and make certain that we receive all of the files of an individual when we ask for them. Very truly yours, EDMUND M. TOLAND, General Counsel. EDMUND M. TOLAND, Esquire, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, General Counsel, Special Committee to Room 139, Old House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. TOLAND: With reference to your letter of October 13, I suppose Miss Phillips did not know that I had one of Mr. Madden's files; but at the time we were discussing your request for inter-Board communications I was careful to mention to you that I had one such file. I knew that since it was in my possession it would not be obtained from the offices of the Board members. I Lentioned this later to Mr. Robb when he was in my office and the file was subsequently delivered to Mr. Robb. In order to avoid any misunderstanding and to be sure that you obtain all the material which you call for, I have communicated with all of those whose files have been requested, and will continue to do so as other requests may be made, to be careful to see that you obtain what you expect to receive in response to a request. I am sure that you understand that the attitude of the Board is one of cooperation and that it desires to make available to you all that the Committee wishes. Notwithstanding this it is possible that, with the large number of files and the daily use of some of them, there may be occasions, when files are actually taken, that everything that eventually should be in them is not at the moment there; but we will try to avoid this and keep you advised of any temporary omissions. With regard to the second paragraph of your letter of October 13, I had already sent a memorandum to the staff under date of October 13 regarding the maintenance of the present system of filing. Copy of this memorandum is enclosed. General Counsel, Special Committee to Investigate the N. L. R. B., House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. TOLAND: This is in reply to your letter of October 3 as supplemented by your letter of October 10. In answering your request for "a list of all attorneys who actively participated in the trial of cases and later participated the preparation of findings of fact, conclusions of law and the decision and erder of the Board, as well as the attorneys who are personally engaged in the reparation of findings in the particular cases that they tried as attorneys for the Litigation Division," I must say first that such participation by trial attorey is in no way a practice of the Board. I have, however, made inquiry among past and present members of the Review Section to ascertain to what extent, contrary to the general practice of the Board, such participation has taken place. Although I cannot guarantee the completeness of this inquiry, since it was necessary, to a large extent, to rely upon the memory of the members of the staff and it was impossible to reach ertain former members of the Review Section not now in our Washington fre, nevertheless I think that the results are sufficiently accurate. In all the tore than 2,100 cases, decided or presently assigned for review in the Review Section, I have found not one complaint proceeding in which participation by the trial attorney in the preparation of the findings took place, and I have found only four representation cases in which participation did occur. representation proceedings, it should be remembered, however, that the function In of the Board's attorney is not that of an advocate, for such proceedings are not adversary in the sense that the Board has any position to sustain, except its jurisdiction under the commerce clause. In addition there, are four complaint cases in which participation did not occur, but in which, again contrary to the practice of the Board, certain communication occurred between trial attorneys and review attorneys which you may wish to know about. The following are the four representation cases to which I have reference : In Matter of Dwight Manufacturing Company (R-9, 1 N. L. R. B. 309), Mr. T. I. Emerson acted as one of the attorneys for the Board at the hearing. After oral argument by counsel for the company and one of the labor organizations involved before the Board, Mr. Emerson, at the Board's direction, prepared the draft of the decision of the Board. In Matter of International Freighting Corporation, et al., and Matter of Panama Mail Steamship Company (R-159 and R-236, 3 N. L. R. B. 692), Mrs. Mary Lemon Schleifer acted both as attorney for the Board at the hearing and counsel for the Board in preparing the draft of the Board's decision. In a supplemental hearing in Matter of International Freighting Corporation and Matter of American France Line (R-157), Mrs. Schleifer also appeared as the Board's attorney and later drafted the supplemental decisions of the Board (7 N. L. R. B. 442 and 7 N. L. R. B. 439). In Matter of Combustion Engineering Company, Inc., (R-242, 5 N. L. R. B. 344), when the case was originally reported by the review attorney, Mr. Howard Lichtenstein, the Board was unable to understand the respective jurisdictional claims of two of the unions involved. The case was reopened, and at the supplemental hearing Mr. Lichtenstein represented the Board and questioned witnesses in order to elucidate the respective claims of the unions. After the supplemental hearing Mr. Lichtenstein reported to the Board on the record thus made and, at its direction, prepared the draft of the Board's decision. The four complaint cases to which I have reference are the following: In Matter of Grower Shipper Vegetable Association of