Page images
PDF
EPUB

competitive or non-competitive examinations in order to obtain the civil service status that they now enjoy. The Committee is anxious to know the number of people employed at the Board who took the non-competitive civil service examinations and now have civil service status, and the number of non-competitive examinations each employee took.

Very truly yours,

EDMUND M. TOLAND, General Counsel.

CHARLES FAHY, Esquire,

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Washington, D. C., February 24, 1940.

General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. FAHY: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of February 19 regarding employees appointed on a temporary basis who subsequently took unassembled and/or non-competitve Civil Service Examination. I wish you would make a check as I am informed that there are other employees besides David J. Saposs and Rosemary S. Macke who did not have Civil Service status at the time of their appointment and took an unassembled and/or non-competitve Civil Service Examination.

Very truly yours,

EDMUND M. TOLAND, General Counsel.

EXHIBIT NO. 1608-AF

Honorable HOWARD W. SMITH,

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Washington, D. C., February 23, 1940.

Chairman, Special Committee to Investigate the National

Labor Relations Board, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN SMITH: On January 31, 1940 (Record Volume II, page 377) the Committee requested a breakdown of the disposition made of the 667 decisions and orders in unfair labor practice cases decided up to and including June 30, 1939. In response to this request, I am enclosing an analysis of these 667 Board decisions in unfair labor cases issued July 5, 1935 to July 1, 1939.

[blocks in formation]

Analysis of Board decisions in complaint cases issued July 5, 1935 to July 1, 1939

[blocks in formation]

Analysis of Board decisions in complaint cases issued July 5, 1935 to July 1, 1939-Continued

III. Allegations of violation of Section 8 (3)

Employees with respect to whom allegation upheld__.
Employees with respect to whom allegation dismissed.

Total employees involved...

IV. Allegation of violation of Section 8 (5)
Cases in which allegation was upheld..

Cases in which allegation was dismissed....

Total cases involving allegation---_.

2,481

1 11, 597

14, 078

131

62

193

This figure includes some 4300 employees who the Board found were locked out by the employer in Matter of Republic Steel Corporation and Steel Workers Organizing Committee, 9 N. L. R. B. 219.

Source: Paragraph I compiled by Division of Economic Research. III, and IV compiled by Ray Johnson, Review Attorney.

Paragraphs II,

EXHIBIT NO. 1608-AG

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Washington, D. C., February 20, 1940.

Honorable HOWARD W. SMITH,

Chairman, Special Committee to Investigate the National Labor Relations Board

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN SMITH: On February 6, 1940, in the course of my testimony before the Committee (see Volume II, page 650) you asked me to put in the record at some later point information on the number of petitions for investigation of representatives filed by employers. I am glad to furnish this information, and to include data as to the disposition or status of the petitions. From July 14, 1939 to February 1, 1940, 52 employer petitions were filed with the Board and its regional offices. During the same period 1,116 petitions were filed by labor organizations. Of the 52 employer petitions, 23 had been disposed of at the end of the period. Their method of disposition was as follows:

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Four of the petitions that were dismissed were defective in failing to provide necessary information, usually the omission of evidence as to the existence of a representation conflict between two or more labor organizations. Three petitions were dismissed because of existing labor agreements between the petitioner and one of the unions. One petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. One was dismissed because of a pending complaint affecting the status of one of the unions. One petition was dismissed concurrently with the issuance of a complaint against the petitioner.

On February 1, 1940, 29 employer petitions were pending before the Board and its regional offices. Of these, 23 petitions were under investigation by the Board's agents, four petitions were awaiting hearings, one petition was awaiting a formal decision by the Board, and one petition was awaiting the holding of an election pursuant to the direction of the Board.

Yours sincerely,

CHARLES FAHY, General Counsel.

EXHIBIT No. 1608-AH

EDMUND M. TOLAND, Esquire,

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Washington, D. C., March 13, 1940.

General Counsel, Special Committee to Investigate

the National Labor Relations Board,

535 Old House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. TOLAND: Reference is made to your letter of February 23, 1940, in which you request that we furnish the Committee with the names of all employees who did not have any Civil Service status at the time of their appointment and who now have Civil Service status.

At the present time the Board has in its employ a number of persons who were transferred to it by authority of Section 4 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act and who did not have Civil Service status at the time of the transfer. However, these employees were permitted to acquire Civil Service status by the terms of Executive Order # 7587, March 27, 1937. Inasmuch as this group of employees was not required to have Civil Service status in order to become employees of the Board, it is not clear whether or not the information concerning them is desired by the Committee.

Your letter of February 24, 1940, requests that we re-check our records regarding employees appointed on a temporary basis without Civil Service status, who subsequently took unassembled or non-competitive Civil Service examination. Please be advised that we are unable to find a record of any employees other than David J. Saposs and Rosemary S. Macke who were appointed under such circumstances.

Yours very truly,

CHARLES FAHY, General Counsel.

EXHIBIT NO. 1608-AI

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Washington, D. C., March 15, 1940.

EDMUND M. TOLAND, Esquire,

General Counsel, Special Committee to Investigate the National
Labor Relations Board, 535 Old House Office Building.

