To: Mr. Nathan Witt. From: Philip G. Phillips, Ninth Region. The Ohio State Labor Relations Act was defeated by vote of the House Committee 11 to 4. The Ohio Labor Committee is a disgrace to civilization and several anti-union bills have a fair chance of being passed. The Chairman of the Committee is a minister noted for his "Americanism" and he used to be one of the great Kleagles of the Ku Klux Klan. The Vice-Chairman is the former president of the Canton Employers Association who was called before the La Follette Committee and rather badly shown out. Incidentally, they certainly gave me a rough ride when I spoke on behalf of the bill. PHILIP G. PHILLIPS, PGP GF. [Special delivery] To: Mr. Brin, Hermitage, Louisville. Regional Director. APRIL 11, 1939. Subject: WH case, Brewery Workers Local Union No. 20, Oertel Brewing Please take the attached Wage and Hour certification to Brewery Workers Local Union No. 20, 214 Coleman Building, Louisville, Kentucky and have it signed by him and swear to the same as soon as possible. Then mail it with the letter attached, in the air mail envelope, to Miss Estelle Frankfurter, Washington. The International President of the Brewery Workers asked me to get this through as quickly as possible and in view of the fact that they have been so friendly to our Act, and may testify, I am awfully anxious to do it as fast as possible. gf. JUNE 13, 1939. To: Nathan Witt, Secretary. From: Philip G. Phillips, Ninth Region. We have a recurrent situation in the laundries in Cincinnati where strikes frequently occur and where once all the laundries were closed. These laundries are rather anti-union and most recently some of them have been putting in yellow dog contracts. The laundries all feel sure that under no circumstances can the Board take jurisdiction because of lack of commerce. The unions, on the other hand, would like to know if there is any possibility if we had a flagrant violation in a large laundry doing some interstate business that the Board could take jurisdiction. As you are aware, about a quarter of the population of Greater Cincinnati is located in Kentucky and many of the laundries do approximately a quarter of their business in the nearby Kentucky towns just across the river. They have their own trucks which haul the laundry back and forth across the river. All their supplies, however, are purchased in Cincinnati. The unions make a great deal out of the fact that all the water which the laundries use comes from the State of Kentucky, but I personally don't think this is very important. Is there any possibility that the Board would consider a case involving one of the larger laundries doing a quarter of its business in interstate commerce? PHILIP G. PHILLIPS, Regional Director, PGP: RM: GG. INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD JUNE 16, 1939. To: Philip G. Phillips, Ninth Region. Subject: Your memorandum June 13, Jurisdiction over laundries. This acknowledges the above memorandum. In answer to your specific question, I should think that there is a real possibility that the Board would consider a case involving a laundry doing a quarter of its business in interstate commerce. The fact that the employer is a laundry would not mitigate against jurisdiction. The important thing is the amount of commerce. As you know, the Board has been going ahead in cases in which there is 25 per cent of business done in interstate commerce. N. W. (Written notation: A copy of this letter should be made for Modern Laundry file.) To: Karl Filter, Harlan. SEPTEMBER 28, 1939. Don't worry about the backwardness of unions in furnishing us information. I know how distressing it is but I also know that there is very little that can be done about it. The thing that pleases me is that you have discovered in a week something that has taken many of the boys months to discover. It is a lot deeper problem than the fact that it delays us in our investigations and makes our work more difficult. It points rather to a fundamental weakness in union leadership, control and management. My only hope is that by our contact with the unions and constantly trying to get them to help us, we will improve them in other ways for the good of all. gf. To: Martin Wagner, Charleston. NOVEMBER 29, 1939. This will acknowledge yours about the cases that don't involve interstate commerce. I see no harm where there will be no repercussions in trying to do what we can even when it is clear there is no jurisdiction, especially when the factual evidence indicates that there is a violation of the fundamental principles behind the Act. On the other hand, in cases where there is likely to be a reverberation, it is unlikely that you can do much. I think each case must be handled on its own footing, and the examiner handling it should be given all the leeway he needs to do what he sees fit under the circumstances. I will talk to you about this more fully when I see you. P. G. P. PGP: GG. INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION MOREHEAD, KY., 12-1-39. To: Mr. P. G. P. Subject: Ohio Valley Bus, and your recent letter. I am distressed and annoyed to think that an expression, made in the best of humor and good feeling, and at a time when I particularly wanted the Representative of the C. I. O. to be acquainted with what was being done, should be deliberately misunderstood and mis-represented by him to Easton. For your understanding, I will again explain what happened: The employe who quit was a C. I. O. man, almost up to the time he quit; A C. I. O. man had been hired in his place; after talking with the company officials they indicated they would