Page images

both that opportunities for electioneering by A. F. of L. Union representatives inside the polling place existed and that the said representatives took advantage of these opportunities to engage in such electioneering.

(6) By companies. The investigation indicates that electioneering inside the polliag place was carried on by representatives of the Companies to an extent which may have occasioned serious prejudice to the proper conduct of the election.

In many cases representatives of the Companies, by wearing A, F. of L. Union buttons, by remarks made to other representatives in the presence of and in the bearing of voters, aud by direct statements to voters, indicated their preference for the A. F. of L. Union. Such conduct inevitably conveyed to voters an impression of a similar preference by the Companies themselves. This impression was undoubtedly fortified by the similar conduct of occasional supervisory employees who succeeded in entering the voting place. It was further emphasized, in one instance, by the close personal relationship between one company representative and a company official: and in another by the fact that one company representaure was an A. F. of L. Union official.



1. Improper challenge of strikers 1a By A. F. of L.-Not very much emphasis has been placed on this point, standing by itself. Such evidence as exists was obtained and is discussed below in connection with the objection based upon A. F. of L. Union and company cooperation in the improper challenge of strikers. It is perhaps unnecessary to pini out that strikers were fully eligible to vote under the decision of the Board and therefore challenges of strikers as such were improper.

16) By companies.—The investigation indicates that company representatives tballerged voters because they had gone on strike, giving as the reason for the challenge, first, that the workers had struck, and, second, when the first ground il explaineri as insufficient, that the workers had quit. One company repretiive openly declared the intention of challenging all employees who had

** O! str. ke. To facilitate such challenges, certain lists had been prepared and were brought to the voting place by this individual and other company repreSol. tires These lists showed which employees had gone on strike. They are disussed further in connection with the improper use of blacklists below under 111. 2." They are, however, only symptomatic of the extent to which such in p:

or (ballenges appear to have been made. Unfortunately, the exact extent of this practice is difficult of determination, because in at least some instances representatives, when they were told that striking did not disqualify a voter, etangui the basis of the challenge to a claim that the employee had quit and (Out Luled to challenge on this ground. The significance of such improper thallenging is explained in the following section.

13 Byl. F. of L. and companies in cooperation.-The investigation indicates that the A F. of L. Union and the Companies did cooperate in improper challenge of strikers. There is evidence that company representatives planned to turerate with A. F. of L Union representatives in the challenge of strikers. One such plan was openly discussed in the presence of a C. I. 0. Union represeniaiire. There is further evidence that such challenging of strikers by the repre-entatives of the Companies and those of the A. F. of L. Union continued

stantially throughout the election. Perhaps a brief explanation is necessary to reveal the full significance of this imprius challenging. As will be explained below under “III, 2," for some time there has been in existence among the Companies a blacklist. During the election roters seemed to be afraid that if their names were used in connection with the voting they might somehow be placed upon this blacklist. When a vote is challe-1.ged in election conducted by the Board it is placed in a secret envelope, #bich in turn, is placed within a second envelope, on which is written, inter alia, the inne of the voter. The extent to which the coincidence of this fear of the 14 of names with the necessity for such use when a ballot is challenged may bare deterred individuals from voting is discussed below under "IV, 1." According to the estimate, this result obtained in many cases.

2. Improper use of blacklist lai By A. F. of L.—The investigation reveals evidence that the A. F. of L. Taion had a blacklist at the hearing, containing the names of certain members

of the C. I. 0. Unioni. It is indicated that an A. F. of L. Union representa ive was seen using such a blacklist during the election. There is evidence thitt this was admitted by the A. F. of L. Union representative in question. It is suggested that reference to the existence of this blacklist was made by A. F. of L. Union representatives in radio broadcasts during the election period.

(b) By companies.--The investigation indicates that company representatives lised blacklists at the election. It is well established that blacklists have been in use in this industry for a period of several years. Such blacklists were brought to the election; one of them having been obtained during the investigation. The original marks on this list have been obliterated beyond recognition. The investigation reveals that this list was kept by a company representative during the election in a manner which at least made it available for his use and probably brought it and its actual use to the attention of voters. There is evidence that other similar lists were brought by other company representatives to the election and used therein. Several such lists also were obtained during the investigation. While the actual use of blacklists would clearly be prejudicial to the fair conduct of an election, their mere possession and display would be conducive to the same result.

