laid off before employes with longer service according to the seniority list. except employes on the special list provided above. If, in the judgment of the management, production in the plant must be materially reduced for an extensive period, thus creating a social problem in the community, this rule will be modified in a manner satisfactory to the employes to give preference in the available employment to employes with dependents as against employes without dependents.

In increasing the working force in any department or occupational group. employes will be called back in the reverse order in which they were laid off. Temporary employes will not be called back until all employes with seniority have been called back.

The present local rules regarding laying off married women are to apply unless changed in a manner satisfactory to the employes.

C. Timing Operations.

The policy regarding speed of operations is that time studies shall be made on a basis of fairness and equity consistent with quality of workmanship, efficiency of operations and the reasonable working capacities of normal operators. The local management of each plant has full authority to settle such matters. If an employe or group of employes claim the timing of their work is too fast and the foreman is unable to adjust the matter. the job will be restudied and if found to be unfair an adjustment in the time will be made.

D. Wage Payment Plan.

The Corporation has no preference in regard to wage payment plans. Wage payment plans may be adopted, changed or modified as desired by the employes directly involved and the local management in each plant has the full authority to settle such matters.

E. Working Hours.

The policy of the Corporation with respect to the normal work week is subject to such national and state legislation which may apply. The present policy of the Corporation is an eight-hour day and a forty-hour week with time and one-half for all overtime after eight hours per day or forty hours per week.

F. Discharge Complaints.

It is important that complaints regarding unjust or discriminatory discharges be handled promptly according to the grievance procedure herein provided. Such complaints must be filed within three days of the discharge and the local plant management must review and render a decision on the case within five days of its receipt. In the event of appeal from decision of the local plant management a final decision will be made as promptly as possible and in any event not more than four weeks from the original filing of the case.

An employe who is reinstated after discharge shall be returned to work of a similar class, at the same rate of pay.

G. Wages.

General Motors believes in high wages and will continue to pay high wages in the future as it has in the past.

General Motors operates a number of plants in many communities throughout the United States, producing a wide variety of products sold in highly competitive markets, some of which are seasonal. It employs thousands of skilled men of practically every trade in metal manufacturing and many others. Accordingly, the question of local wage rates is a matter which must be determined by the local plant management for each plant in the light of these facts.

Any wage complaints which cannot be settled by the local plant management will be dealt with further according to the grievance procedure.

2. All cases of alleged discriminatory discharge raised by the Union during the negotiations, have been reviewed and such cases as have been mutually agreed upon have been referred to the plant in which they occurred, to be handled thereafter in accordance with the grievance procedure.

3. Any claims of discrimination against temporary employes may be reviewed by the shop committees with the local plant management. Such individual cases shall not be further appealed to the higher authority provided in the procedure for adjusting grievances, but the right is reserved to the shop

committees to appeal any general charge of discrimination by the plant management as so provided.

4. Minimum Wages. The general trend of industry is toward higher minimum wage levels to establish an American standard of living for all workers. This is a national problem. Due to the variety of businesses and conditions under which General Motors operates its various plants, it has been impossible to establish a uniform minimum wage rate in all General Motors plants. However, in plants where the minimum wage rates become a matter of dispute, the matter will be dealt with promptly and if not settled satisfactorily by the local management will be speedily dealt with according to the grievance procedure.

5. Should any differences arise over grievances there shall be no suspensions or stoppages of work until every effort has been exhausted to adjust them through the regular grievance procedure, and in no case without the approval of the International officers of the Union.

6. This agreement shall continue in full force and effect until terminated by either party or changed by consent of both parties. Either party may terminate this agreement, by giving sixty days notice in writing to the other on or after June 11, 1937. If either party desires to modify or change this agreement it shall, at least sixty days prior to the date when it proposes that such change or modification becomes effective, give notice in writing of the proposed change or modification. The other party, within ten days after receipt of said notice, shall either accept or reject the proposal or request a conference to negotiate the proposal. No notice to modify or change this agreement shall be given by either party prior to June 11, 1937.

EXHIBIT NO. 1609-F

A STATEMENT ON THE STRIKE AGREEMENT

Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., President, General Motors Corporation, issued the following statement February 11, 1937:

General Motors is gratified that by the unremitting efforts of Governor Murphy an agreement has been made under which the General Motors plants Dow illegally held by strikers will be evacuated forthwith, the strike terminated and production resumed at once.

