There is yet another consideration in Mr. Hoebreckx's case which I bring to your attention. Mr. Hoebreckx is generally accepted by the staff as a person of extremely reactionary views, and knowledge of his purported views has long since become the property of the C. I. O. leadership in the State. My personal opinion is that Hoebreckx is telling the truth when he tells me that he does not discuss his social views outside the office, but he and Komaroff have engaged in long discussions over social questions, and from that source Hoebreckx tells me he is confident that his social views have become known In view of the close association between certain of our executives and C. I. O. leadership, it is not surprising that knowledge of his views is wide spread. It is no doubt a very human characteristic for people of our age to have such associations in view of the known differences in types of leadership of different Unions, but the spreading of this information probably represents a not altogether high professional standard of behavior toward one's colleague, and from that point of view seems quite deplorable. At this stage, it seems to me that there is nothing useful that can be done by mentioning to the staff the need for observing some sort of a professional attitude towards one's colleagues; in fact I think any mention of the situation would likely do more damage than good. The consequence is the thing that confronts me here, and Hoebreckx agrees with me that his effectiveness has been impaired because the knowledge of his purported views is common to the C. I. O. leadership. I am stating this for your information, and my attitude is that regardless of his views and the prevalence of what I might term distrust about him. I am convinced that he is an entirely honest and well intentioned person and that I owe it to him to see that the matter of his opinions does not interfere with his professional standing with us as an otherwise satisfactory employee. The man is certainly entitled to think as he wishes, and if the fact of his opinions and social philosophy now is known, through no fault of his own, and such prevailing knowledge interferes with his work, the Board may wish to weigh these facts when considering the employee's request for other work. I You may recall my attention to the matter of sympathetic understanding of our work in reviewing the four prospective candidates for employment. think that should be given much weight in a prospective employee, but I question the propriety of considering that a major issue when a man's employment is once effected. It appears to be indefensible when the employee serves with a high degree of efficiency. On the basis of the work I have seen Hoebreckx perform and on his general attitude, I recommend that if it is at all possible, he be given the chance which he requests in legal work. JGS/fsb JOHN G. SHOTT. INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION MAY 27, 1939. PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL. From: Nathan Witt. Subject: Omer S. Hoebreckx, Field Examiner. The Board yesterday considered your memorandum of May 11. The Board was troubled by certain things in your memorandum. It is very true, as you say, that as long as a man's underlying social views do not interfere with his work, it should not raise a problem. What troubled the Board in your memorandum is your statement that information concerning Mr. Hoebreckx' social views has gone out of the office, and your statement that there is "close association between certain of our executives and the C. I. O. leadership." The Board wants you to amplify this fully. If any such thing has taken place, it must be remedied at once, but before taking any action the Board would like you to submit the details. N. W. JUNE 6. To: Nathan Witt, Secretary, National Labor Relations Board. From: John G. Shott, Regional Director. Subject: Omer S. Hoebreckx, Field Examiner. Received your memorandum of May 27th, on the candidacy of Omer S. Hoebreckx, for legal work. The associations I mentioned are personal friendships and I refer to Examiner Komaroff and Regional Attorney Mett. I know of no other association except that it is fair to say that, as I mentioned in my memorandum of May 11 I see nothing very unusual in such friendships or associations considering their common interest in a progressive labor movement. To be specific our examiner, Mr. Komaroff seems to be a better than average friend of Gunnar Mickelson, Secretary of the State Industrial Council (CIO) and the Regional Attorney, Mr. Mett, is a better than average friend of Mr. Waldemar Sonneman, S. W. O. C. organizer and attorney for C. I. O. unions, and a friend of Mr. Mickelson and the leadership of the Milwaukee Newspaper Guild including Mr. George Mann, President and John Kykyri, Second Vice-President, though I am not able to say of what degree or intensity. I must add that Mr. Mett has numerous friends among the A. F. of L. leadership though I am not able to give as good an account of them and they may be quite as good friends as those of the other group. I doubt the propriety of entering upon a discussion of the friends of a colleague who is a native of a city to whom I have just moved but these are office observations and in no way taken from any knowledge that I happen to have of the Regional Attorney's personal life. Komaroff's sympathy with what he is doing is above question but because of the vehemence with which he gives expression to his social convictions and his lack of tact at time in so doing I am of the belief that in the past two years he has not failed to discuss the social views of Hoebrecks, with whom he has had many discussions on these matters, with his friend Mickelson. Mr. Mett's personal convictions are not so apparent but his personal views and sympathy with his work are not in question. However I must mention the occurrences of the elections of the Milwaukee Publishing Company (XII-R-154) R-953. I answered your memorandum of April 14 which referred to the letter of Mr. Gunnar MickelSon to Chairman Madden on the conduct of the said elections, and later asked Mr. Mett if he had recollection of the alleged statement of Hoebrecks advising the A. F. of L. to circulate a petition in the offices of the Milwaukee Sentinel. Mr. Mett then informed me that everyone knew that Hoebrecks had made this suggestion and that there was no doubt of it or words to that effect, and the reply was made. I observed, with some feeling. Hoebrecks was the only Board representative present at that meeting. I had recently discussed the desire of Hoehreckx for legal work with Mr. Mett and the upshot of these impressions gained at this time I came to the conclusion that I mentioned in the memorandum of May 27th. Despite the fact that I gained the net impression that the above-mentioned members of the staff have in the course of the past year and one-half sufficiently mentioned the views of Hoebreckx among the people they see frequently (the C. I. O. officials referred to) I recognize that on any evidentiary basis my conclusion may seem to be untenable. For that reason I have referred to such conclusions only when I deemed it necessary to offer the Board as complete a statement as possible on Hoebreckx and have earlier been advised by Mr. Mett that he had written to you on Hoebreckx and presented a radically different picture. In justice to Mr. Mett and to Mr. Komaroff it might be that a longer association with them would convince me of the untenability of my present views. It may be that the non-acceptance of Hoebreckx by the CIO officialdom as represented by Michelson and Sonneman is due in no degree whatsoever to any statements of our executives or any of their feelings toward him as displayed to me and may be due to public discussions that Hoebreckx has had with organizers. From what I have seen of the situation here in three months I am not inclined to accept this latter view and the objections made to us by Gunnar Mickelson and Waldemar Sonneman in particular cases (Sonneman objected to Hoebreckx being assigned to the charge filed against the Bucyrus Erie Corporation on March 28, 1939 after filing the charge with Mr. Mett who notified me of Sonneman's wishes in the matter. I later talked with Sonneman about it.) seem, after a considerations of the merits as in the Publishing Company elections to be based on something more than the facts as they have actually set forth. (Sonneman most reluctantly came to the office and said that Hoebreckx might not be as good in delicate negotiations as Brophy whom he named as first choice.) 218054-41-vol. 24, pt. 2-14 I would like to suggest to you that before you come to any definite conclusion in the matter that it might be adviseable to read my review of the entire situation in this office as it now appears to me. When I wrote to you on my situation here April 7th I was not yet ready to discuss the situation in detail but I believe that now I believe that I would present a fairly adequate statement of affairs in this office. I would have written such a review earlier had it not been for the fact that I thought that I would be able to discuss several matters with Mr. Krivonios on his return from the Coast. You may expect to receive this complete statement not later than the middle of next week. JOHN G. SHOTT. INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL. To: John G. Shott, Twelfth Region. JUNE 15, 1939. Subject: Omer S. Hoebreckx, Field Examiner. This has reference to your memoranda of May 11 and June 6. The Board was somewhat troubled by your report concerning the relationship of Messrs. Mett and Komaroff to some of the people in the labor movement. The Board appreciates of course that it is sometimes difficult for our people to avoid being friendly with people on either side of the labor movement. However, despite any such friendliness, the Board thinks it is of the utmost importance that no staff members should discuss with people on the outside those matters which the Board regards as matters of confidence. This refers not only to the internal workings of the Board, but also to the positions of other members of the staff. It is hard for the Board to imagine any occasion on which it would be legitimate for any staff member to discuss any other staff member in terms of his social views, his attitude towards the unions, the recommendations he made in a particular case, etc. The Board wants you to take this matter up with Messrs. Mett and Komaroff, and if you think necessary, with the other members of the staff, so that this situation can be carrected immediately. The Board also wants you to call its attention to any breach of these instructions in the future. N. W. INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION To: Personal and Confidential Files. JUNE 24, 1939. I spoke with Mr. Mett on the matter of Mr. Hoebreckx's social views possibly going out of the office and gave him the grounds for thinking that he participated therein. I referred particularly to the incident in the Milwaukee Publishing Company case (XII-R-154) in which he advised me that everyone knew that Examiner Hoebreckx had advised the representatives of the A. F. L. that they might provide proof by the circulation of a petition. Mr. Mett informed me in this interview that it all came as a great surprise to him; that he did not recall having uttered the remark that I stated he uttered at that time. INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION Twelfth Region J. G. S. To: Personal and Confidential Files. From: John G. Shott, Regional Director. Subject: Meeting with Field Examiner Komaroff June 27, 1939. JUNE 27, 1939. I spoke with Field Examiner Komaroff and told him that in my judgment there was a possibility that he had participated in giving Field Examiner Hoebrecky's social views to other people outside the office. I told him that in my judgment it was a very serious thing as the effectiveness of Mr. Hoebreckx as a Field Examiner had been interfered with. Mr. Komaroff denied ever having spoken to any outsiders on this matter except to say that only recently after talking to Hoebreckx at considerable length, he had talked with Mickelsen about the error of Mickelsen's views on Mr. Hoebreckx and I definitely say that Komaroff said to Mickelsen that the record of the case simply indicated that Hoebreckx had not been guilty of the things that Mickelsen thought of him. I impressed on Mr. Komaroff the seriousness of that sort of conversation, if any had taken place, though at this time I did not comment to him on his conversation with Mickelsen because it was of recent date and subsequent to my correspondence to the Board. JGS f-b J. G. S. JUNE 30, 1939. PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL. Mr. FREDERICK P. METT, Regional Attorney. Mr. ISADORE KOMEROFF, Field Examiner, National Labor Relations Board, DEAR FRED: KOMAROFF: Twelfth Region, Madison Building, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. As you know, it is of the utmost importance that the relations of our staff members to people in the labor movement should be such that no one can ever claim there has been undue intimacy or that any staff member is talking to outsiders about matters which are purely the business of the Board. The Board has been somewhat disturbed recently about reports that you and Field Examiner Komaroff, Reg. Att'y Mett, in your relations with C. I. O. leaders, have perhaps talked to them about certain matters which are purely internal. Specifically, the Board is concerned as to whether or not you have talked to C. I. O. leaders about the attitudes, perhaps the social views, of Field Examiner Hoebreckx. The Board is not convinced that this is so, but has asked me to write you so that you will be clearly aware of the fact that the Board regards any such communications as irregular and subject to discipline. Sincerely yours, ce John G. Shott, Regional Director nw;jeb NATHAN WITT, Secretary. INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION Twelfth Region To: Personal and Confidential Files. JULY 1, 1939. I spoke to the staff about the propriety of expressing the views of a colleague with outsiders, saying that it could interfere with the colleague's effectiveness and I stated that I had cause to believe that such had happened in the case of Examiner Hoebreckx. I stated that this was a very serious thing: that while I recognized it was quite natural for people engaged in this type of work to have their friendships with people interested in the labor movement, I thought we should observe the highest degree of propriety in our relationships at all times. I stated that to my knowledge Hoebreckx was not acceptable to some of the C. I. O. leadership in the state although since my tenure in office he had been doing effective work. The meeting adjourned after my admonition that the Board had asked me to make such an announcement to the Staff. JGS/fsb J. G. S. JULY 5, 1939. PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL. Mr. NATHAN WITT, Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C. DEAR NAT: I have your letter of June 30th. This brought to my attention for the first time the fact that anyone had written to the Board that I had perhaps engaged in any irregular conduct in connection with my work. I have since learned that the reports to which you refer came from my Regiona. Director John G. Shott. Upon receipt of your letter last Saturday Mr. Komaroff and I discussed the matters referred to therein with Mr. Shott. John at that time stated that the conclusions reported by him to the Board were based solely on personal su-picions and not on facts; he admitted that he had evidently been in error and volunteered to send you a communication to this effect. This morning. how ever, John told Komaroff and me that he had reconsidered over the holidayand had decided not to take any further action in the matter. We reminded him of his Saturday's remarks and added that he himself had at that time suggested the writing of a rectifying communication to the Board in view of his position that he had evidently been in error and since he admitted that his actions had involved a degree of unfairness to us. John's answer in short was that since the Board has seen fit to act on his reports, the matter was now in its hands and that he in consequence could not see his way clear to do what he had promised; he added that he found himself in a "difficult position" and stated apprehensively that a resolution of the matter along the lines promised involved "procedural difficulties". I remarked that I could see no procedural difficulties whatsoever and asked him to decide once and for all whether after talking to Komaroff and me he still sinceren believed that we had engaged in the suspicioned irregularities. I asked him for ther to advise us if he decided that he still believed thus; but if he came to a contrary decision to so advise the Board. John concluded by saying that he "would again think the matter over" but added that he could not make any promise that he would advise us of any decision reached by him. I have requested Mr. Shott's permission to examine those portions of his reports which relate to me. My request was denied. In view of the foregoing I feel that the matters referred to in your letter require a statement to you of my position. I thoroughly agree with you that the members of the Board's staff should at all times conduct themselves in an irreproachable manner. Officially and in my private life I have never lost sight of this fact. I assure you that the reports. indicating that I have perhaps talked to certain labor leaders about purely internal Board matters are without foundation in fact. Insofar as Field Examiner Hoebreckx is concerned, neither his attitude nor his social views have ever been discussed by me with anyone outside of the Board. I sincerely hope that the foregoing will resolve the questions raised in the Board's mind by the reports it has received. I will be in Washington between August 14th and September 14th on temporary duty. If you feel that this matter merits any further discussion with me, I will stand ready at that time as I do now to answer any questions that you might have. Sincerely yours, To: Nathan Witt, Secretary. Twelfth Region SEPTEMBER 11, 1939. From: John G. Shott, Regional Director. Subject: The Hoebreckx Application for Legal Work: An Ancillary Matter Reconsidered. May 11 I recommended Field Examiner O. S. Hoebreckx for legal work and in writing a complete statement mentioned that Hoebreckx was unacceptable to the C. I. O. leadership for this region. I offered in explanation that the associa tions of some of our executives caused me to believe that the social views of Hoebreckx had gained currency among the labor leaders by this means. In response to your memorandum of May 27th I mentioned by name two of our executives, Regional Attorney Mett and Field Examiner Komaroff and the facts and circumstances that had convinced me, on a basis of a two months' association, of the validity of my views on why Examiner Hoebreckx was not acceptable |