>: Mr. Robert Watts. APRIL 16, 1938. com: Philip G. Phillips, Ninth Region. bject: Louisville Refining Company IX C 56. It seems that to further pursue negotiations in the above entitled matter is peless. I attach hereto copy of a letter received from Woodward, Dawson and obson, together with a short answer which I made to it so that he would not ave statements on record which are so obviously false. The company is willing only to get these employees jobs in plants other than hat of the respondent. I don't feel that the Board could under any circumtances consider that a satisfactory method of adjustment. I am afraid we will ave to give them a trimming in the Sixth Circuit, which Fahy has probably old you seems to be getting along pretty well. PHILIP G. PHILLIPS, Regional Director. PGP GF LAW OFFICES WOODWARD, DAWSON & HOBSON Suite 1805-26 Kentucky Home Life Building, Louisville, Kentucky Louisville Refining Company. Mr. PHILIP G. PHILLIPS, Regional Director N. L. R. B., Inquirer Building, Cincinnati, Ohio. APRIL 18, 1938. DEAR MR. PHILLIPS: When you deny saying that the purpose of the act was to force unionization, you deny what you could not forget occurred in fact, and you make it useless for you and I to attempt agreement about anything. Notwithstanding your letter, I know you do remember saying that everybody in the United States except the Supreme Court knows that the act was intended to force unionization and you pointed out that while the act professed to be in tended to lessen labor disputes it had multiplied such disputes many times and while the act professed to be intended to remove interference with commerce, it had restricted such commerce by strikes and that your business was to aid in compelling the unionization of industry. It is true you said the "closed shop" was not demanded in this case but you agreed with me that the next effect of the act as construed by you would lead to the "closed shop". I thought your statements in the conference at Cincinnati were shameful; your denial of those statements is even worse. Yours sincerely, EW: RK WOODWARD, DAWSON & HOBSON, By ERNEST WOODWARD. APRIL 19, 1937. Mr. ERNEST WOODWARD, Attorney at Law, Woodward, Dawson & Hobson, 1805 Kentucky Home Life Bldg., Louisville, Kentucky. Re: Louisville Refining Co., and International Association Oil Field, Gas Well, & Refinery Workers of America. DEAR MR. WOODWARD: This will acknowledge receipt of your memorandum in the above entitled matter. May I point out to you that the Supreme Court's decision had nothing whatever to do with my refusing to consider Mr. Brown's proposition that he take back as many of the strikers as fitted his present needs, without considering in any way the needs of all of the men? If at any time you feel that you have any offer of settlement other than the one which Mr. Brown made long before the trial and which I then said would in no way satisfy the requirements of the National Labor Relations Board, I would be only too happy to come to Louisville to discuss the matter with you. Very truly yours, PHILIP G. PHILLIPS, Regional Attorney. LAW OFFICES WOODWARD, DAWSON & HOBSON Suite 1805-26 Kentucky Home Life Building, Louisville, Kentucky APRIL 20, 1937. Mr. PHILIP G. PHILLIPS, 1009 Mercantile Library Bldg., Cincinnati, Ohio. In Re: Louisville Refining Co. &c. DEAR MR. PHILLIPS: I have your letter advising that the Supreme Court decision had nothing whatever to do with your refusing to consider Mr. Brown's proposition that he take back as many of the strikers as fit his present needs without considering the needs of all the men. Of course, I have no way of knowing what influences your decisions, but I de know that you said to me in the presence of the other gentlemen at the conference that you would not consider granting Mr. Brown the same favorable terms that you would have considered the previous week, before the decision by the Supreme Court. I have never made any proposition of settlement, and never had any authority to make any such proposition, but I said to you that I felt both Mr. Brown and myself would never consent to the closed shop, or to the six hour day, and that both of us would be glad to take back every employe for whom a place could be found without discrimination against any of them. I understood from your conversation in the presence of the Examiner that you thought a settlement along that line might be reached, but when you later came to the conference in this office it was manifest that one of us had misunderstood the conversation or had changed our mind about the terms of settlement. Personally, I feel that the responsibility for these men who are out of employment rests upon the agitators who have played upon their prejudices and influenced them to act contrary to their own interest and the interest of the com munity, and I have no expectation of making any recommendation different from what I said to you and the examiner, but I am always ready to carry out what I then said and feel that when you get back to that point in our negotiations that it might be profitable to renew them. Yours sincerely, EW: EEC. WOODWARD, DAWSON AND HOBSON, By ERNEST WOODWARD. Copy to Mr. E. P. Delaney, 508 Denike Bldg., Washington, D. C., Mr. El H