(") By A. F. of L. and companies in cooperation.The investigation demopstrates that the A. F. of L. Union and the Companies cooperated in the use of the blacklists above described. There is evidence, as indicated above, that for several years some sort of blacklist has been in existence. It appears that the A. F. of L. Union and the Companies cooperated in the preparation and use of this blacklist. Only a few days before the election was held a copy of such a blacklist signed by an A. F. of L. L'nion representative is said to have been posted by some of the Companies. During the election one such blacklist was used by a company representative to ascertain wlio among those who had not voted were favorably disposed to the A. F. of L. Union. A list of such individuals was then prepared and handed to an A. F. of L. Union representative to facilitate the bringing of such individuals to the polls. In another instance a company repre. sentative gave to an A. F. of L. Union representative a list of voters to be challenged. This list appears to have been prepared from a blacklist.

3. Improper attempts to create anti-C. 1. 0. prejudice

(a) By A. F. of L.--(b) By companies.---The evidence relative to these two points is of some importance. More significant, however, is the evidence ob fuined in this same connection but having to do with attempts to create anti('. I. (). prejudice throngh cooperative action between the A. F. of L. Union and the companies. These three phases of the investigation will therefore be treated is one in the next section. A further discussion of this problem will be found below under "IV, 2" relating to the part played by agents of the Board in connection with improper influence against (. I. 0. I'nion challenges.

(c) By A. F'. of L. and companies in cooperation.--The investigation reveals numerous instances of cooperation between A. F. of L. Union and compo:!119 representatives allegedly seeking to cast discredit on the ( I. 0. Union by indi. cating that its representatives alone insisted on challenging certain roters. in many instances in which the C. I. 0. l'nion representative atone challenged a voter, representatives of the A. F. of L. Union or of the companies, pointed out to voters that both the A. F. of L. Union and the ('ompanies were willing but that it was only the ('. I. 0. Union that didn't want them to vote In still other such instances they stated, apparently without contradiction that the 1. F. of L. Union, the Companies and the Board were willing, but again, that the ('. I. 0. lnion alone was protesting. In some of these two types of instances, it appears that the challenge was well grounded; in others, that it Was lot. While it is clear that the provocation to make such statements is greater in cases in which the challenge is frivolous, the effect on the conduct of cleruion is apt to be the same in bith types of instances. There is evidence to

boil that this ellect was to create an atmosphere prejudicial to the fair condnet of the election, For the creation of this effect, ensure attaches to those whose conduct brought it into being. For failure to obviate this effect, censure at: tarhes to the agents of the Board as discussed below under "IV, 2."

4. Improper miscellaneous cooperation between the American Federation of

Labor and companies The Investigation indicates certain miscellaneous instances of cooperatio! be: ween A. F. of L. I'nion and company representatives not properly subject to

cas-ification under any of the other categories in this report. In one such inat it appears that a company representative instructed an A. F. of L. Union Ifpresentative as to whom to challenge. In another, a company representative supplied an A. F. of L. L'nion representative with a special list which both repristutatives then used in deciding whom to challenge. In a third, a compius representative and an A. F. of L. Union representative took such a similarinition as to all problems which arose that it was said to be impossible to distinguish one from the other insofar as their actions were concerned. In a forth, a company representative who arrived late sought permission to chal. krze sveral voters who had already cast their ballots. He explained, however, thai be wisher to make these challenges not on his own behaif but on behalf of ile A. F. of L. L'nion representative, who had been there all the time.

Snb instances all tend to indicate that there was in general a spirit of co(peration between representatives of the A, F. of L. Union and representatives

the companies, which may well have militated against a free and unfettered

inion of voters. This section leuds additional significance to and derives aitat d importance from joint consideration with the improper challenge of rikurs, the improver lise of blacklists and the improper attempts to create Zui-. I. 0. prejudice discussed above.