(ATT: Mr. Hinkel.)

DEAR MR. TOLAND: In response to the telephone call to my office today from Mr. Hinkel, I am enclosing herewith copy of the decision of the Board in the Matter of Berkshire Knitting Mills and American Federation of Hosiery Workers, Branch #10, case No. C-385, decided November 3, 1939.

Since the decision of the Board our dockets show the following: November 9, 1939: Employees Association petitioned the Circuit Court of Ap peals for the Third Circuit to review the decision and order.

November 10, 1939: The Company petitioned the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to review and set aside the decision and order. January 1, 1940: American Federation of Hosiery Workers filed motion to intervene in the action started by the Company.

Yours very truly,

CHARLES FAHY, General Counsel.

EXHIBIT NO. 1608-AJ

MARCH 25, 1940.

EDMUND M. TOLAND, Esq.,

General Counsel, Special Committee to Investigate the
National Labor Relations Board, 535 Old House Office Building,
Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. TOLAND: In response to the telephone request of Mr. Reilly of your staff for a copy of the discussion by Dr. Saposs with trial examiners of the Board on March 15, 1940, I find that Dr. Saposs' discussion was not written out but was given from an outline on the subject of "Company Dominated Unions."

I am enclosing a copy of the outline, which Dr. Saposs informs me he followed meticulously.

Yours very truly,

CF: MEF

General Counsel.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
DIVISION OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH,
Washington, D. C., March 15, 1940.

COMPANY DOMINATED UNIONS

I. Unique Phenomenon in U. S.

II. Only handful before 1st World War.

A. Spectacular one known as Rockefeller Plan.

III. Introduced in cycles.

A. War Period.

B. Immediate Post-War Period.

C. Slow down during depression.

D. N. R. A. Period.

E. N. L. R. A. Period Readaptations to so-called independents.

IV. Designed to Counteract Genuine Self-Organization and collective bargaining.

A. Came into existence during period of labor organization activity

and growth of unionism.

B. When union in offing.

C. During strike.

D. Efforts to break up unions.

E. Organized movement by employers.

V. Subtle Adaptations.

A. Need for more complete record.

B. Background Data.

1. History of Employer Labor Policy.
2. Information on initiators.

THOMAS S. HINKEL,

a. Connection with company union.

b. Role of Supervisory Employees.

c. Lawyer and his background.

d. Finances or lack of finances.

e. Dependence on Employer favors.

f. Attitude toward general labor organization.

g. Effective Organization for collective bargaining.

(1) Strike.

(2) Union Dues.

(3) Arbitration.

(4) Independence of officials.

(5) Make fetish of isolation.

h. Hang over of employer influence when isolated.

(1) Effect of certain actions of employer on employees and officers of so-called independents.

EXHIBIT NO. 1608-AK

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Washington, D. C., May 21, 1940.

Principal Attorney, Special Committee to Investigate

the National Labor Relations Board, Old House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. HINKEL: Supplementing my letter to you of May 20, 1940, concerning the notes on the annual conferences of the Board, I wish to inform you that there are no notes on a conference for 1939 since no annual conference of the Board was held in that year.

ALLAN R. ROSENBERG.

Allan R. Rosenberg.

CHARLES FAHY, Esquire,

EXHIBIT NO. 1608-AL

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Washington, D. C., May 20, 1940.

General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. FAHY: During the course of the testimony of Mr. Herbert Vogt, 1 made a request regarding the swearing of witnesses by employees of the Board. Will you please furnish me with the name of every field examiner who has ever administered oaths to witnesses in the course of his investigations?

Very truly yours,

EDMUND M. TOLAND, General Counsel.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

Washington, D. C., May 22, 1940.

EDMUND M. TOLAND, Esquire,

General Counsel, Special Committee to Investigate the National Labor Relations Board,

535 Old House Office Building. Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. TOLAND: In response to your request of May 20 that I furnish you with the name of every field examiner who has ever administered oaths to wit nesses in the course of his investigations, I must ask you to reconsider this request or to relieve me of any responsibility of endeavoring to comply therewith. I know of no way in which I can answer it without contacting each field examiner and with our other duties at this time that clearly should not be imposed upon me if you desire this information. I have no personal information on the subject other than the testimony of Mr. Vogt.

Yours very truly,

CHARLES FAHY, General Counsel.

CHARLES FAHY, Esquire,

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE
THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Washington, D. C., May 23, 1940.

General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. FAHY: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of May 22, 1940, concerning field examiners administering oaths. Will you please advise me if the Board has issued any instructions, mimeographed or otherwise, to field examiners or employees of the Board authorizing them to administer oaths during the course of an investigation being made.

Very truly yours,

EDMUND M. TOLAND, General Counsel.

EXHIBIT NO. 1608-AM

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Washington, D. C., May 22, 1940.

EDMUND M. TOLAND, Esquire,

General Counsel, Special Committee to Investigate the National Labor Relations Board,

535 Old House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. TOLAND: I have your letter of May 21 in which you request that I furnish you with a list of all files, both formal and informal, that are missing and have been missing since before this investigation started. I have checked

« PreviousContinue »