Brown, Jr., President Louisville Refining Co., American Life Bldg., Louisville, Ky. APRIL 23, 1937. Mr. ERNEST WOODWARD, Attorney at Law, Woodward, Dawson & Hobson, 1805 Kentucky Home Life Bldg., Louisville, Ky. Re: Louisville Refining Co., etc. DEAR MR. WOODWARD: I appreciate your frank letter of April 20. I assure you I would be only too happy to renew our attempted negotiations any time you feel it wise. I do not know how I can be any more emphatic than I have been in telling you that a closed shop is not an issue and is not being demanded by the union, nor have I at any time intimated that it interested me. So far as the six-hour day is concerned, I repeat what I said before--I feel that is the subject matter for negotiations. If Mr. Brown feels that an eight-hour day is the only day that can be worked, then, as I said before, I feel that the matter of who should work eight hours is one for discussion and not a matter to be determined by the whim of the employer. Certainly one cannot say that collective bargaining is engaged in when the employer arbitrarily sets the number of hours to be worked in a day and then determines who shall work that time. There are many reasonable criterions which could be used to determine who would work. It would please me to be able to take the matter up directly and place your client and the union in a position to bargain over the matter. I do not think that it is well that we send copies of letters concerning settlement negotiations to the Trial Examiner, for I do not wish anything to happen which might delay his decision. But since you sent a copy of yours, I shall send a copy of this one. I think it would be better in the future if we discussed this between ourselves. However, if you wish that we send copies of our letters to the Trial Examiner, I shall be glad to abide by your desires. DEAR BOB: I know you will be happy to learn that the McBee Company is going to comply with the recommendations of the trial examiner's report and disestablish their company union and break their contract with it, and in addition, post the usual compliance notices. I would like to hear from you about it. I assume it would be a good chance to get some organizers into Athens. Cordially, PGP GF To: Mr. William Perricelli, Office. Subject: McBee Company, C-788. PHILIP G. PHILLIPS, Regional Director. NOVEMBER 12, 1938. You will note in the McBee case file certain changes that the Board suggested in the stipulation. You will also note that the company has complied and that the company union is apparently disestablished. The Board nonetheless desires a stipulation to be executed with certain changes. Will you please, therefore, make the changes in accordance with Mrs. Stern's letter, call Mr. Roe, tell him as soon as he and the company union execute the revised stipulation we will write the letters that he requests telling him that the matter is adjusted. Please do this forthwith. I don't think it will be necessary for you to go to Athens. gf. The Mengel Company: To: Mr. Philip G. Phillips. JANUARY 3, 1938.. Subject: Rich Pump & Ladder Co., IX-C-69; The Edwards Mfg. Co., IX-C-112; M. D. Friedman Co., IX-C-167; Joseph Steel & Metal Co., IX-C-168; Mansbach Metal Co., IX-C-169; Straus Metal Co., IX-C-170; Goodman Metal Co., IX-C-171; Cincinnati Fly Screen Co., IX-C-207; American Tool Works, IX-C-221; The Mengel Co., IX-C-258; Harlan Central Coal Co., IX-C-268; Lunkenheimer Co., IX-C-291; Union Light Heat & Power Co., IX-C-295; Wm. Powell Valve Co., IX-C-301; American Products Co., IX-C-329; LeBlondSchacht Truck Co., IX-C-333; Miss. Valley Barge Line Co., IX-C-337; Fosdick Machine Tool Co., IX-C-361; Carlyle Clay Co., IX-C-392; D. T. Williams Valve Co., IX-C-447. The Board has considered your memorandum of December 27 and feels that in view of all the circumstances there would be little gained in attempting to go forward with all or most of the cases. However, in view of the apparently concerted action of the employers in your region on this point, the Board thinks it would be healthy if you picked out two or three of the cases which will hold together and push them through as rapidly as possible. Please advise me further as to your next steps. [Copy] JANUARY 12, 1938. To: Mr. NATHAN WITT. From: Philip G. Phillips, Ninth Region. Subject: IX-C-258 et al. This will acknowledge your letter of January 3 with regard to the written contract cases. The CIO and I both are studying the matter very carefully and will decide in a few days what two cases we should pick that will work to the best advantage of all of us. I will apprise you accordingly. PGP GF PHILIP G. PHILLIPS, MAY 5, 1938. To: Mrs. B. M. Stern. From: Philip G. Phillips, Ninth Region. I talked over these cases with Mr. Krivonos at great length last week. In any of the good ones I am unable to persuade the union to proceed. They feel that in view of the fact that they have derived substantial benefits from the statement of policy, and in view of the fact that the companies again have "Bargained" with them this year and given them statements, that they should not proceed. feel their local unions will not support them in this effort. They I feel that the unions are wrong. My own suggestion would be that we notify