[blocks in formation]

Various separable objections are grouped under this broad heading. It is page that certain names which should have appeared on the eligibility lists

T. omitted therefrom. It is likewise charged that certain names which

uld not have appeared upon these lists, were included therein. It is asserted lì i! Various voters appeared upon the eligibility lists as entitled to cast straight

When, in fact, they should have been entitled to cast only segregated

On the other, it is claimed that voters appeared on the eligibility lists an ***.*itled to cast only segregated ballots when, in actual fact, they should have

a niitlel to cast straight ballots. It is contended that many names were lis: with incorrect Social Security numbers.

result of these errors, according to The Objections, many employees Theil to go to the ('ompanies to obtain letters setting forth the true facts id erler to correct errors which appeared as to them. is a further result, it is arted that many voters refused to cast ballots because they considered birincess entitled to cast straight ballots and were allowed only to cast Lill-new or segregated ballots. As an adiitional result, according to the (LO). Union contentions, certain voters who actually were ineligible were LTH to cast unchallenged ballots. All of these factors, according to The (**, --14), led to a timely protest by the C. I. 0. Union representatives, which Intest was disregarded. In final conclusion, it is asserted that the result Casioinfusion, lack of confidence and an atmosphere of coercion which pre0:1 die free and fair conduct of the election.

The number of inaccuracies in the eligibility lists as discussed below, seemed O cuttirintly large to justify a complete check of these lists against the Prs (of the Companies. This check has been made and the results obtained are w-t forth in an analysis attached to this report.

T: king up the contentions in the order named, it appears, in the first place, hat certain individuals were actually omitted from the eligibility lists. ('on

. esists as to the number involved, but all available evidence indicates that at ast a few, and possibly many eligible employees were omitted from the

The evidence shown by the attached analysis is probably the most acellran arulable on this point. In tlie second place, there is evidence to sustain the contention that certain

s appeared upon the eligibility lists although the individuals named were Apligible to vote under the decision of the Board. This number seems to

When somewhat smaller than the number of omissions. It is none the of siunificance, as indicated in the attached analysis. In the third place, it appears that certain voters were listei as entitled to A sraight ballots when, in point of fact, they should have been listed as pls entitled to cast segregated ballots. It was estimated that at one table a!009 Ouly seven were listed as segregated whereas there should have been at vast twenty-five or thirty so listed. The number of such cases in all canneries is shown in the attached analysis.

[ocr errors]

In the fourth place, it is shown that in numerous instances, employees were listed on the eligibility lists as segregated, whereas, in point of fact, they should have been listed as entitled to cast straight or unsegregated ballots. Evidence indicates that such errors existed in the eligibility lists of substantially all of the canneries and in an extremely large total number of instances. The best evidence of the exact number of such errors is probably contained in the attached analysis. In explanation of this large number of errors, it should be explained that the Companies refused to pro de the Board agents with any information at all until shortly before the election. Even then they did not give enough data to make possible anything more accurate than a rough estimate as to the employees whose ballots should be segregater, It would be an act of supererogation to lwell upon the serious effect which such a large number of errors must have had upon the conduct of the elerion.

In the fifth place, it apparently is true that certain names were lister with incorrect Social Security numbers. The evidence discloses that a few such names appeared upon the eligibility list, as set out in the attached analysis.

In the sixth place, there is evidence to show that employees refused to go to the Companies to obtain information justifying the correction of errors that existed as to their status as set forth on the eligibility lists. Before consideration of the evidence, it might be advisable to explain that whenever, because of one of the errors discussed above, the representatives could not agree as to the proper status of a voter it was customary to ask the voter to go to the company at which he had been employed, and obtain a statement as to the facts. Many of the voters seem to have been afraid to take this action because of the general use of blacklists. Whether or not this fear was unreasonable on the ground that there was no reason to believe that the necessity for obtaining such statements was limited to members of either union, is beside the point.

The existence of the fear is alone of significance, and that such fear did exist is shown by substantial and credible evidence. The evidence, however, as to the exact number of employees who refused to go for statements, is somewhat conflicting. It does appear, nevertheless, that irrespertive of the exact numbers involvedl, a substantial number of employees did refuse point-blank to go to the Companies for statements. A further and equally considerable number of employees did refuse point-blank to go to the poles, did not come back to vote.

In the seventh place, evidence indicates that certain employees refused to vote challenged or segregated hallots, whereas, had no error been committed, they would have been entitled to and would have voter unchallenged ballots. One individual has estimated that he himself saw tweniy-four or twenty-five such cases and heard of many more, Another has stated that there were many such cases. According to a third, however, this actually occurred in very few instances. It is apparent that it will be almost impossible to establish the exact nunher. One may reasonably conclude, notwithstanding this conflict, that there were several such cases,

In the eighth place, it appears that employees ineligible to vote under the order of the Board actually voted challenged ballots. Opinions as to the number of such cases vary froin a statement that there may have been only one to an asser. tion that there were a lot. The names of six such persons are advanced by various individuals as properly subject to classification in this category.

