To: Mr. George Pratt. APRIL 28, 1939. From: Philip G. Phillips, Ninth Region. Subject: Elk River Coal and Lumber Company, IX-R-286. In this case the petitioning union, the United Mine Workers of America. requested an adjournment until June 5th; the trial examiner, Mr. Smith, who passed on the Motion, granted the adjournment until May 15th. This morning the attorney for U. M. V. A. telephoned and made an urgent appeal for the full postponment. The attorney for the company joins in this request, the intervener, of course, has no special feelings on the matter one way or the other. I. also, acting in this instance on behalf of the Board's attorney, request that the trial examiner grant the full postponement. Counsel for U. M. V. A. is at present engaged in the coal strike which ob viously is of more importance than this hearing, and calls my attention to the fact that as soon as the coal strike is over he will be required to spend three weeks adjusting disputes which have arisen in its aftermath. Counsel for the company, of course, is also representing several coal companies involved in the controversy and he, too, can do nothing until the strike is over and in addition, will need additional time to straighten out his affairs when the matter is adjusted. PGP GF PHILIP G. PHILLIPS, Regional Director. To: Mr. W. J. Perricelli. Subject: E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., IX-C-612, IX-R-271. MAY 29, 1939. Du Pont has been set for the 22nd. Incidentally I saw Judge Townsend yesterday in connection with another matter. He tells me that the union is no longer anxious to have the Elk River Coal case pushed any further as they feel no longer have a majority and would get licked in any election. It's strange how things progress isn't it? I received a letter from the attorney for the League of Widen Mines today. He stated that the League wished to proceed with the case. If they should change their minds they would notify us. [Written notation:] Get a definite statement from League? INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD To: National Labor Relations Board. From: Philip G. Phillips, Director, Ninth Region. Subject: Elk River Coal & Lumber Company, IX-R-286. JULY 27, 1939. I attach herewith copy of letter from Judge Townsend, counsel for the United Mine Workers in the above entitled matter, requesting that they be permitted to withdraw this petition. The Independent Union, intervenor, has been approached and is unwilling to consent to the withdrawal of the petition. The case is a very interesting one. Judge Townsend told me in confidence that the actual reason for withdrawing is this: He was misled by the organizers fo. the United Mine Workers concerning their strength. He admitted in the strictest of confidence that the cards which they originally showed are in many instances forged and that the union in no way has a majority. It could not win an election in all probability and consequently the Judge's request. Of course the matter could be granted as routine were it not for the fact that there was an intervenor. Would you suggest that I recommend to Judge Town send that he address a formal motion to the Board and present an argument on it or should I advise him that in view of the fact the intervenor refuses to consent that we will have to continue the hearing, or should I give no advice and present the letter to the Trial Examiner. PGP/eh [Copy] LAW OFFICES PHILIP G. PHILLIPS, 511-516 Kanawha Valley Building, Charleston, W. Va. JUNE 29, 1989. Re: Elk River Coal & Lumber Co., Widen, W. Va., and District No. 17, U. M. W of A., Case No. IX-R-286. Mr. PHILIP G. PHILLIPS, Regional Director, National Labor Relations Board, Ninth Region. U. S. Post Office and Courthouse, Cincinnati, Ohio. MY DEAR MR. PHILLIPS: Hearings in this case began February 6, 1939, at Charleston, West Virginia, continued through February 8, then suspended un'i February 20, then resumed and continued daily through February 25, when at adjournment was granted at the instance of all interested parties until April 24 1939. Before the date set for the resumption of the hearing it was again continue** upon motion of petitioner until May 15, and again upon motion of the petitioner until June 19, and again the case was continued indefinitely upon motion of respondent. Since the beginning of this case in February, conditions in the bituminous co industry throughout the United States became very much disturbed because of the failure of representatives of the United Mine Workers of America and repr sentatives of the producers to negotiate and sign a new wage agreement to take the place of the agreement which expired March 31, 1939. The new wage agree ment was finally signed on May 12, 1939. Since the signing of the new conti, et. conditions in the bituminous coal industry have substantially improved and the relationship generally between employer and employee has assumed a differe i attitude. Because of the many changes in conditions generally since