
Dr. LEISERSON. That is correct.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, let me see if I can refresh your recollection, Doctor. I show you what purports to be a copy of a report to the Board of Robert M. Gates and Fred Krivonos, dated November 2, 1939, and ask you again if the investigation of Krivonos was not as to the conduct of Dr. Nylander and his administration of the regional office in Los Angeles?

Dr. LEISERSON. That is correct, but it was with respect to other charges than that incident that you mentioned before. This is Krivonos' and Gates' answer to Mr. Pratt and Mr. Van Arkel's report.

Mr. TOLAND. It is a criticism of Mr. Pratt's report, is it not. Doctor?

Dr. LEISERSON. That is correct.

Mr. TOLAND. In other words, Mr. Krivonos and Mr. Gates thought that Mr. Pratt did not treat them fairly in the report that Mr. Pratt filed?

Dr. LEISERSON. They wanted to explain, answering some of theMr. TOLAND (interposing). Would you look at that, Doctor, and see if you can tell us whether you ever saw a copy, or the original? Dr. LEISERSON. Of this?

Yes.

Mr. TOLAND. Or if the contents were ever brought to your attention?

Dr. LEISERSON. I read this; yes.

Mr. TOLAND. I would like to offer this in evidence, Mr. Chairman. I have no extra copies of it. I shall read it and spread it upon the record.

(Report of Gates and Krivonos, dated November 2, 1939, was received in evidence and marked "Exhibit No. 45.")

Mr. TOLAND (reading):

The BOARD,

ROBERT M. GATES,

FRED G. KRIVONOS.

Mr. Pratt's report on investigation of Los Angeles office.

NOVEMBER 2, 1939.

We desire to make some comments on the report prepared by Mr. Pratt and Mr. Van Arkel, dated August 23, on the investigation of the Los Angeles office. It is not intended that these comments cover details which might be corrected, nor do we desire to discuss in detail the correctness of the conclusions expressed in the report.

If we read Mr. Pratt's report correctly, it appears that he arrived at the fundamental conclusion, which is in accord with the conclusions we arrived at and

reported to the Board separately, that Dr. Nylander's administration of the Los Angeles office was seriously deficient, especially with respect to the handling of cases, relations with unions and respondents, relations with and supervision of the work of field examiners and personal conduct.

In both our oral reports to the Board we stressed the fact that our major engcern about Dr. Nylander's work was with his administration of the work of the office. This was taken up orally in some detail with the Board by each of . In addition, Mr. Krivonos stressed this point, in individual conversations with each of the Board members, after he had made his oral report last June. In other words, our principal concern with Dr. Nylander's conduct of the Los Angeles office was not his personal conduct outside of the office or in the course of his travel in the region, but was with the analysis of the administration of his office. Mr. Pratt's report on August 23 was made without any extended discussion with either of us on our conclusions in oral reports to the Board or in pect to points related to our visit, mentioned by persons interviewed by Mr. Pratt and Mr. Van Arkel.

We had a short conference with Mr. Pratt and Mr. Van Arkel for the purpose of explaining the arrangements and contents of our files prior to their departure for Los Angeles, during the course of which we attempted to answer any questions that they had with respect to chronology, identity of documents, and the Fke: but we did not discuss the details of our visits to Los Angeles, nor do our eral reports to the Board.

There are some statements by Dr. Nylander, for example, in the memorandum of Mr. Pratt's interview with Dr. Nylander, attached to the report, that might be clarified. While it is correct that Dr. Nylander was not informed as to the frid scope of our visits, we did take up with him directly or indirectly many of the points which we were looking into, but without full disclosure to him of the reasons for the inquiry. Mr. Gates, during his visit, discussed with Dr. Nylander individually or in conference with Dr. Nylander and field examiners, the major points of his analysis of the work of the office, and many of the cases in which the case work appeared questionable; but he did not discuss with Dr Nylander cases about which there had been complaints, but the files of which ndicated no mishandling or complaints of serious mishandling of cases, which were not substantiated by his review.

Mr. Krivonos, during his visit, discussed with Dr. Nylander each and every point of his analysis of the work of the office, and most of the cases in which there was some question. The greater part of this analysis, with the agreement f Dr. Nylander, formed the agenda for a long joint conference between Mr. Krivonos and Dr. Nylander and the field examiners. Mr. Krivonos did not disess with Dr. Nylander questions concerning his personal conduct, such as the Phoenix incident. Further, as the report indicates, early in August 1938, folwing Mr. Gates' report to the Board, a memorandum was directed to Dr. Nylander pointing out some tentative conclusions as to his administration of the f and some suggestions for his future conduct, to eliminate the problems set forth. Mr. Krivonos discussed this memorandum in detail with Dr. Nylander ia connection with his analysis of the work of the office, and covered this factor his oral report to the Board.

