During that period also I worked actively for the State minimum wage law and served as a member of the public on the first minimum wage board established under that new law. I then was loaned by the Consumers' League to the N. R. A. and, under the organization in New York City headed by Grover Whalen, set up a bureau for the investigation of wage and hour complaints under the N. R. A. Thereafter Grover Whalen appointed me as chairman of the city mediation board under the N. R. A. and Mayor LaGuardia also appointed me as one of his labor advisers and we sort of handled labor disputes as they arose in the city during that N. R. A. period. When the first National Labor Board was established under section 7 (a), Senator Wagner appointed me the executive vice chairman of that Board for the New York region. That was carried over under Joint Resolution 44, and then I carried on as regional director which I now am for the present Board.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, Mrs. Herrick, would you

Mr. HEALEY (interposing). May I just ask a brief question? I believe you said you were a factory operator. What do you mean by that, an employee or an employer?

Mrs. HERRICK. Employee.

Mr. TOLAND. Thank you.

Mrs. HERRICK. Twenty-eight cents an hour.

Mr. TOLAND. Mrs. Herrick, would you tell the committee now briefly what your duties have been and what they are at the present time as regional director in the city of New York for the National Labor Relations Board?

Mrs. HERRICK. Well, as you now, the country is divided into 22 regions. My region comprises the lower part of New York State and the larger part of New Jersey, all except the Trenton-Camden corner that is really more conveniently located as part of the Philadelphia region, and then three of the large counties of Connecticut, I always forget their names, but it takes in the industrial area around Stamford, Bridgeport, Norwalk, New Haven, and Waterbury. The other part of Connecticut is in the Boston region.

That is a heavily concentrated industrial region and therefore we have had a very large number of the total of the Board's cases have arisen in that region. My job as regional director is, of course, to effectuate the purposes of the act, to carry out the policies of the Board in that region, as with any employee anywhere, to make suggestions as to how this should be done or that should be done, and to settle as many cases as possible, but first, of course, our job is to investigate, to see if the charge has merit or to see if the petition, if it is a case of a representation question-if the petitioner has any real reason for asking that an election be held, in other words, if the question of representation really exists and if that petitioner has sufficient proof behind his claim to an interest in the situation.

Now, that is the investigatory end of it. In the course of that, as you probably know, most of the cases that are brought to the Board get settled or withdrawn. Others are dismissed. The regional director may find no basis for saying that a violation of law has occurred and will then refuse to issue a complaint, which is the first formal action that takes place; to make reports to the Board on cases, both weekly and on specific cases, as questions of policy may arise in connection with the case, and to supervise the work of the

agents of the Board in that region. Is that the description you want?

Mr. TOLAND. Along that line, would you tell the committee briefly the number of field examiners and the number of attorneys that are assigned to your office and what their duties are?

Mrs. HERRICK. I will have to do a little arithmetic. We have. I think, my present recollection is, 10 field examiners, and I am not sure whether I am counting in that the last person who was transferred to the region as an examiner, a field examiner; and we have 9 attorneys.

Mr. TOLAND. Will you tell the committee briefly when your office first starts to function, the particular branch of your office that operates after the charge is filed, and then what connection you play with it as regional director?

Mrs. HERRICK. Well, a charge is filed sometimes by a union, sometimes by an individual. A charge is an allegation that an unfair labor practice has been committeed involving either subsections 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 of section 8 of the act.

Mr. HEALEY. Must that be a person in interest?

Mrs. HERRICK. Yes.

Mr. TOLAND. It must be filed in writing?

Mrs. HERRICK. It must be filed in writing, it must be sworn to. The person must give us his name and address and his connection, I mean if it is filed by a union, then it is filing it on behalf of persons who have been discharged who are members of the union or who have sought to become members of the union and have asked the union to represent them, or it is the individual who feels that he has been discriminated against. In any event it must be a sworn, attested document. Sometimes, especially when it is filed by an individual, that individual may not know how-the unions are more or less onto the system now, but an individual will come in and talk to an examiner who will take a statement from him as to the facts. Sometimes we find that he is under a misapprehension as to the scope of the act and we say, "Well, we don't think you have even a prima facie case of any sort," and will advise that he shouldn't file a charge, but where his statement indicates some basis for a charge by him, he will be shown how to file it, what the sections of the act are, and so forth.

Mr. TOLAND. And after the charge is filed, what does your office do, if anything, in connection with the charge?