re employ him, if an opening. While near the Bus Garage, I saw Raines, Pres. of the C. I. O. Local, I spoke to him and asked him about the discharge case, he stated when he heard of it, he went after the foreman to know the cause; I then asked him what would be the attitude of the C. I, O. if THE COMPANY OFFERED THE MAN A JOB, AND ASKED HIM IF THE MAN EMPLOYED WAS ONE OF THEIR MEN. He replied he was, and that they would protect their man. I then asked him if things had quieted down any, and he said they had not, there was still differences, it was then I remarked "PERHAPS THE MATTER COULD BEST BE RESOLVED BY AN ELECTION”. I knew they have a closed shop contract, with some concessions, and the whole story of the controversy between the two unions and the company, the thought I expressed, was just a fact, as often expressed by the Board in its decisions in like cases. If Raines choses to think that I 'suggested an election be held and that is his construction of my remark, we cannot change his way of thinking, but we can wonder at the cause of that abnormal process of reasoning. If one choses to view my remark as a statement of fact, they can only come to one conclusion, that is the one the Board has reached in many, many cases. G. S. SLYER, To: Mr. P. G. P. INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Subject: C-231, A. C. Lawrence Leather Co., Ashland, Ky. OCT. 25, 1939. This Co., is Inc Maine, Officers are H. M. Goodspeed, Pres, A. J. Green V. P. Peabody Mass., S. M. Nector, V. P. Boston Mass., they operate 5 plants which process green hides into leather. Main plant at Peabody Mass, other plants at Winchester N. H., Newport Tenn., Hazlewood N. C., and Ashland Ky., the local Supt., is A. J. Hoolahan, THE ASST SUPT WAS J. G. FARNSWORTH 2435 E. 78'' St., Chicago Ills, now with another company. Following the strike production was curtailed, the company says due to business conditions, the employes say production was put in other plants in Tenn and N. C., this seems to be borne out by the evidence I have gathered here, thet V. P. Green said to three different employes, at different times "I took production away from this plant, and I may bring some of it back, had to hire men at other plants to do the work." As you know, on its actual merits the case is not strong, or rather is surrounded by a strong odor, of the complainants, I will give outline of what I have developed and what the company is willing to do, with statement of conditions at present: Jack Barker, Emp. 8-1-1934, laid off, and when came to companys office, drunk to demand work, was discharged and ordered off the property, Mr Hoolahan, and Asst Supt., Hart so state, and I have an affadavit from the office girl that Barker was under the influence of intoxicants, and acted in a disorderly manner when there, Mr. H. says when Barker left the office, he stopped by the window and twiddled his fingers to his nose at Hoolahan, which is not the normal act of a man, even tho angry or desperate, Asst Supt Farnsworth, was also present in the office at the time. V. C. Brown. Was reinstated, but was not getting regular work, they were using 3 firemen instead of six, Brown left home drunk and went to work drunk, and was fired by Farnsworth, his wife told me, she bought him a half pint, which he drank during the afternoon, before supper, and going to work, his son in law, have his affadavit, who lived in the same house with him, states he was drunk, and he, his wife and Browns wife tried to persuade him not to go to work, but he went anyhow. Brown told me the Co Asst Supt. Farnsworth had his check ready and pulled it out of his pocket and gave it to him, Browns wife told me he did not get paid until several days afterwards. E. Runyan. Emp. 8-10-33, after strike was reemployed and worked off and on until Jan. 1st-1938, during his spare time he was engaged in gathering junk and scrap iron and selling it, the company claims he just failed to show up any more after Jan. 1st and they had not heard of him until today, and could not reemploy him. R. Childers. Emp. Co record 5-20-1931 his record 10-20-1928, reinstated after the strike, and worked until Sept 26-1937, when the company claims be served them with notice he was unable to do the work, and left, they had not heard from him up to this time. The company claims he has some physi cal ailment which from time to time incapacitates him for work, that he gets nervous and cannot work. I carefully examined the medical record and reports of the Co Dr Daniels and Childress' Dr. Blair, their diagnosis, is indefinate as to cause, and their X ray, periscopic, and wasserman do not show any definate organic trouble, there is in the report "That the man is subnormal, and prob ably has been so since birth, and may never be able to perform a normal job or be a normal person." O. W. Edwards, Percy Mullins, Walter Patrick, have been reinstated, and the Co will go on record as stating they have been so reinstated without prejudice etc., I outlined the status of the 7 men named in the charge to give you the present status of the case. In my opinion there is enough 8-1 in the file to support strongly any 8-3 discharges, except the drunk cases, which are not entirely free from suspicion, and there is some evidence, and more could be obtained on an 8-2, with which the company is now bargaining, but we have no 8-2 charge, I did not go into it carefully. There is only one person, connected with the union, The Pres., CIO Local # 32, George LeMaster, 2416 Central Ave., (outside of the discharged employes) who takes any interest in the matter at this time. I was contacting him