This morning some of the boys noticed that macaroni products, which is what the company manufactures, were being shipped into the Great Northern Station labeled with the Creamette Company label and marked as manufactured in Minneapolis. In fact, so far as they have been able to ascertain, these goods were manufactured by the Rossi Company in Chicago, Illinois. So far, none of the transfer companies have been willing to handle these goods. (Presumably be cause they are organized by the Teamsters.) Someone sent Sorenson and Litezke up to this office and they wanted to know what we could do about the matter. I explained to them that we had no power to prevent the company from selling its goods under a false label. I told them further that the only agency which had the power to prevent that was the F. T. C. However, on checking in the phone book, it appeared that the F. T. C. did not have an office in the Twin Cities. Furthermore, Mr. Asher and I discussed the matter with them and decided that there was no possibility of getting any action by the F. T. C. rapidly enough to do them any good in the present controversy. The normal period of time for the F. T. C. to begin to operate on a complaint is about 1 year. After considerable discussion of this sort, we finally decided that the best thing for them to do might be to file an 8 (5) charge, thus giving us an opportunity to intervene and take such steps as may be proper to end the controversy on an equitable basis. It is suggested that there is at least a prima facie showing of jurisdiction here, and there is an excellent opportunity for us to settle a strike by a little aggressive action in this situation. It is suggested further that the company be given to understand that we may seek means to invoke action by the F. T. C. against them for this misbranding of goods in case they continue to do this in an effort to break the strike. A copy of the charge is attached. LL/mw To: Malcolm F. Halliday. From: Lee Loevinger, 18th Reg. Subject: Ballston-Stillwater Knitting Co. L. JUNE 21, 1939. Although I expect to see you shortly, I am writing at this time because an article in last night's paper put me in mind of the above case, and I wish to call it to your attention. My interest in the case arises from the fact that it was the first case which I tried for the Board. Attorneys for the respondent in this case was James M. Noonan, a trial lawyer from Albany, New York, who has a considerable criminal practice. Mr. Noonan is a very able attorney. Though I am personally convinced that the major allegations of the complaint were sustained by the evidence submitted for the Board. The Trial Examiner, Charles Bayley of Cleveland, submitted a report finding the allegations substantially as in the complaint, and the Board rendered a decision finding violation of the Act. As you no doubt recall, the case was then carried to the Circuit Court, and the Circuit Court reversed the Board in what was a very bad decision. The point which I think is worthy of note is that the case was carried to the Circuit Court by Mr. Noonan, and the Board was reversed, with Judge Martin Manton participating in the decision, although not writing the opinion. As you no doubt know from recent newspaper articles, Mr. Noonan was Chief Counsel in the recent trial of Judge Manton. I see by last night's paper that Judge Manton has been sentenced for obstructing justice and taking bribes, and that his motion for a new trial has been denied. Under these circumstances I raise the question whether it would not be appropriate for the Board to seek some relief from the adverse decision in the above case. While it is true that Manton did not write the opinion in this case, it is also true that in all cases where Manton delivered a decision favorable to a litigant, he must have secured the concurrence of at least one of the other judges; therefore, I think that it is a matter of judicial notice that one judge who is interested in so doing, can influence the opinions of the other judges very greatly. Although I have no evidence to support it, I am personally convinced that improper influence was exerted in securing the court decision in the above case. I do not submit this matter as a settled conclusion, but merely as a sugges tion, to direct the Legal Department's attention to a matter which I thought might otherwise escape their attention, since the coincidence of Mr. Noonan's appearance for the appellant in the recent bribery trial might otherwise have escaped your attention. LL/W DEAR THURLOw: I certainly was glad to receive your letter of June 15th. If I were a preacher, I would be inclined to raise hell with you for not having written before this. After all, there really is no excuse for not writing no matter how busy you have been or are. I am certainly glad to know that you are finally settled and that you are definitely located in Minneapolis. I know you will find the work very interesting, and knowing that you leaned to the "left", I am certain that the people you represent will, to say the least, receive sympathetic consideration. From time to time people inquire where you can be reached, and I am wondering if you have any objection to our telling them that you are now in Minneapolis. Somebody came in yesterday asking for you (he would not give his name) saying he was a friend of yours and on his way to Washington where he wanted to look you up. I told him that we thought you were now in Mineapolis but were not sure. I want you to let me hear from you from time to time as I am interested in what you are doing and how you are getting along. With best wishes, I am, 3-C Sincerely yours, B. D. GORDON. Mr. D. B. GORDON, c/o Ulmer, Berne and Gordon, Public Square Building, Cleveland, Ohio. JUNE 22, 1937. DEAR BEN: Received