Mrs. HERRICK. Well, the case is assigned by me-it is given a docket number and then assigned by me to a particular field examiner, trying to keep the case load for the people on the staff fairly even. Then a letter is sent out to the employer telling him the substance of the charge, what section of the act is involved, by whom the charge has been filed, and a condensation, more or less, of the charge, but sufficiently specific so that the employer knows what it is all about. Mr. TOLAND. Is that always the policy?

Mrs. HERRICK. Yes.

Mr. TOLAND. In your office?

Mrs. HERRICK. Yes. At the same time, that letter will suggest the desirability of a conference and if the employer is located in New York or in a place like Newark, which is only a 10-cent fare away, or something, we find that most people prefer to come to our office.

If it is outside of New York City, like up in Stamford or Bridgeport, we suggest the option, "We will come to you or you come to us, take your choice" and a time is suggested, though that is not a fixed time; it is subject to change.

Then a joint conference is held. If the employer prefers to discuss the matter with us alone first, that is done. It is very flexible, because, you see, really we might almost call this instead of industrial relations, human relations, and sometimes out of these labor disputes you get a human equation which you have to deal with in an unrigid, flexible fashion, and sometimes an employer will say, "I would rather talk to you alone"; or he may say, "Well, I want to be confronted by this employee." It all depends. But in general the practice is to have a joint conference.

We find that when the worker tells his story he is pretty careful about saying exactly what happens if the employer is there to confront him with it, and, similarly, if the employer has to confront the worker, we find that he tends to be pretty accurate and not get quite so emotional, if there is any emotion in the picture.

Mr. TOLAND. Mrs. Herrick, may I interrupt you there and ask you whether you know of your own knowledge if the policy of the joint conference exists throughout the other regional offices, and also whether or not you have ever received any criticism from the Board for holding a joint conference?

Mrs. HERRICK. In answer to the first question, I think it depends on the region. I believe they have used joint conferences in Chicago. In other regions, where it is a more widely scattered territory, like out in Nevada, maybe I have never been in Nevada-you maybe wouldn't be able to have a joint conference.

Mr. TOLAND. I am asking you just what you know of your own knowledge.

Mrs. HERRICK. I know only of Chicago, where it has been used more or less. I think that my region has used the joint-conference method more consistently as a policy than any other region.

Now, as to the second part of your question, there has been discussion of that policy with the Board. Some of the staff employees have felt that it was unwise, didn't care for the policy, but the Board has felt that there was no objection to it if it was carried out properly and carefully and brought results, that being the real test, of course. Mr. TOLAND. Did you ever get any communication in writing from the Board, either criticizing or approving the policy of joint conference between the two parties?

Mrs. HERRICK. Well, there was a report made on that policy which, as I recall it, was critical; but in discussion with the Board

Mr. TOLAND (interposing). Just let's take the report. Do you recall when it was that you received a report?

Mrs. HERRICK. Early in June of last year.

Mr. TOLAND. In that report, isn't it a fact that the Board did criticize the joint policy-the policy of joint conference between the employer and the employee?

Mrs. HERRICK. I didn't catch-did you say the report criticized it or the Board?

Mr. TOLAND. The report.

Mrs. HERRICK. The report criticized it, but it was discussed with the Board.

Mr. TOLAND. But the report emanated from the Board itself through either Mr. Witt or

Mrs. HERRICK (interposing). It was the report of Messrs. Gates and Krivonos of a recent investigation in my office.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, Mrs. Herrick, during the period that you have been the regional director in the city of New York, can you tell the committee approximately the percentage of cases that have been filed or the percentage of charges that have been filed in your office as against the 21 regions, including the Board itself?

Mrs. HERRICK. Roughly, a fifth of all the cases. I don't know of the most recent figures on that, but it is always around 20 percent, a little bit over 20 percent. Some months it is a little under; some months a little over.

Mr. TOLAND. Do you know of any other regional office that compares with the number of cases in their office as against your office? Mrs. HERRICK. I don't know exactly, Mr. Toland; no.

Mr. TOLAND. Is it a fact that your office is the largest office from the standpoint of charges and cases?

Mrs. HERRICK. I believe it is so conceded.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, during the period that you have been employed as regional director, is it a fact that the Board has called from time to time conferences, annual conferences, of the regional directors, and held them here in the city of Washington?

Mrs. HERRICK. Yes.

Mr. TOLAND. I show you a document and ask you if you prepared that for use at one of the regional conferences with the Board, and ask you to tell us the approximate time, to the best of your recollection?

Mrs. HERRICK. I prepared it for the 1937 conference which was held in October or November.

Mr. TOLAND. Of that year?

Mrs. HERRICK. Yes.

