1939 with respect to the matter. On January 12, I was absent from the office on a trip to Laona, Wisconsin. On that day Mr. Clark appeared at the office and requested of Mrs. Bronson, our chief clerk, his November expense check and his license plates. Under instructions given previously, she turned over to him his license plates, but refused to turn over his expense check. In her conversation with him, no mention was made of my request of December 27, 1938. On January 13, 1939, Mr. Clark called on me at the office, and asked why I wanted the materials which I had requested. He stated that there could be nothing of any value in them for me. He stated that if he did have anything in his possession which belonged in the files of this office, we at least had carbon copies of the same here. I informed him that we had nothing on the Rissman and Komaroff matters and further that we had no correspondence with respect to certain other general and specific personnel matters. During the conversation Mr. Clark made certain promises which are stated in my letter of January 20. Mr. Clark at the time, made no mention of the fact that he was going to leave town. I sincerely expected him to keep his promises. When I failed to hear from him by January 20th, I made a formal demand upon him by letter, in accordance with. your suggestion. Late Saturday, his landlady called me and told me that she was in receipt of my January 20th letter to Mr. Clark; that he had vacated the premises on Thursday, January 19th; that she had no forwarding address for him; that she was returning the letter to me; and that she understood he was going to Washington, D. C. I imagine that he is now calling upon his mother, Mrs. Wm. C. Clark, who lives at 120 C Street, N. E. I am today sending to Mr. Clark, in care of his mother, another letter identical to the one which I sent him at his Milwaukee address on January 20. Since Mr. Clark has slipped away on me like a thief in the night, there is apparently nothing further that I can do to recover from him the materials which he removed from the office. Although the Board in all likelihood has in its Washington office, the originals and carbon copies of many of the items which do not now appear in our files, I should like to have the files of this office complete in every detail. Insofar as the Rissman correspondence is concerned, I don't know whether the Board has any of the telegrams or letters which Mr. Clark received (solicited) from the A. F. L. organizations. I await further advices from you in the matter. On January 13, 1930, I forwarded Mr. Clark's November expense check to Mr. Claude B. Calkins. Very truly yours, DEAR MR. CLARK: On the afternoon of December 27, 1938, I wrote you and asked you to return to this office all of the personnel correspondence relating to yourself and the members of the staff of this region which you had removed from this office earlier that day. You failed to answer my communication. During the first week in January, 1939, I phoned you at your home and renewed the request made in my letter of December 27, 1938. On January 13, 1939, you conferred with me at my office. I at that time again renewed my request for the materials which you had removed from this office. I called your especial attention to the fact that the files of this office were devoid of any correspondence on the Rissman and Komaroff matters, with which you are well acquainted. I know that these materials have always been in your possession and were removed by you when you left. I know further, that other personnel correspondence of a general as well as of a specific nature which was filed in both your Personal and Personal and Confidential files, was removed from this office by you when you removed the aforesaid files. In the aforementioned 'phone conversation, you promised to examine the materials in your possession, and to return all of the items of correspondence which I had requested in my letter of December 27th. When you appeared in my office o", January 13, you came with nothing. Before you left, however, you promised to carry out your promise made during our 'phone conversation and further that you would communicate with me in the matter shortly, either by sending me the mate rials that I had requested of you, or by personally appearing at this office with all of the materials which you removed, for the purpose of going over the same with me so that I might indicate to you those I desired. I have waited patiently for word from you since last Friday. Your failure to keep your promise made to me on that day leaves me no other choice than to demand of you the immediate return of all the materials which I have previously requested. Very truly yours, FREDERICK P. METT, Acting Regional Director. Frances S. Bronson, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 21 day of January, 1939, as agent for the Acting Regional Director for the Twelfth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, she served the original of the attached Exhibit "A", being a letter addressed to Mr. Nathaniel S. Clark, 120 C. Street N. E., Washington, D. C., and signed by Frederick P. Mett, Acting Re gional Director, upon Mr. Nathaniel S. Clark, 120 C. Street N. E.. Washington. D. C., % Mrs. Wm. C. Clark, by sending on the above date to the above named, said original letter by postpaid registered mail: and that thereafter she received from the United States Post Office return delivery receipt therefor numbered 3642. dated January 25, 1939, which return receipt is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "B", and made a part hereof. FRANCES S. BRONSON. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1st day of February, 1939. [SEAL] My Commission expires October 26, 1941. Notary Public, Milwaukee County. Personal and Confidential. Twelfth Region FEBRUARY 2, 1939. To: Nathan Witt, Secretary, National Labor Relations Board. This will acknowledge receipt of your personal and confidential memorandum of January 30, 1939. The enclosed affidavit of service of Frances S. Bronson indicates that one Bertha L. Hull, one of Mr. Clark's relatives living with his mother at 120 C Street, N. E. Washington, D. C. received for Mr. Clark the letter which I addressed to him on January 23, 1939. To date I have had no response from Mr. Clark. Day before yesterday, Mr. E. J. Brophy, Field Examiner, received from Mr. Clark a post card, postmarked Miami, Florida, in which Mr. Clark sent his regards to Mr. Brophy and his further regards "to anyone else who cares." "The post card indicated that Mr. Clark plans to stay at Miami for some time. Mrs. Clark's 'phone call to Mr. Glaser which you mention in your memo, indicates anxiety over the receipt of my registered letter addressed to Mr. Clark at her home. Apparently Mr. Clark proceeded directly to Miami, Florida from Milwaukee, Wisconsin, contrary to the rumors which he had spread about his going to