Central California, et al (C-178 to C-178ee, 15 N. L. R. B., No. 39), a portion of the first rough draft of the decision prepared by Mr. Alexander B. Hawes, a member of the Review Section, was submitted to the Board attorney who had tried the case, Mr. Bertram Edises, for his criticism. Mr. Edises submitted a memorandum and also consulted with the review attorney and members of the Board concerning the draft. Thereafter a new draft was prepared and issued as proposed findings of the Board and the parties were afforded an opportunity to file exceptions. Exceptions were filed by only 1 of the 33 respondents, and the decision was issued in almost exactly the same form as the proposed findings. In Matter of Smith Wood Products Company, Inc., (C-875), in response to an inquiry directed to the Regional Director by the Board, the Regional Attorney who had tried the case, Mr. G. L. Patterson, prepared a memorandum pointing out the evidence in the report which, in his opinion, established the invalidity of a contract involved in the proceeding. Later a similar but more elaborate memorandum was prepared by Mr. Patrick H. Walker, an attorney in the Regional Office, who had also represented the Board at the hearing. These memoranda were submitted to the review attorney engaged in preparing the draft of the proposed findings of the Board. The proposed findings, which have already been issued, held that the contract in question was valid. The final decision of the Board has not yet been issued but is expected shortly. In Matter of Inland Steel Company (C-252, 9 N. L. R. B. 783), as an aid to the division and organization of their work, Mr. Isaiah S. Dorfman, the Board's attorney at the hearing, furnished the review attorneys, Mr. Lewis M. Gill and Mr. Aaron Lewittes, with a topical index to the testimony and exhibits in the record. In Matter of Weirton Steel Company, (C-1184), shortly after the record was assigned to the Review Section, there were several conversations between the review attorneys, Mr. Aaron Lewittes and Mr. Bliss Daffan, and the attorneys who had in some capacity participated in the trial or were doing so, Mr. Isadore Polier, Mr. Winthrop Johns, Mr. Alan Heald, Mr. John Porter and Mr. David Rein. Mr. Polier gave the review attorneys, as an aid to the division and organization of their work, an oral summary, in some detail, of the Board testimony and exhibits and an oral description of certain exhibits which had not then been introduced but which were subsequently introduced as the result of a stipulation. At this time and thereafter during the progress of the hearing, Mr. Polier also gave them, piecemeal, a written topical list of the branches of the Board's case, with a number of references to the testimony. There were other conversations between the review attorney and attorneys who had participated or were participating in the trial by the trial attorneys, such as inquiry as to the location of transcript volumes and exhibits, and casual remarks about certain incidents which appeared in the transcript and which I think should properly be described as gossipping about these incidents between those who were working on the case in different capacities. The proposed findings in this case have not yet been issued. As I have indicated, some of these cases have not yet been decided by the Board. Others are in the course of litigation in the courts. I am assuming that you will discuss the matter with me should public use of the information contained in this letter be considered. Yours sincerely, CHARLES FAHY, General Counsel. EXHIBIT NO. 1608-E NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, EDMUND M. TOLAND, Esquire, General Counsel, Special Committee to Investigate the National Labor Relations Board, Room 139 Old House Office Building, Washington, D. O. DEAR MR. TOLAND: In your letter of October 20 you request that I ask Mr. Pratt to furnish you with the list of the cases that intermediate reports were prepared for by other than the trial examiner, or those when the trial examiner had the assistance of the members of the Review Division in the preparation of the intermediate report. Mr. Pratt has been out of the City since your letter reached me and is not expected to return for some days. In the meantime, however, I have discussed your letter with Mr. Frank Bloom, Assistant Chief Trial Examiner. I will give you now the information which I believe is accurate, but will go over the situation again with Mr. Pratt upon his return and if there is need for supplementing this information we will then do so. The Chief Trial Examiner or the Assistant Chief Trial Examiner always check the drafts of intermediate reports before the reports are issued and served upon the parties. In addition, since August 1939 each intermediate report is checked against the record by a member of the staff of trial examiners other than the trial examiner who presided at the hearing. As a result of this check and of the check of the Chief Trial Examiner or of the Assistant Chief Trial Examiner, suggestions are made for the consideration of the trial examiner who presided at the hearing. He has the benefit of such Suggestions and of discussion of them with the staff member who has checked the draft against the record, or with the Chief Trial Examiner or the Assistant Chief Trial Examiner. Putting aside now the practice set forth above, I have been able to ascertain no instances in which intermediate reports have been prepared by other than the trial examiners with the following qualifications to this general statement. I think in one case heard by a trial examiner who is no