your letter of June 18th and am surprised I didn't get more hell. I realize that there was no excuse for not writing for such a period of time, but you know how lousy a correspondent I am. There is, of course, no objection to your telling anybody that I am now in Minneapolis permanently (I hope). I imagine I am replaced and forgotten, but would appreciate hearing from you occasionally and having your remarks concerning Cleveland politics. Sincerely, TS: 0 To: Mr. Robert Watts, Associate General Counsel. OCTOBER 7, 1937. Subject: Press Reports of Chairman Madden's Speech at the A. F. of L. Convention. We have nothing but reactionary newspapers in this state, and misquotations are not only frequent but usually the rule as far as labor's viewpoint is con-cerned. The local newspapers carried a story about Chairman Madden's "debate" with members of the A. F. of L. at the A. F. of L. Convention and quoted only ne statement made during this "debate." The statement was that someone from the floor asked Mr. Madden whether, if a union had a contract with a company and the majority of the employees of that company wanted an election, the Board would grant an election, and Mr. Madden's purported reply was that the Board would not accept a petition in that case. Would you advise whether these statements were correctly quoted or whether the Board is changing its policy in that respect. Sincerely, TS:lb Memorandum for the File: Informal OCTOBER 7, 1937. Re: Brown & Bigelow, Saint Paul, Minnesota. The company does advertising throughout the country through the sale of novelties, leather goods, etc. It manufactures these goods itself and sells the products all over the United States, Mexico, and Canada. John Ruef has been with Brown & Bigelow for sixteen years as a press operator in the plant. There are 6 other press operators. There are about 12 machinists working there, and they have been organized for some years. About three months ago, they asked Ruef to organize the press operators, which he did, and he and the other 6 joined the machinists. Then he was told to go after everyone else in the plant. There are about 120 other workers in the plant. He talked union with them during lunch hour. organized a couple of meetings, and had at least 40 ready to sign up when the machinists called these 40 and the press operators together and told ther they could not join or remain in the machinists' union, that the management preferred that all of the workers except the actual machinists join the bookbinders' union. Although this was a disappointment to Ruef and the others, they agreed to go along. An organizer was sent out from the bookbinders' union (A. F. of L.) and was getting along fairly satisfactorily when he was run out of the plant by the management. However, there didn't seem to be anything said against the union by any of the supervisory staff. September 23, Ruef was told by his foreman that he was laid off. Very seldom he has been laid off for a couple of days at very slack seasons. Prior hereto, whenever slack seasons came about, all but one of the press operators were laid off before Ruef. This is the slack season, however, but none of the other press operators have been laid off and some have worked there for only two years or slightly more. Ruef, after being told this by the foreman, went to the machinists' union, and they arranged an appointment for him with Superintendent McCarthy of Brown & Bigelow. He had a long conference with the superintendent, who claimed he was laying him off because Ruef was not satisfied; that he had asked for a raise; that he had asked for a change in jobs (he has lost four fingers at his press job); and that he was generally unsatisfied. The superintendent also threw in the remark that Brown & Bigelow was 100% for unions and that had nothing whatever to do with his discharge. Advised him to contact as many workers at the plant as he can, to find out if there was any other coercion against joining the union, and to make an earnest attempt to see the superintendent or lesser officials immediately and demand reinstatement and to state outright that he was definitely fired for union activities and that he was going to file a charge with the National Labor Relations Board immediately if he was not reinstated. 401 New P. O. Building, Minneapolis, Minn. DEAR MR. SMOOT: This is to acknowledge receipt of your application of February 7th, together with your check for $1.00 covering active membership dues for one year. We are very glad to welcome you as a member of the Association and to extend invitations to membership to any persons whose names and addresses you will supply. Thanking you for your interest and cooperation, Sincerely yours, CLAUDE WATTS, Executive Secretary. FEBRUARY 24, 1938. To: Mr. Chas. Fahy, General Counsel. This is in answer to your memorandum of February 14, addressed to all regional attorneys. Inasmuch as we have had only one hearing in this region alleging violation of Section 8 (5), my comments on your various questions are probably not very valuable. However, I will endeavor to answer the various queries. I proved majority representation by application cards alone at the time of the refusal to bargain, there being no doubt that a majority had not paid dues or been issued membership cards. Between the time of the refusal to bargain and the hearing, the majority in this case signed application cards to a company union. Immediately preceding the hearing, petitions were circulated by both the union and the company union for signatures which would authorize each of said unions to represent the employees. A majority of the employees signed both. The respondent sought to prove lack of majority by testimony of its officers that they examined the application cards of the company union members