Washington. I will communicate with you if and as soon as I hear from Mr. Clark in response to my letter of January 23. With the A. F. L. Executive Council meeting in Miami during the present week, I am wondering if Mr. Clark's sojourn there is of any significance. Very truly yours, Enclosure. FPM/fsb. FREDERICK P. METT. DEAR FRED: Thanks a lot for your letter which enabled me to present to five luscious Aluminum girls the poetry for translation (I, of course, was discreet in hiding the signature). On coming back to the office today, I was mortified to learn from piquant Eleanora that, in the shouting and tumult, the paragraph on interstate commerce was taken for granted. Of course, you are 100% right in amending the Complaint to include the new set-up. Freddie, old man, it is the old psychological reaction of reading what you know should be in the Complaint. I am sorry I cannot regale you with any French tid-bits and give you the opportunity of exhibiting to the denizens of juicy Hurley the more succulent Gallic bons mots. I am glad you dubbed this as "philosophy". The hearing on the Hanna Ore Mining Company will be held at Iron River, which, I fear, is too far distant to allow me to hear your brilliant excoriation of the Connor baron at Bessemer. Please forgive me for my dereliction. My new philosophy is never to take anything for granted, not even Fred Mett's dictation at the hands of bonnie E. H. H. Stifled with love and kisses, MLF EH. MORRIS. P. S. Just heard that the S. O. B. Graves, also attorney in the Nekoosa case and nasty at that, desires to stipulate away the Michigan case. Great Guns, n' est-ce pas? Omer S. Hoebreckx: M. L. F. Confidential. Twelfth Region MAY 11, 1939. To: Nathan Witt, Secretary, National Labor Relations Board. Subject: Omer S. Hoebreckx, Field Examiner. Recently Field Examiner Hoebreckx spoke to me about his preference to do Board legal work. He was trained in law at George Washington University, and states that he asked for legal work at the time he was hired. I believe that in recent months he has written to you and Mr. Watts on this matter. Of this examiner, I will say that he has ability, is thoroughly dependable and has done good work that compares favorably with that of his colleagues. He does not have an impressive record of adjustments while he was working under Regional Attorney Mett, but since becoming acquainted with both men, I believe this is due to reasons of personality. In view of Mr. Mett's strong suggestions to me that Hoebreckx lacked capacity, I personally attended several of his meetings and can say that the man is headstrong and has needed the guidance of an experienced person, but his ability is unquestioned and he has shown a marked willingness to take suggestions that has resulted in work of a high grade. He is able to do independent thinking and is quite industrious and if these are added to a legal training of a high grade, he should be able to perform his duties as a Board attorney, with efficiency. Mr. Hoebreckx prefers legal work in Milwaukee, but I informed him that the relatively small volume of formal legal work here and the sharp personal differences that he has had with Mr. Mett make his assignment here extremely improbable. In view of these considerations, Mr. Hoebreckx informed me that he preferred legal work over his assignment here as Field Examiner. In view of the preference expressed by Mr. Hoebreckx, I would say that despite his good work in my tenure of office, it would likely be best for the employee and the Board if he were assigned legal work. I make the above recommendation on the assumption that his legal training and background is adequate. There is yet another consideration to your attention. Mr. Hoebreckx i person of extremely reactionary views has long since become the property ( My personal opinion is that Hoebrech that he does not discuss his social vie off have engaged in long discussions ov Hoebreckx tells me he is confident th In view of the close association betwe leadership, it is not surprising that kn is no doubt a very human characteri: associations in view of the known diffe Unions, but the spreading of this info gether high professional standard of be that point of view seems quite depl that there is nothing useful that can need for observing some sort of a profe in fact I think any mention of the than good. The consequence is the t breckx agrees with me that his effec knowledge of his purported views is c stating this for your information, and views and the prevalence of what I convinced that he is an entirely hones I owe it to him to see that the matter his professional standing with us as a man is certainly entitled to think as h and social philosophy now is known, i prevailing knowledge interferes with h these facts when considering the emplo You may recall my attention to the 1 our work in reviewing the four pros think that should be given much weight tion the propriety of considering that a is once effected. It appears to be indet a high degree of efficiency. On the basis of the work I have seen attitude, I recommend that if it is at all he requests in legal work. JGS/fsb ide the office. I told him that in my judgment the effectiveness of Mr. Hoebreckx as a Field th. Mr. Komaroff denied ever having spoken to cept to say that only recently after talking to he had talked with Mickelsen about the error of ckx and I definitely say that Komaroff said to case simply indicated that Hoebreckx had not kelsen thought of him. the seriousness of that sort of conversation, if this time I did not comment to him on his cone it was of recent date and subsequent to my J. G. S. JUNE 30, 1939. Labor Relations Board, , Madison Building, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. most importance that the relations of our staff movement should be such that no one can ever timacy or that any staff member is talking to are purely the business of the Board. The urbed recently about reports that you and Field y Mett, in your relations with C. I. O. leaders, about certain matters which are purely internal. erned as to whether or not you have talked to ndes, perhaps the social views, of Field Examiner convinced that this is so, but has asked me to clearly aware of the fact that the Board regards regular and subject to discipline. NATHAN WITT, Secretary. -OFFICE COMMUNICATION L LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Twelfth Region JULY 1, 1939. he propriety of expressing the views of a colhat it could interfere with the colleague's effecnd cause to believe that such had happened in X. y serious thing: that while I recognized it was d in this type of work to have their friendships bor movement, I thought we should observe the our relationships at all times. I stated that 40 not acceptable to some of the C. I. O. leadermy tenure in office he had been doing effective my admonition that the Board had asked me to the Staff. J. G. S. |