longer with the Board the Chief Trial Examiner was so dissatisfied with an intermediate report and the efforts of the trial examiner to place it in good form that he drafted a suggested form for the trial examiner and submitted it to him, after discussion of the case with the trial examiner. I will speak to Mr. Pratt about this on his return, and give you the name of the case, which I do not now have. In one other case the trial attorney of the Board prepared for the use of the trial examiner, after the hearing, a chart of documentary exhibits and an outline of the evidence bearing on the jurisdiction of the Board under the commerce clause. The name of this case is Montgomery Ward and Co., Inc. and Reuben Litzenberger, et al., No. C-176. In one other case an attorney of the Board who had a very slight participation in the case, consisting of his being present on its closing day and on that day making one objection to the introduction of certain evidence and an announcement that the Board rested, after conclusion of the respondent's case, subsequently on being shown by the trial examiner a portion of the draft of the intermediate report, made a suggestion to the trial examiner that he thought some of the language used in the intermediate report should be less caustic. The name of this case is Oregon Worsted Company and United Textile Workers of America, Local No. 2435, No. C-167. No trial examiner has had the assistance of any member of the Review Division in the preparation of an intermediate report except in one case, namely, in the matter of Donnelly Garment Company and International Ladies' Garment Workers Union and Donnelly Garment Workers Union, a party to the contract, No. C-1382, in which a review attorney was assigned to and did assist in the preparation of the intermediate report in the same manner in which staff members of the Trial Examiners Division itself now assist, as above set forth. DEAR MR. TOLAND: Please refer to the last paragraph of your letter of October 3 and to your letter of October 12. In compliance with these requests I am enclosing a tabulation of "Disposi tion of Cases Filed with the National Labor Relations Board, October 1, 1935 to June 30, 1939." Page 1 of this tabulation gives the number of cases filed, the number of cases settled before issuance of complaint, the number of cases settled or dismissed after issuance of a complaint but before hearing, the number of cases settled or dismissed after hearing, and the number of cases resulting in a decision of the Board. It also gives the number of cases withdrawn or otherwise disposed of. It shows that for the period named there were filed with the Board 22,891 cases, of which 18,780 were disposed of, leaving 4,111 pending. On page 2 there is a breakdown of the 22,891 cases between complaint or unfair labor practice cases and representation cases. The number of complaint cases closed during the period was 12,600, and the number of representation cases closed was 6,180. Excluding injunction suits and miscellaneous litigation, and including only enforcement or review proceedings in the courts, there have been 81 final decisions of the courts in cases prosecuted by the Board or respondents, and there are 57 pending. These statistics are as of September 1, 1939. They do not include consent decrees nor, as stated, 104 injunction suits and miscellaneous litigation. You also ask for a list of all the court cases. This I believe you have. With the copies of the reports of the Board to the President there is a report on litigation which lists all the court cases including those decided, those pending, consent decrees, etc. The latest litigation report is dated September 15 and is enclosed with the report to the President dated September 30. This report does not include a list of the injunction cases. If the latter is desired please let me know. There is still to be furnished a list of all certification cases. You will notice that the data referred to above and on the enclosed tabulations runs only to July 1, 1939. If similar information is desired beyond that date it will take some little while to prepare it. Please let me know about this. The amount of work involved in these rather simple appearing statistics is very considerable but we shall be glad to give you whatever you desire. I understand from subsequent conversations with you that we need not now furnish the caption of each case or the docket number. Yours sincerely, CHARLES FAHY, General Counsel. DISPOSITION OF CASES FILED WITH THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, OCTOBER 1, 1935 TO JUNE 30, 1939 From October 1, 1935 to June 30, 1939, there was filed with the Board and its 22 Regional Offices a total of 22,891 cases. During the same period 18,780 cases were disposed of by the Board and its Regional Offices. Thus, on July 1, 1939, a total of 4,111 cases was pending. The 18,780 cases disposed of were closed in the following manner: 1 By formal action is meant the issuance of a complaint in an unfair labor practice case and the issuance of a notice of hearing in a representation case. 1-Otherwise" includes cases closed by transfer to other agencies, to other regional offices of the Board, and esses closed by consolidation with other cases. Le.. after the hearing was completed but before the issuance of a Board decision. This figure includes decisions and orders in unfair labor practice cases and certifications or refusals to certify in representation cases. DISPOSITION OF COMPLAINT CASES The 12,600 complaint cases were disposed of as follows: The 6,180 representation cases were disposed of as follows: |