I would seem desirable to read and consider this memorandum to Dr. Nyhader in detail in connection with the reading and consideration of Mr. Pratt's report. While the field examiners were not furnished with the details of our conclusions with respect to their criticism of Dr. Nylander's supervision of and geration in their work, we did discuss with the field examiners the weakin their criticism of Dr. Nylander's handling of particular cases, and Mr. Krivonos did include in his agenda for discussion with Dr. Nylander, and for the joint conference with Dr. Nylander and the field examiners, some of the jor problems raised by the criticisms of field examiners, and admitted by Dr. Nylander.

While it is obvious that no thorough and complete investigation of charges zinst Dr. Nylander could be made without discussing such charges with him detail, it should be recalled that such investigations as we made were primarily efined to case handling and administration of the office, and further that they ere in the nature of preliminary investigations, after which if the Board saw Dr. Nylander would have been called, as he in fact was called early in July 199. before the Board to discuss the charges in the presence of the Board Lembers.

While other methods of operation might save the time of the Board members, evertheless if the Board members desired to operate in that manner at that he, our comments are not required. However, it does not necessarily follow that our position was “untenable” as stated in Mr. Pratt's report, even though was difficult.

In conclusion we should point out that the conclusions of the August 23 report with respect to the attitude and objectivity of Mr. Krivonos in the course of his visit to Los Angeles were made apparently upon the basis of Mr. Pratt's impression of what Mr. Krivonos had reported to the Board after his routine investigation of the Los Angeles office, and further as pointed out above, without any detailed discussion with him, Mr. Pratt was not present when Mr. Krivonos made his report to the Board.

Further, the statements contained in the Appendix to the August 23 report do not appear to afford a basis for these conclusions.

Signed: R. M. G.
F. G. K.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, Doctor, that is in effect what your recollection is as to the basis of Mr. Krivonos' report, as against the report of Mr. Pratt and Mr. Van Arkel?

Dr. LEISERSON. That is correct. May I add this: In my own mind, the serious thing in the Los Angeles situation was the personal misconduct. I am somewhat of a Puritan. The investigations that Mr. Krivonos made were under instructions from the secretary.

Mr. TOLAND. Not from the Board?

Dr. LEISERSON. Well, the Board had told the secretary, but the secretary told him what to do.

Mr. TOLAND. The Board told the secretary to make an investigation, but did not tell Mr. Witt to designate Mr. Krivonos?

Dr. LEISERSON. Well, I do not know. I was not there when that was done, but the Board authorized investigations. There is no question about that. You will find in this answer of Gates and Krivonos that they speak of case-handling, and that their business was just to review the work of the case handling and not so much the personal conduct. What I have to say about that is that that was the instruction of the secretary, with the result that when Mr. Robinson sent this letter, and although Mr. Krivonos took the letter with him, and talked to Robinson and some of the people who were opposing Mr. Nylander, he did not show that letter to Mr. Nylander.

I asked him why not. I asked him what was Mr. Nylander's answer to the charges made by Mr. Robinson. He said, "I didn't show him the letter."

Mr. TOLAND. Isn't it a fact, Doctor, that the technique of Krivonos and Gates in their investigation, as disclosed by the telegram of Herrick, was that they never told the people why they were there, except to make an investigation?

Dr. LEISERSON. I wouldn't say that as a general proposition. You will find in Pratt's report, he finds Gates discussed, when he was out there first on this thing before Krivonos went, that he discussed everything he had before him, both with Nylander and the other people, and that he took a rather disinterested and impartial view; but I do not have the same impression that Krivonos did that.

Now, when it comes to those statements with respect to mishandling of cases and giving them instructions how to handle them, I don't think-and that is my personal opinion-that the criticism of the cases as reported by Krivonos was correct, in the sense that I think the people in Los Angeles were right and Mr. Krivonos was wrong on the handling of the cases, on many of the things. They knew more about handling cases than he did.

But on the personal misconduct, Krivonos paid little attention to that and did not discuss it with Nylander. Now, in my mind the dismissal or let me explain this: