to the Union leaders. In this memorandum of June 6, I also pointed out that a longer association with the people involved might give me an entirely different perspective. Six months after I have taken this assignment and following extended discussion with the executives concerned I believe that I should correct my earlier statement of this incident. In response to your memorandum of June 15, I spoke to Mr. Mett June 24 and Mr. Komaroff on June 27 about the propriety of discussing social views of a colleague, in this particular instance, Hoebreckx, out of the office with anyone not connected with the staff. I stated that while I recognized that it was natural for anyone in this work to associate with the people interested in the labor movement, it remained necessary for us to preserve certain standards if our work was to be effective. On Saturday, July 1st, Hoebreckx having gone that day on his vacation, I spoke of the same matter at a staff meeting. I have had a number of discussions with Mett and Komaroff on the issues first raised in my memorandum of May 11th and amplified in my memorandum of June 6th. In these discussions I have examined every detail of the incident and circumstances that I mentioned in my memorandum of June 6th. In these discussions both Mr. Mett and Mr. Komaroff deny even the slightest remark to any of their friends of either side of the labor movement in derogation in any way whatsoever of Mr. Hoebreckx's social views. Each man stated that he very carefully examined his own record and could recall no instance of any conversation in which such a thing as I had believed had occurred. They reported to me that on the few occasions in any of their conversations with labor representatives when Mr. Hoebreckx was mentioned, it was always by a party outside the Board, and if by chance Hoebreckx was mentioned by them at all it was in his defense, but in practically every instance they refused discussion on the ground that Examiner Hoebreckx was their colleague. Their self-examination appears to have been sincere and their sincerity influences me to accept the explanations offered. To be specific: in the matter of the discussion with Mett in the Milwaukee Publishing Company case, the regional attorney, Mr. Mett, tells me that he does not recall the statement I attributed to him and if it was uttered he denies the significance I attached to it. In the press of business of the first few weeks of this assignment it is highly possible that I could have gotten a wrong impression of this incident. Mr. Mett assures me that I was completely mistaken in my thought in this matter and also my interpretation of the incident about the assignment of Examiner Hoebreckx to the Bucyrus-Erie investigation and for the same reason I accept his word of this incident. I am not merely accepting the version of Mett and Komaroff on these matters. My review of the entire matter in the light of six months' association with these men and including my knowledge of their dealings with representatives of both divisions of the labor movement including the representatives mentioned in my communication of June 6, and their ability to take a detached view of issues and people in the labor movement have contributed to convince me that I should accept their statement that they did not at any time speak to any friend or acquaintance of either side of the labor movement or to anyone outside the office of the social views of Examiner Hoebreckx. I have informed Regional Attorney Mett and Examiner Komaroff that I would inform you that I had accepted their explanations of the incidents referred to. They desire to be notified by you that I have accepted their explanations. In view of the fact that it was considered necessary to supplement the instructions to the Regional Director of June 15 by a direct communication to Mett and Komaroff (June 30) I request that you notify Mett and Komaroff that the Regional Director has accepted their explanations. JGS/fsb JOHN G. SHOTT. INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL. SEPTEMBER 20, 1939. To: John G. Shott, Regional Director, 12th Region. From: Nathan Witt, Secretary. Subject: Field Examiner, O. S. Hoebreckx. The Board considered your memorandum of September 11 and was gratified that the matter as raised in your memorandum of May 11 has thus been settled satisfactorily. I am sending you herewith copies of self-explanatory letters to Regional Attorney Mett and Field Examiner Komaroff. The Board hopes that there will be no occasion for any such instances arising again in the future. Enclosures. N. W. SEPTEMBER 20, 1939. PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL. Mr. FREDERICK P. METT, Regional Attorney, Mr. ISADORE KOMAROFF, Field Examiner, National Labor Relations Board, Twelfth Region, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. DEAR KOMAROFF: This has further reference to my letter addressed to you and Regional Attorney Mett, dated June 30. As you know, Mr. Shott has now accepted your explanations of the matter concerning Field Examiner Hoebreckx which was dealt with in my letter of June 30. The Board is gratified to know that this matter has been satisfactorily disposed of in the office. Sincerely yours, cc John G. Shott, Regional Director. NATHAN WITT, Secretaru. SEPTEMBER 20, 1939. PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL. Mr. FREDERICK P. METT, Regional Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Twelfth Region, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. DEAR FRED: This has further reference to my letter addressed to you and Field Examiner Komaroff, dated June 30. As you know, Mr. Shott has LOW accepted your explanations of the matter concerning Field Examiner Hoebreckx which was dealt with in my letter of June 30. The Board is gratified to know that this matter has been satisfactorily disposed of in the office. Sincerely yours, ce John G. Shott, Regional Director. NATHAN WITT, Secretary. INLAND LIME AND STONE COMPANY MANISTIQUE, MICHIGAN CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, June 12, 1939. Honorable J. WARREN MADDEN, Chairman, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: I wish to protest the conduct of O. Stanislaw Hoebreckx, a Field Examiner for the Twelfth District at Milwaukee, at a conference held at Port Inland, Michigan, on June 9, 1939, with Mr. A. J. Cayia, General Superintendent of Inland Lime and Stone Company. Some two or three weeks ago, Mr. Cayia had repeated bargaining conferences with a committee of our employees and with Mr. Vernon Hodge, an organizer for the International Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers (CIO) Local #377. No agreement was reached in those conferences. Mr. Hodge now charges that Mr. Cayia did not bargain in good faith. Mr. Cayia denies this, and is confident that every requirement of the National Labor Relations Act was fully met. Obviously the National Labor Relations Act affords Mr. Hodge a remedy by which this question may be tested. At my request, our attorney, Mr. Merrill Shepard of Pope & Ballard, had already gone to Milwaukee to discuss the entire matter with the staff of the Twelfth District and to meet Mr. Hodge, but Mr. Hodge did not keep the appointment. Nevertheless, the Twelfth District staff was entirely conversant with the fact that this question had been raised, and knew that Mr. Shepard advised us on the legal phases of it. On Friday morning, June 9th, Mr. Hoebreckx arrived in Manistique and demanded an immediate conference with Mr. Cayia. He gave Mr. Cayia no prior notice that he was coming and, therefore, Mr. Cayia had to proceed with the conference without the benefit of counsel. When Mr. Hoebreckx arrived at Mr. Cayia's office he brought with him Mr. Hodge and three employees of our company who constituted the bargaining committee. Then, in their presence, he proceeded to cross-examine Mr. Cayia and to attack his motives. He announced that he had come as a consiliator and demanded that Mr. Cayia go over the proposed contract which Mr. Hodge had submitted paragraph by paragraph and explain why he had not agreed to it. This Mr. Cayia quite properly declined to do. The bargaining period had closed, and there was not the slightest reason why he should go over all that ground again with the field agent. Hoebreckx then in some anger announced that in his opinion Mr. Cayia had not bargained in good faith. It seems to me that this field agent has been guilty of a very high degree of impropriety. In the first place, if any single thing is clear in the National Labor Relations Act. it is that the Labor Board is not to serve as mediator. But Hoebreckx not being content even with that unauthorized procedure, actually attempted to serve as the bargaining agent for the union. Worst of all, he denounced our Superintendent in the presence of our employees. Had he desired a good faith investigation he would have arranged a conference with Mr. Cayia alone, and would have afforded him the opportunity of counsel. But instead of that he made a trial out of it, and in the presence of our employees declared that in his opinion our General Superintendent had violated the law. Obviously Mr. Hodge intends to present a complaint, but how can our company expect to get a fair trial before the Labor Board when the field agent has already found us guilty, and has already so notified our employees? I shall appreciate it if I may be informed as to whether this procedure has the approval of the Board. Very truly yours, CLARENCE B. RANDALL, President, 38 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois. (BR/WB [Copy] JULY 6, 1959. Re: Inland Lime and Stone Co. Case No. XII*C*457 President, Inland Lime and Stone Company, 38 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois. DEAR SIR: In further reference to your letter of June 12, 1939, which was acknowledged on June 15th, we have received a report from the Board's Regional Director in Milwaukee regarding your complaint of the conduct of Field Examiner Hoebreckx in the above case. Your complaint states that on June 9th, Mr. Hoebreckx, without prior notice, arrived in Manistique, Michigan, and demanded an immediate conference with Mr. Cavia, your General Superintendent, and that therefore the latter "had to proceed with the conference without benefit of counsel." It is true that Mr. Hoebreckx did not notify Mr. Cayia of his arrival in ManisHowtique in advance, and perhaps it would have been better had he done so. ever, we are advised by Regional Director Shott, of our Milwaukee office, that Mr. Hoebreckx, upon his arrival in Manistique, telephoned Mr. Cayia and asked him if he would meet with him, the union representative, and the union committee at the company's office at 1:00 p. m. that day, and that Mr. Cayia agreed to this conference. After this telephone conversation, the union organizer, Mr. Hodge, telephoned Mr. Cayia and requested that the union committee be notified to be at the office for this conference, and that Mr. Cayia agreed to this. Althongh Field Examiner Hoebreckx did not notify Mr. Cayia in advance that he Would be in Manistique on June 9th, and did not ask for a private conference with him alone, or with him and your attorney, this procedure in no way indicates that he "demanded an immediate conference with Mr. Cayia." The latter could easily have requested a private conference or could have declined to meet with Mr. Hoebreckx, or with the latter and the union committee until he had the advice or presence of counsel. Regional Director Shott's report in no way indicates that Field Examiner Hoebreckx cross-examined Mr. Cayia or attacked his motives, or “announced that he had come as a conciliator," as you state. The conference of all the parties, to which Mr. Cayia had agreed, opened with the Field Examiner's statement that charges of refusal to bargain had been filed and that the Field Examiner had called the parties together in the course of his investigation to attempt, if possible to reach an informal adjustment of the case. According to Mr. Hoebreckx, Mr. Cayia questioned him about the purpose of his visit and his position in the case. The Field Examiner attempted to explain to him that he was there to get the company's version and, if possible, to adjust the case without the necessity of formal proceedings. Mr. Cayia then questioned the Field Examiner's authority to act as conciliator. The Field Examiner informed Mr. Cayia that the conference of all the parties had been arranged in an effort to secure an informal adjustment in the course of investigating the case, and also explained to him that while the Board had no conciliation authority, the conference was of necessity "conciliatory" in nature, in that he was seeking to secure an adjustment informally. In the course of the discussion which Feld Examiner Hoebreckx describes as courteous on all sides, Mr. Cayia was asked if he had, on behalf of the company, submitted any counter-proposals to the union. When Mr. Cayia replied that he had not, Field Examiner Hoebreckx advised him that this was the usual procedure when the employer was not satisfied with the proposals submitted by the union. A discussion then ensued as to the proper procedure in this respect, with Mr. Cayia insisting that he thought the proper procedure was for the union to continue submitting new proposals to the company. Mr. Shott reports that Mr. Hoebreckx, in the course of the discussion, did advise Mr. Cayia that in his opinion the company's position in demanding new proposals from the union and refusing to submit any counter-proposals indicated that the company had not bargained in good faith. Mr. Hoebreckx denies that he spoke in anger or "in some anger", as stated in your communication. He also denies that he in any way "denounced" Mr. Cayia, as you state. In fact, Mr. Shott reports that when the meeting was concluded, everyone was very pleasant, shaking hands all around, and that Examiner Hoebreckx thanked Mr. Cayia for the time he had given for the meeting. Mr. Shott's report also indicates that Mr. Hoebreckx, in his conference with Mr. Cayia, in no way served or tried to "serve as a mediator," and in no way "attempted to serve as the bargaining agent for the union," as you state. Mr. Shott's report also indicates that Mr. Hoebreckx in no way "made a trial" out of his conference with Mr. Cayia, as you state. The latter could certainly have asked to see Examiner Hoebreckx alone and could certainly have asked that the conference be deferred until he could get the advice or presence of counsel. Mr. Cayia apparently did not choose to do so and agreed to the joint conference of all the parties requested by Mr. Hoebreckx. Finally, Field Examiner Hoebreckx's expression of opinion in the course of his informal discussion with your Superintendent cannot, under the Board's procedure, possibly prejudice your case, and there is therefore no justification for your inference that you cannot “expect to get a fair trial" before the Board, should the case go to formal hearing. We have transmitted a copy of your letter of June 12th to Regional Director Shott, in Milwaukee, and we are sending him a copy of this letter. Very truly yours, /s/ J. WARREN MADDEN, Chairman, [Copy] JULY 6, 1939. To: John G. Shott, Director. From: Nathan Witt, Secretary. Subject: Inland Lime and Stone Company, XII-C-457. In reply to your memorandum of June 17th, attached you will please find a copy of our letter to Mr. Randall under today's date. Although we used your report as a basis of our reply to Mr. Randall, some of your statements are not clear to me. If, as you state in your report, Hoebreckx's interview was intended to get the company's side of the story from the local management, in view of what Shepard had told you about the local management's determining voice in the matter, I do not quite see why he did not do so in a separate conference with Cayia alone, and try to arrange the joint conference afterwards. In other words, although we often do arrange a joint conference of all the parties in the course of investigating a case, and especially in 8 (5) cases, an interview with a company representative in the presence of the union organizer and the union committee is not altogether an investigation of the company's side of the case, as your report states. Moreover, in view of what you say of your preference to have a conference with Cayia and Shepard in Manistique, Hoebreckx would have been better advised to notify Cayia that he was coming, and perhaps notify Shepard. As for Hoebreckx's expression of opinion that the company had not bargained in good faith, you should remind him of Mr. Krivono's warning at the staff conference in Milwaukee last year, of expressing conclusions and stating findings to unions or employers on cases. He may recall that Mr. Krivonos advised the staff to speak in terms of evidence and in terms of the Board's possible interpretation of such evidence in the light of the Board's decisions, but never to state findings and conclusions as such. Even to state them as opinions is not good practice and should be guarded against. I think that Mr. Krivonos spoke to you in the same vein at the staff conference in Buffalo last June. The case, of course, should be handled by your office from now on in the usual way. Attachment. N. W. 12th Region JULY 19, 1939. To: Nathan Witt, Secretary. From: John G. Shott, Regional Director. Subject: Wisconsin Gas & Electric Co., Case XII-R-194. On July 17, 1939, Field Examiner O. S. Hoebreckx was served with a summons to appear in Municipal Court, Racine, Wisconsin. A copy of this summons is attached hereto. As you will note, the complaint was filed by the Public Service Employees Union of Racine, Wisconsin. On May 1, 1939, Rauland A. DeMint, President of Local 12005, Gas & ByProduct Coke Workers, District # 50 of the United States Mine Workers of America, C. I. O., conferred with Field Examiner Brophy relative to the filing of a petition covering certain employees of the Wisconsin Gas & Electric Company in Racine, Wisconsin. The controversy over these employees arose when the Company made certain changes in its service department. These changes were effected in the fall of 1938. Prior to that time, the service department was composed of two groups, the gas fitters, who were represented by Local 12005, and the electrical appliance repairmen, who were represented by the I. B. E. W. There were Do so-called storeroom clerks in this department prior to the fall of 1938, the work now performed by them having been performed by the two groups mentioned above. In the fall of 1938, the Company created two positions, designated in storeroom clerical, in the service department under the supervision of the superintendent of that department. When this occurred, Local 12005, the I. B. E. W. and the P. S. E. U., an independent union covering office workers generally, claimed jurisdiction over the two storeroom clerks. The Wisconsin Labor Relations Board was called in to adjust the matter but its efforts failed. Up to the latter part of April, 1939, the two employees holding these positions were on temporary assignment, but at that time the Company advised the P. S. E. U., in accordance with a contract with the P. S. E. U., that the positions were to be filled permanently. The P. S. E. U. thereupon advised the two employees then holding these positions that if they wanted to remain on the job, they would have to join the P. S. E. U. They did this. Local 12005, thereupon, on May 1, 1939, filed a petition requesting certification for all employees in the service department, which included the two storeroom elerks, the gas fitters and the appliance repairmen. On May 2, 1939, the case was assigned to O. S. Hoebreckx. On May 10, 1939, Field Examiner Hoebreckx conferred with Mr. Thurber, Business Representative of the I. B. E. W. Thurber indicated that he thought he could work out an acceptable settlement with the C. I. O., but felt that the |