This agreement covers the extent of recognition which General Motors will extend the United Automobile Workers of America and the terms under which General Motors will undertake to negotiate with that union on the issues which it raised in its letter of January 4. The substance of this agreement to negotiate with the United Automobile Workers of America is as follows:

1. The U. A. W. A. is recognized as the representative of those of our employes who are members of that organization.

2. The plants are to be evacuated forthwith and production will be resumed as fast as possible.

3. Negotiations will begin on February 16 between General Motors and the U. A. W. A. on the remaining issues.

4. The union agrees not to interrupt production at any time without having exhausted every means of settlement by negotiation.

5. The union agrees not to intimidate or coerce non-union men into joining the union and not to solicit members on company property. The company in turn agrees not to discriminate against members of the union and to reemploy all strikers without discrimination.

6. Legal proceedings are to be discontinued after evacuation of the plants, subject to the approval of the Court.

The above agreement as to the terms under which General Motors will negotiate with the U. A. W. A. is in complete accord with the principles upon which General Motors has stood since the beginning of this unfortunate controversy which, like all industrial disputes which interfere with production, has resulted in a staggering loss to everyone concerned.

It affirms the rights of the representatives of any other group to negotiate in their own behalf, and we will continue our policy that any benefits extended in the settlement with any one group will be accorded to all other employes in similar eircumstances in the plants to which that settlement applies.

So there can be no justification for any charge of bad faith being made against General Motors that it might deliberately proceed to bargain with other groups

for the purpose of undermining this particular union, we have written the following letter to Governor Murphy:

DETROIT, MICHIGAN,
February 11, 1937.

The Honorable FRANK MURPHY,

Governor of Michigan, Lansing, Michigan.

DEAR GOVERNOR: We have been told that the United Automobile Workers of America, in justifying its demand for the bargaining privilege, states that they fear that without protection of some kind we might deliberately proceed to bargain with other groups for the purpose of undermining the position of this particular union. We have said that we have no such intention.

On the other hand, we cannot enter into any agreement with any one which can have the effect of denying to any group of our employes the right of collective bargaining to which it is entitled, and which fails to protect them in the exercise of those rights.

On our part, therefore, we undertake not to seek or to inspire such activities on the part of other groups, for the purpose of weakening this particular union.

This undertaking we assume on condition that the union refrain from coercion and intimidation inside and outside of the shops in its efforts to increase its membership.

As evidence of our intention to do all we can to hasten the resumption of work in our plants, and to promote peace, we hereby agree with you that within a period of six months from the date of resumption of work, we will not bargain with or enter into agreements with any other union or representatives of employes of plants on strike in respect to matters of general Corporation policy without first submitting to you the facts of the situation and gaining from you the sanction for any such contemplated procedure as being justified by law, equity, or justice toward the group of employes so represented.

Very respectfully yours,

W. S. KNUDSEN, Executive Vice President.

The Corporation, its workers and the public, are indebted to the Honorable Frank Murphy, assisted by Federal Conciliator James F. Dewey, for their untiring and conscientious efforts, as well as the fairness with which they have handled a most difficult situation. Only their efforts have made it possible to resume work at this time.

EXHIBIT NO. 1609-G

SOVIET SECURITIES CORPORATION,

30 Broad Street, New York City.

JANUARY 4, 1937.

GENTLEMEN: I should appreciate receiving a copy of your prospectus for Soviet Government 7% Gold Bonds, together with any order blanks necessary for their purchase.

Very truly yours,

SUCCESSORS TO SOVIET AMERICAN SECURITIES CORPORATION

30 Broad Street, New York

Mr. ALEXANDER B. HAWES,

JANUARY 22, 1937.

1640-21st St., NW., Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. HAWES: We acknowledge receipt of your check in the amount of $370.00 for the purchase of 7% Gold Rouble Bonds for the USSR, of the Second Five Year Plan Loan, plus accrued interest.

It is necessary that payment be received in New York City funds, and inasmuch as your check is drawn on a Washington bank, we have deposited it and shall send you a statement covering your purchase on January 28th, when the proceeds should be received in New York City.

DEAR SIRS: I have your letter of January 22, stating that the bonds which I had ordered under date of January 20 would be mailed on or about January 28. I should like to cancel my order for these bonds and request the return of the funds previously transmitted in the amount of $370.