the unions that in view of their position they withdraw the charges or we should take the best case out of the lot and try it, the unions to the contrary notwithstanding. The case I would select is the Lunkenheimer case. This case, you will recall. involves a previous Board certification. Bargaining again was entered into in February of this year and the company, after an argument was made concerning wages, hours and working conditions, sent a statement of policy to the union and asked them to accept it. This the union refused to do without a proviso in the acceptance that nothing would prevent them from filing charges with the Labor Board and stating, further, that the statement, as far as its terms were concerned. accurately portrayed what was arrived at by collective bargaining. The company told the union it would have to accept the policy unconditionally or it would not post it. The union thereupon withdrew its letter of protest and told the company that the statement was all right. It seems to me that we have some rights here and should protect unions in cases of this sort. On the other hand, if the Board feels otherwise, I see nothing for us to do but to request C. I. O, and S. W. O. C. to withdraw their charges on written contract cases. There are three cases involving A. F. O. L. Each of them, however, are rather weak and in view of the fact that the evil does not involve the Federation but only the C. I. O., I don't think we should proceed on any of them. I assure you I am as disappointed with the situation as are you. It arises, of course, out of the pathetically weak condition which the unions are in in this territory. PGP GF. PHILIP G. PHILIPS. Regional Director. MAY 9, 1938. To: Philip G. Phillips, Ninth Region. Subject: Written Contract Cases: Rich Pump & Ladder Co., IX-C 69: The Ed wards Mfg. Co., IX-C-112; M. D. Friedman Co., IX-C-167; Joseph Steel & Metal Co.. IX-C-168; Mansbach Metal Co., IX-C-169; Straus Metal Co. IX-C-170; Goodman Metal Co., IX-C-171; Cincinnati Fly Screen Co., IX-C207; American Tool Works, IX-C 221; The Mengol Co., IX-C-258; Harlan Central Coal Co., IN-C 268; Lunkenheimer Co., IX C 291; Union Light Heat & Power Co., IX-C-295; Wm. Powell Valve Co., IX-C-301; American Products Co., IX C329; LeBlond-Schacht Truck Co., IX C-333; Miss. Valley Barge Line Co., IX-C-337; Fosdick Machine Tool Co., IX-C-361; Carlyle Clay Co. IX C-392; D. T. Williams Valve Co., IX-C-447. I have your memorandum of May 5, addressed to Mrs. Stern concerning your written contract cases. Fred Krivonos has already talked to me about these at some length. I am not taking this matter up with the Board because I know that the Board will feel more or less the same way as it did before, as indicated by my memorandum to you of January 3, 1938. My present suggestion to you is that you proceed along the lines you indicate in your memorandum of May 5, by going forward with the Lunkenheimer case. It looks like a pretty sure thing. However, in view of the fact that the Board is anxious to keep hearings at a minimum, I do not think that the Board would want you to go ahead with this case if the union had any particular objection. You should take it up with the union; tell them it is a good case and concerns an important point, and the Board is prepared to go forward with it. However, if they insist I would not push the point. With respect to the other cases, I think we should get them cleaned up by requesting the unions to withdraw their charges. If they fail to do so within a very short time, I think that you should refuse to issue complaints, without prejudice. The same goes for the Lunkenheimer case of course, if the union does not want to go forward. You raised four points in your memo.: (1) You suggested possible reimbursement for dues paid into the company union. I am not certain, but I believe the men received the money in some form when the union was dissolved or even before then. No one knows about the union so an 8 (2) would be hard to prove. If we get an 8 (1) we will get all we need on this point. However, one of the employees is trying to find out about the money for me. (Written notation:) Numerical majority of union. (2) I agree entirely with this point. I have been unable to check this because the cards are in Pittsburgh. I have already asked Mr. Easton to write to Fosser for the cards so I can complete this. (3) I will re-read the 8 (1). Pepping 8 (1). I know I put all there was in the report and it seemed to me to be very strong. A mere statement of facts seemed convincing without needing pepping up. (4) I will look at this again and discuss it with you. JULY 29, 1939. To: Martin Wagner, 23172 E. Washington St., Charleston, W. Va. Subject: Midwest Steel Company. IX-C-942. I don't see what you can do if Silverstein is going to New York. It does seem that the minute he comes back we ought to arrange for a conference. While I feel badly that we haven't been able to make progress in this case, I don't think that it is our fault at all, and it will be directly traceable to a union which foolishly wanted to rely on its own economic strength. Silverstein may be bent on destroying that organization which is left, but I am just as bent on issuing a complaint. gf |