In the ninth place, it is established that timely protest was made. Although the protest was not disregarded, it did not lead to adequate corrective action. Several attempts to get more complete information from the companies, and to 11-ten the preparation of the data ultimately obtained, met with little success. ('onferences held in Monterey and in San Francisco resulted only in the obtaining of a part of the necessary data less than four dars before the election was scheduled to take place. Some of the essential information was not disclosed at all. Efforts to correct the eligibility lists during the election itself were mare. These efforts, however, were not entirely sueressful, partly because of the lack of time, partly bermuse of further resistance by the Companies.

In the tenth place, as a result of the foregoing an atmosphere of confusion, Jack of confidence, and coercion seriously prejudicial to the proper conduct of the election was created. The volue of evidence accumulated on this point precludes more than a brief summary. Numerous arguments and disputes developed during the election over the segregation of ballots, the challenge of inters the plepioneer. ing inside and outside the voting place, the preparation and use of lists, and eren

the personalities of the participants themselves. None of the parties, with the exception of the agents of the Board, seem to have made any effort to maintain order and decorum. The participants in these arguments became extremely icited, and at times it was necessary to ask them to leave the voting tables beatise of the effect it was having on the voters. Not infrequently the language wl in such arguments was objectionable.

In conclusion, the least that can be said of the above allegations of inaccuracies in the eligibility lists and consequences resulting therefrom is that they alone may bi ve gone far to destroy the orderly and quiet atmosphere so essential to a fair and rret election. Irrespective of the party or parties whom these numerous rors Inay or may not have favored, and regardless of the identity of those who 20<t assume responsibility for their commission, their very existence may well bare precluded the proper conduct of the election.

2. Improper influence against C. 1. 0. challenges fa) By agents of Board.—The investigation indicates that agents of the Board did use iniluence against C. I. 0. Union representatives' free exercise of the right to eballenge. There is evidence showing that certain C. 1. 0. Union representatire felt that agents of the Board “talked them out of" challenges. There is widence indicating that Board agents attempted to induce certain ('. I. 0. Union representatives to refrain from challenging in order to reduce the number of challenges by other representatives who, it appears, were exasperated because of the C. I. 0. Union challenges. There is evidence establishing the fact that agents of he Board suggested the possibility of removal of C. I. 0. Union representatives believed to be making groundless challenges.

It is fairly clear that many challenges were being made some with and some viitout proper grounds. It is likewise clear that because of the reluctance of Titrs to place their names on challenged ballot envelopes, such challenges were seriously prt judicial to the fair conduct of the election. Under such circumcances it was the duty of the agents of the Board to attempt by persuasion, and, if Decessary, by disciplinary action, to eliminate all groundless challenges. At the cabe time it was their duty to guard against the creation of an atmosphere of prejudice against the union whose representatives were making such challenges. It appears from the evidence that too much emphasis was placed on attempts at persuasion and not enough on the use of discipline on the one hand and the guardng against an atmosphere of prejudice on the other. It appears, as a consequenre, that an atmosphere was created which was prejudicial to the fair conduct of the election.

b) Through permitting such conduct by A. F. of L. and companies.-The evid+ore revealed by the investigation which has bearing upon this point is dis. Chor] by implication because inevitably involved in the sections immediately pre.

og and immediately following this section. It should be noted, however, that in one case a C.I.O. Union representative was deterred from challenging by statements by A. F. of L, Union and company representatives that if he did not withdraw a challenge they would challenge every C. I. 0. Union voter. In other cases (10. Union representatives were “talked out" of challenging by A. F. of L. Union and company representatives. This problem has already been discussed i wne of its aspects under III. 3, above.

1e) By agents of Board cooperating with A. F. of L. and companies.--It appears from the investigation that at least an impression of such cooperation aay have been created. Evidence indicates that Board agents appealed to (* I. 0. Cnion representatives to refrain from challenging in instances in which be A. F. of L Union representatives and company representatives agreed that the employee was eligible. The issue here is not whether this action was taken Tith a deliberate purpose of cooperating with the A. F. of L. Union and company Noventatives. The issue is simply whether or not such an impression was sated in the minds of voters. The evidence indicates that this probably was the case.

Board's agents improperly allowed instruction of voters in foreign languages

At the outset it should be emphasized that instruction of voters in fire-ign languages may be improper, whether or not the person giving the instruction is a supervisory employee. Thus, instructions of this character given by

« PreviousContinue »