Yours very truly,

A. B. HAWES,
Alexander B. Hawes,

1640 21st Street, N. W.

ABHAWES: EES

EXHIBIT No. 1609-J

SOVIET SECURITIES CORPORATION

SUCCESSORS TO SOVIET AMERICAN SECURITIES CORPORATION
30 Broad Street, New York

Mr. ALEXANDER B. HAWES,

1640 21st St., N. W., Washington, D. C.

JANUARY 27th, 1937.

DEAR MR. HAWES: We are at a loss to understand your letter of January 26th. As you noticed from our letter of January 22nd, which acknowledged your order, your check in payment of same had to be put through for collection in a usual routine. This check will not clear and the funds be available to us until January 28th at which time the bonds were to be mailed to you.

In view of your request to cancel this order, we are complying with your wishes and shall send you our check for the proceeds as soon as we are notified by the bank that your funds have been collected. Very truly yours,

DEAR MR. HAWES: In accordance with our letter of January 27th, we enclose our check in the amount of $370.00, which effects cancellation of your order of January 20th.

Very truly yours,

K Enclosure

SOVIET SECURITIES CORPORATION,
R. KIMMEL, Cashier.

EXHIBIT NO. 1609-L

[Copy]

AUGUST 17, 1938.

To: Messrs. Fahy and Watts.

From: M. B. Wolf.

Subject: Cases to be assigned to C. C. A. Attorneys.

In the following cases enforcement has been authorized and the cases ar ready for assignment. No petitions for enforcement have been filed, in accord ance with our practice of not filing until the record has been read by the attorne assigned to the case. The observations concerning the cases are digested from memoranda written by various members of Mr. Halliday's division recommend ing enforcement.

1. Art Crayon Co. and American Artists Color Works, Inc., C-295, 2d Circuit decided 5/11/38, enforcement authorized 7/18/38.

T. E. Report, Brief, Oral Argument.

Second respondent is a subsidiary of first. Charges against both respond ents and both held to have engaged in unfair labor practices, so all right under Hopwood.

8 (2) Co. union, fairly strong. Out of existence at time of hearing, bui respondents using authorizations to oppose union's claim of majority.

8 (3)-4 discharges-only doubt is as to one man discharged for calling the union to report on a bargaining conference, whereas the employer had forbidden him so to do. Board held that employer could not impose such a restriction.

8 (5)-Only doubt is as to unit, Board grouping employees of both respondents. In view of relationship of respondents, decision is strong on this.

2. Altorfer Bros., Inc. (7th Circuit) decided 3/1/38, enforcement authorized 6/20/38.

T. E. Report, exceptions, briefs.

8 (3) and 8 (5) allegations dismissed by Board.

8 (2)-Respondent allowed solicitation by Assn., denied it to S. W. O. C. One foreman solicited for Assn. During S. W. O. C. strike a local committee examined proofs and held Assn. to represent majority, upon which respondent bargained with Assn.

8 (2) is regarded as “weak" but is buttressed by a "strong" 8 (1).

3. Burnside Steel Foundry, C-339 (7th Circuit), decided 6/7/38, enforcement authorized 7/18/38.

T. E. Report, exceptions, brief, leave for oral argument granted but no application received.

8 (3) dismissed by Board.

No separate 8 (1) violations.

8 (2)-weak because not clear who instigated Assn. and sole known organizer not tied up with respondent. Solicitation by both union and the Assn. was permitted. The case is somewhat strengthened by respondent's contrasting attitudes of hostility and friendliness. Note below.

8 (5) The union claimed a majority but the respondent demanded certification. Nine days thereafter the Assn. claimed a majority and respondent bargained. The Board ruled that since the Assn. was companydominated, respondent had to recognize the union. In addition, respondent announced that it would never sign a written contract with the union. 4. Dunbar Glass Co., C-352 (4th Circuit), decided 4/23/38, enforcement authorized 7/18/38.

T. E. Report, exceptions, briefs, oral argument. This case concerns only two 8 (3) discharges. Fuchs, the review attorney, does not feel the case to be strong. Both employees were conclusively shown to be efficient and both were discharged because they refused to work overtime when respondent had extra men to do the neces sary work; the record shows that no one had been discharged previously for refusing such request. There is a background of respondent's antiunion activity during N. R. A. days. The case can very probably be sustained.