Mr. TOLAND. While you attended the conference, did you take up at the regional conference any of the matters contained in the document that I have just handed to you?

Mrs. HERRICK. Yes, it is my recollection that I covered practically all that subject matter, though not necessarily in exactly the same language, and not reading that exactly.

Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence the document just identified by the witness. I shall read it and ask that it be spread on the record.

(The statement entitled "I Break Strikes-In Two Easy Lessons," by Elinore M. Herrick, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 289.")

Mr. TOLAND (reading):

"I BREAK STRIKES-IN TWO EASY LESSONS"

(By Elinore M. Herrick)

"Speed is of the essence" in successful administration of the National Labor Relations Act. We all subscribe to that statement in theory-but in practice we ignore it disgracefully. On the basis of the present record we are successfully competing with Railway Audit & Inspection, Corporations Auxiliary, and all the other strikebreaking agencies. Recently in New York we have had to abandon complaints in half a dozen cases because by the time we got around to the

hearing the necessary witnesses were too completely intimidated to testify even if subpoenaed. Yet they were good cases once upon a time.

What does the record show? What are the factors that contribute to the appalling delays which have destroyed promising new organizations? The very newness of the organizations whose rights we are supposed to protect is an added reason for us to speed up our procedure. New union members-new unions have neither the resources nor the philosophy to enable them to withstand the devastating effects of our slow administration. An analysis of the time sequences in 77 cases that have gone to trial in the New York region since April 12, 1937, shows that an average of 67 days ensues between the filing of the charge and the first day of hearing. Delay at this point is due to three factors:

(1) Our strenuous and persistent efforts to adjust the case. While 58% of the cases are adjusted in less than 30 days, those that must go to trial do not reach that point in less than two months-or twice the time.

(2) Lack of trial attorneys contributed to this average of 67 days elapsed between filing of the charge and the commencement of a hearing.

(3) Now, as formerly, it is lack of Trial Examiners and the cumbersome procedure of getting a hearing date authorized that is the most heavily contributing factor to these unwarranted delays.

Hearings take a relatively short time. Recently in New York we have successfully handled two representation cases in a single day with one Trial Attorney and one Trial Examiner. Despite several cases which, like the Yale & Towne hearing, took 25 days, the average duration of a hearing in these 77 cases was only 8 days.

Then we wait, wait, wait-and not so patiently either, as Dick Wolf will tell you-for the Trial Examiner's report. To date only 21 Trial Examiner's reports have issued in these 77 cases, and that after a lapse of 42 days. We are still waiting for Trial Examiners' reports in 49 cases. How long-O Lord-how long? Now, I don't blame the Trial Examiners for this, but the system and the fact that Trial Examiners too seldom have any chance to write one report before they are hustled off to a far distant city for another case.

We have had only seven decisions from the Board in these 77 cases. We waited an average of 36 days for these seven precious decisions. But we are still waiting-waiting-waiting for the other 70 decisions. This week, workers in the Consolidated Edison Company, whose right to representation of their own choosing is now before the Board, went out on strike in protest over wholesale dismissals. The papers report 2,000 have been dismissed. The charge in this case was filed May 24, the hearing was held July 6th, and still we wait, wait, wait for a decision-the Trial Examiner's report was eliminated by transference to the Board. We are need I remind you?-supposed to be administering an Act designed to remove the causes of industrial strife. In this case our delay has contributed materially to causing a strike.

Some of the tragedies of these delays are to be found in the countless letters from individual workers in the Metropolitan Engineering & Device Corporation case, for example, in which the charge was filed April 1, 1937, the hearing was held June 17th, the Trial Examiner's report came down July 17th-and as yet there is no decision.

Even in the dark days of the Liberty League era-when we had to fight injunctions and go through Federal District Courts and Circuit Courts of Appeals-our delays were not much more than they are today when we have the budget we asked for and when the workers, due to the decisions of the Supreme Court, first looked to us for relief with an understandable confidence that it would be forthcoming. In this dark era, in 34 cases, the time elapsed between filing of charge and holding of the hearing was 96 days (including injunctions); hearings lasted an average of 4 days; then after 41 days came the Trial Examiner's report and 71 days thereafter came the Board's decision— or an average time lapse of 214 days as compared with the average of 153 days from date of filing of charge to issuance of decision in cases handled since April 12th. There would be little point in just crabbing about these delays. The problem is-what to do?

REPRESENTATION CASES

(1) We have tried an experiment in the New York Region in the past seven weeks. By assigning one Trial Examiner and one attorney exclusively to representation cases we have cleaned up 23 cases and now in most of these we wait for an order of election or for certification following the election.