the beginning of this action and because of the lapse of time, the petitioner deems it inadvisable to fur ther prosecute the same at this time, and hereby requests that the Board approve the withdrawal or dismissal of the petition without prejudice to the rights of an interested party. Yours very truly, TCT DP ([Air mail] (S) T. C. TOWNSEND, SEPTEMBER 9, 1939 To: Mrs. B. M. Stern. From: Philip G. Phillips, Ninth Region. Subject: Elk River Coal and Lumber Company IX R 286. This will acknowledge your memorandum of September 5. I attach hereto copy of my memorandum of July 27, which I think explais the situation as well as I can, when the supplemental documents filed by the parties are borne in mind. I have tried without success to persuade the intervenor to withdraw from the proceeding. No settlement, however, will satisfy the intervenor other than a certification by the Board, an election, or recognition by the company. The company would consent to the election but the United Mine Workers will not. The company, on the other hand, is unwilling to recognize the intervenor without some certification by the Board. It is all a hopeless mess. I suppose that the matter is one for the trial examiner to rule upon. If I were the trial examiner, of course, I would hold that once the proceeding started, the effort to withdraw without the consent of the intervenor is futile, but I am not the trial examiner. PGP GF PHILIP G. PHILLIPS, Regional Director. SEPTEMBER 25, 1939. To: Martin Wagner, Charleston, W. Va. Subject: Elk River Coal and Lumber. When I was in Washington I discussed this case with the Board. It seems that there is no way this case can be disposed of without a continuation of the hearing and the Board will of necessity set the case for trial in the immediate future. I explained to them by efforts to obtain the intervenor's consent but without avail. They suggest that we should see if Judge Townsend will agree to an amicable solution. This might consist of either an agreement for a consent election, or some sort of letter that the union will no longer claim any bargaining rights. If this were not done of course the union is bound to have over it an ordered election, the result of which might be disastrous. I wrote Judge Townsend as per the attached. I have not heard from him and am wondering whether you think I should personally see him or whether you will want to take it up yourself. Normally it certainly would be a matter that I would tell you to do without any hesitancy; the only thing that bothers me is because of their past conflicts whether I should not stick my own neck out and not take a chance that they would get sore at you because of it. gf NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD REGIONAL OFFICE IX REGION Week ending Sept. 30, 1939 WEEKLY REPORT ON PENDING CASES Case No. R 286. Name of company: Elk River Coal & Lumber Co. ACTION TAKEN during week; giving dates of letters written and received, conferences held, etc., 9/29-conference with attorney of United Mine Workers stated Union did not wish to proceed with case at this time. Wagner: PRESENT STATUS of case: Pending. OCTOBER 25, 1939. To: Frank Bloom, Acting Chief Trial Examiner. From: Philip G. Phillips, Ninth Region. Subject: Elk River Coal and Lumber Co., IX R 286. This will acknowledge your memorandum of October 23. I can get nowhere with the United Mine Workers and all I can see to do is to set the matter down for hearing. PGP GF PHILIP G. PHILLIPS, Regional Director. INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION Nov 4, 1939. To: P. G. P. From: W. J. Perricelli. Subject: IX-R-286, Elk River etc. Townsend got me up out of bed to talk to him this morning at 8:20 A. M. I talked to him for an hour thereafter on the possibility of current election without avail. He wants a two month postponement; is sore as the devil over the short notice of hearing resumption (he was notified on Nov 3) and from what I can gather will appear at the hearing Monday but not afterwards. I don't believe he has anything more in the nature of S-2 on the intervenor and obviously has not the majority. "Townsend would also take a dismissal," he sincerely proposes. We discussed also the danger inherent to his cause if he should abandon or fail to show up at the hearing, i. e., the Company and intervenor running away with matters. I talked to Battle yesterday after failing to reach Townsend. He, for the Company is ready to go on. Unless Townsend makes longthy objection to continuing resuming the hearing it appears to me that we should conclude Monday. The hearing was commenced by an informal conference, initiated by the Trial Examiner and concerning all parties, in which the new law governing the situation, and as well the question of the unit and the current payroll, were taken up with the parties present. Townsend and his son appeared for the Mine Workers; Battle, attorney for the company; and Mr. Hall for the intervener. As a resuit of this conference, it became apparent