and found it to represent a majority, so, accordingly, the union could not have represented a majority. This was supplemented, of course, by the company union, as intervenor, introducing its application cards and later petition in evidence. The company union also put on the stand several of its members, who stated that although they signed an application card and the union petition, they did not pay dues to the union and did not want it to represent them. Trial Examiner Batten held that the application cards and petition adequately proved the union at all times represented a majority; that signatures of its members attached to application cards and the petition of the company union were obtained through coercion and interference on the part of the employer. Personally, I do not think the Board should adopt a policy of issuing subpenas at the request of the employers, to allow them to gain access to union records. After all, this is a matter of affirmative proof on the part of the Board's attorney, and the respondent has full opportunity to object to any documentary evidence and to cross-examine any witness. If the Board's attorney fails to establish the majority proof, obviously the 8 (5) portion of the case would fail. I think the employer's interests are sufficiently safeguarded. Certainly in my one case the employer resorted to plenty of coercive tactics directed toward destroying the majority. On the basis of this one case and others which did not go to a hearing, my experience is that the unions do not bother much about ascertaining whether they represent a majority before they demand collective bargaining on the basis of majority representation. DEAR MR. BALDWIN: My interest in civil liberties resurged after reading Seldes' "You Can't Do That". His bibliography, which is probably the best outside of your files, was of special interest to me, and I wonder if you would be kind enough to send and bill to me the following of your yearly reports: "Sweet Land of Liberty" (1932). "Land of Pilgrim's Pride” (1933). "Liberty under the New Deal" (1934). "Land of the Free" (1935). "How Goes the Bill of Rights?” (1936), and your 1937 report if it is yet off the press; also your pamphlet “You be the Jury !". Best personal wishes to you, and thanks again for getting me into the work in which I am tremendously interested. Sincerely, THURLOW SMOOT TS: lb NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD EIGHTEENTH REGION New Post Office Building, Minneapolis, Minnesota Mr. THURLOW SMOOT, Brown Hotel, Des Moines, Iowa, AUGUST 16, 1938. DEAR TED: I have just received a letter from Lester Levin, Regional Attorney of the N. L. R. B. (Architects Building, Indianapolis, Indiana) asking me if I know any attorneys who might be interested in assisting the labor leader who was framed on a "morals" charge in Dubuque, Iowa, recently. I told Les that Connelley was the only labor attorney I knew in Iowa but thought that perhaps you might know someone or might be able to get in touch. with some attorney in that part of the country who would be willing to give this boy some assistance. If you think Connelley would be willing to do anything, or if you can think of the name of any other labor lawyer, either in Dubuque or elsewhere in Iowa, you might drop Les a line, as I have already written to him, telling him I would ask you to do so. Incidentally, do you still have my Wigmore, and are you still using it or might I borrow it back? Bob received a letter yesterday from Witt, which he said was personal and confidential, which he read part of, which part stated that hearing dates were to be set by the Regional Director rather than the Regional Attorney. He is therefore, asking for dates on Northwest Publications and. I believe, on lowa Southern Utilities. Incidentally, if you still have any of these files, I wonder if you would send them back, since I might start working on these cases as it looks as though I'll probably have to try them. If you want any envelopes for the files, drop us a line and I'll have a bunch sent down. Nothing else new around the office up to the time of writing, Tuesday morning. LEE LL: vhs (Written notation:) No returns on our letters yet, but we're still waiting and hoping. Dan will probably be in D. M. this week. SEPTEMBER 19, 1938. To: National Labor Relations Board. From: Robert J. Wiener, Regional Director. Eighteenth Region. It gives me pleasure to support the request for salary increase made by Mr. Thurlow Smoot, Regional Attorney. Smoot has been in this office since May 1937 and handled all hearings held in this region between that time and July 1938-he has had another attorney in the office during the past two months as he has been engaged during that period exclusively with the Maytag hearing. Both my personal observation and comments made by attorneys who have watched his trial work convince me that he is an unusually capable trial attorney. His preparation is careful, his presentation forceful and his rebutai is resourceful. He is well liked by the unions and is able to elicit the respect and necessary cooperation from respondents' attorneys. One feature of his work which has particularly pleased me, as Director, is his unfailing cooperation with myself and the Examiners. Smoot has always assisted us in securing settlements when these were feasible and has also in the past aided in the investigation of cases when he had available time. It is my belief that the facts indicated above indicate that Smoot has definitely earned an increase in compensation. I hope that it is not improper for me to point out also what is quite apparent, namely that at St. Louis the responsibilities will be greater than they were here, due to the fact he will have supervision over a corps of other attorneys. Sincerely, RJW: vhs |