and he has been called to Columbus Ohio account his sisterinlaw breaking her neck and may be gote some time, therefore I am unable to discuss the case with him, now, and see if he is satisfied, and wishes to withdraw charges upon the basis of what has been developed, but can do so later on, UNLESS, in your opinion, we should go further with the investigation, and check the employment records at the Tenn and NC plants, during the period after the strike, ALSO CONTACT JACK FARNSWORTH, FORMER SUPT AND SEE IF HE WILL BREAK IT OPEN FOR US IF HE WOULD UNLOAD WHAT HE KNOWS, IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE TO SUPPORT A CASE, IN HEARING, AND OBTAIN REMEDIAL WAGES FOR ALL THE MEN WHO WERE DEPRIVED OF WORK, AFTER THE STRIKE, AND UNTIL THE COMPANY PUT THE PLANT ON NORMAL OPERATIONS, THERE IS NO DOUBT THEY DIVERTED HIDES TO OTHER PLANTS, AND STARVED OUT THE UNION, HERE. BUT I AM IN SERIOUS DOUBT THAT WE COULD MATERIALLY GAIN, MUCH MORE THAN WE NOW HAVE, THAT IS THE # 3 JOBS WHICH ARE CLEAN CUT. All other CIO men with any Svce are also reinstated now including all officers of the Local. I have contacted Atty Dinkle, several times and have discussed the case with him several times, Barker is the man who asked him to handle the case, but no contract with him V C Brown went to see him once, but has not been back. Dinkle states he was waiting to do anything with the case or make a try on it, until WE HAD INVESTIGATED AND FOUND WHETHER THERE WAS A CASE HERE OR NOT, he states that if we say there is no case, as to Barker and Brown, he will not bother with it further. If I get to see Leemaster, later, and he is satisfied, and Carmen Newell is satisfied, I will make sure Dinkle gives me a letter stating he is also satisfied. I have checked every angle of this case, and know that you have a great deal of knowledge of it, at the time you were here and for some time afterwards, please, after reading my report, advise me if I should continue to try to see Leemaster, and get withdrawal, and call it adjusted, in so far as the 3 men are concerned (I can come back here in a few days or week and see him, there is no use waiting here for him) I think Leemaster will with draw, but I'm not so satisfied it should drop there, on the other hand it would make a very undesirable record, what with all the company would try to get into the record about George Powers etc., especially now, so, please give me your views, incidentally Hoolahan appears, to me, to be right much wor ried about the case, and wishes it cleared up, and finally closed out. G. S. S. CASES American Rolling Mill Company: To: Phillips. From: Miller. Subject: Re Armco. MARCH 29TH, 1937. Several weeks ago the management here started to eliminate most of the more important C. I. O. men, usually for violations of safety rules. Today one of the most active and respected members of the local was discharged after 15 years of service. His name is Dick Gillum, and his statement is among the best. For once the union is united in resentment and is clamoring for action. Since I have avoided announcing the likelihood of a hearing in the near future they cannot understand why I do not go to the management as I did about the C. O. men. Can I give them some definite word about a complaint? I broke down this Bates, who is one of the two former union officers who resigned via the Ashland Independent. It was entirely arranged by the company. He implicated directly the national commander of the American Legion in the ads now appearing in the Independent. The company gave him a good job for a while but finally dropped him back to a low wage job and he now only averages about one day a week and is sore-and why not. This fellow Thurman Justus who has been the victim of some major and some unbelievable petty discrimination was asked last Friday by his foreman if he was going to take his case up with the Labor Board. He is the fellow visited at home by his supt and informed when and where he meets union officials or Board representatives. Picture, if the vision doesn't drive you mad, a huge industrial establishment full of Ralph Leeds, and you would have a fairly accurate picture of the situation. The new vigilante group is to be known as the Loyal Armco Workers with a pin reading LAW. Cute don't you think? W. M. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FEB. 8, 1938. To: Mr. Phillips. From: Wagner. Subject: American Rolling Mill, Ashland, Ky. Yesterday afternoon I attended a meeting of the S. W. O. C. at which a future program of the Lodge was considered. Mr. Wolcott was present. A few of the men wanted an election, but the majority wanted the Board to take up the charges of company dominated union and coercion and intimidation. It seems that the examiners have assured them that the case is very strong, so they now want action. I do not know how much Wally has been able to get on the company, but I am now fairly confident that we could show that the Employee-Representation Plan is a labor organization and that it is company dominated. I am also sure that we could show coercion and intimidation on the part of foremen and supervisors. There is, however, such abundance of material that it would undoubtedly take some time to work it into shape. The men feel that if they could get a hearing in between four and six weeks that they could build up the organization beautifully. At that time steel contracts in other mills will be current, and at the rate they are increasing in membership here, a hearing at that time would be most propitious. (Written notation:) I agree. S. W. O. C. nat'l hdqrtrs doesn't wish this 2 B done. |