to the examiner that the parties were willing to agree to the appropriate unit and to a current payroll in the event a Board election was directed. At 10: 15 a. m., and during the course of this conference, Mr. Townsend arose and asked the examiner if he couldn't confer with Mr. Battle and Mr. Hall separately. The examiner consented, and until 11:00 a. m. the parties conferred with respect to the possibility of dismissing the proceedings. I had been called in about ten minutes after this second conference had been called, by Townsend. I took no part in the discussion. During the course of the second conference, some reference was made to the "C"" case involved in this situation. It appeared that the intervener was willing to consent to the dismissal of the proceedings if the Mine Workers should withdraw their charge in the “C”” case, which, of course, affected the intervener. There was some accord on this proposition by both the company and the petitioner, the Mine Workers. Hall requested until 1:00 p. m. to take the matter under consideration. This request was again made of the Trial Examiner, who consented to adjourn the proceedings until 1:00 p. m. The hearing convened again at 1:00 p. m.. and at this time both Judge Townsend and Mr. Hall requested of the examiner further time in which to confer I was asked to join this conference again. During this third conference, Mr. Hell offered to Mr. Townsend the proposition of his, Hall's, consenting to dismissal of the proceedings if Townsend would withdraw the “C”” case. IX-C_913, with prejudice. Townsend refused. At about ten minutes of two, Townsend informed the parties in this third conference that he was desirous of having the case postponed until February 20; to this the intervener and the company agreed The hearing was convened again at 2:00 p. m. and the matter of postponement was directed to the attention of the examiner. The transcript of the day's pro ceeding will reveal the questions of the Trial Examiner directed to the reasons for such a long postponement. The transcript will show that Townsend urged first of all the failure of proper notice in connection with the resumption of the proceedings; secondly, that he could not participate in the proceedings after November 6, because of business, until February 20. The examiner consulted Washington and, according to the examiner, the parties were offered either an indefinite postponement with five days' notice of resumption, or postponement to February 20. At this point the parties put themselves on record as wanting the February 20 postponement. This was granted. The only activity I took in connection with the proceedings was to introduce the examiner's certificate, Board's Exhibit 21, and also introduce Board's Exhibits 22-A through 22-0, papers relating to the various postponements, extracted from the original files; and as well, Board's Exhibit 23, papers relating to the petition for withdrawal, of Townsend, filed August 7, 1938, these papers likewise having been extracted from the original files. No copies were made of Board's Exhibits 22 and 23. When the exhibits are forwarded to this office, copies of the matters in Board's Exhibits 22 and 23 should be made for our files. W.J.P. Enro Shirt Company: To: Karl Filter, Pineville, Ky., Harlan, Ky. From: Philip G. Phillips. Subject: Enro Shirt Company, IX-C-1102. NOVEMBER 28, 1939. I think we probably could get a compliance agreement out of the company. They shouldn't mind anything like our usual compliance agreement or at least a statement that the employees are free to join any union they want. Incidentally, is there anything wrong in calling on the Lord to assist in keeping out unions? While it may be wrong for the employer to do so openly, I fear we have no jurisdiction over the clergy. PGP: GG Memo. To: Mr. Phillips. From: Karl Filter. Re: Enro Shirt Co. P. G. P. DECEMBER 6, 1939. The writer has an appointment with the union officers to-morrow morning. The Co. will be contacted in the afternoon. DECEMBER 11, 1939. To: Karl Filter. From: R. S. M. Subject: Enro Shirt Company. I would appreciate your advising me the status of the above entitled case. RSM GF Memo. To: Mr. Phillips. From: Karl Filter. Re: Enro Shirt Co. A conference was held 12/7/39 with Sandra Slotkin and Harold Gibbons at the Union's Headquarters in Louisville. The various allegations of the Co, concerning the acts of dishonesty surrounding the discharge of Ida Upton were discussed in detail with these two officials. They were reluctant to accept the proof offered by the Co. as much more than ingenious fabrications of the Bourgeoise bosses. Despite their proletarian (Rabble Rousing) harangues they were instructed to take an objective view of the situation & question Mrs. Upton closely in relation to her alleged defalcations. In relation to the 8 (1) charges the union requested additional time in which to gather more evidence. They suggested that I post-pone contacting the Co. until some date in the future. |