wishes you to make sure in every such case that the question concerning repre sentation has actually arisen. This means that you should be sure to interview the employer for the purpose of determining why he refuses to bargain with the petitioner, etc. If you make this effort you may be able to discover in certain cases that actually no question concerning representation has arisen and the petition has been filed merely for the purpose of taking advantage of the Board's machinery. In cases which raise a doubt in your mind, or which raise special problems, you should communicate with the Board. N. W JULY 23, 1938. Summary of telephone conversation between Mr. Philips and Jack Woodward, Louisville, Ky. W. Slyer reported that he didn't think it was a good case. P. I sent him down there this week to get whatever complaint from all the men you had. W. Possibly I could work the thing out. If you let me have a record on it. P. Do better than that. Whenever you get in trouble I'll come down and see you. W. You've been promising that for the past six months. P. How long? You mean to say I haven't been there for six months? I'll be there Wednesday or Thursday of next week. W. Do that, Phil, and I'll do the best I can do to iron it out. P. Is Slyer going sour on you? W. I don't know. I don't like to say anything until I know what I'm talking about. P. Find some case and I'll see what I can do with it. W. Fine and I'll buy you a drink. P. I'll be down around noon on Wednesday. Don't worry. W. Okay. I just thought it best to let you know the true conditions. P. Thanks, Jack. To: Mr. Martin Wagner, Ruffner, Charleston. From: Philip G. Phillips. Subject: Ward-Hoyt Minng Company. AUGUST 2, 1938 Answering yours of the 31st, I suggest you take a new charge if you can dig up anything, and I will call Ward to Cincinnati. I agree with you, we certainly should not permit them to get away with what they have been getting away with. gf. To: Mr. Martin Wagner, Office. Subject: McKell Coal Case. P. G. P. AUGUST 6, 1938. There is nothing in the law which makes anyone sign any particular type of agreement. It is possible you might show bad faith on the part of McKell. I suggest you accept a charge and see if you cannot go in and do something. PHILIP G. PHILLIPS. gf. I hope you and Mr. Wagner had a very pleasant trip back from Buffalo. It was good to see you both. I am enclosing for your edification the clipping which we tried to find in the Courier-Express while you were here. Enc. H. J. W. TRIAL EXAMINER SAYS FAIRNESS COST HIM POST DECLARES NLRB FIRED HIM BECAUSE HE INSISTED ON IMPARTIAL LABOR HEARINGS (By Chesly Manly) Washington, D. C., Aug. 15—Hugh C. McCarthy, an examiner for the National Labor Relations Board, charged tonight that he had been "fired" because he refused to be a "torchbearer" for the complaining union in a quasi-judicial hearing and would not permit a labor board attorney to badger a witness. Declaring that a "purge" was underway, Mr. McCarthy charged that eleven other trial examiners had been discharged by the labor board for similar reasons. He said he was told that the twelve examiners, including himself, were discharged because there was not enough work for them, but that the board subsequently engaged seven other examiners. DENIED BY BLOOM Frank Bloom, acting chief trial examiner of the NLRB, denied that McCarthy or the other examiners were discharged because they insisted upon conducting hearings in a fair and impartial manner. He said the board had discontinued the general practice of employing examiners on a per diem basis, but had added some examiners heretofore employed in that manner to the permanent staff. McCarthy had been employed on a per diem basis for about six months. McCarthy told a different story. He said he had received notice orally, in the office of the NLRB, about a week ago that his services no longer would be required. The labor board officials told him there was not enough work for the present force of examiners and that some of them would have to be dropped, he said. "What about those two squawks?" he said he asked the labor board officials. "Oh, they had a bearing on it," he said he was told. The "squawks" mentioned by McCarthy referred to a complaint by the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butchers' Union concerning his conduct of a hearing against the Producers' Produce Company, a farmers' co-operative at Springfield, Mo. The company was charged with violating the national labor relations act through refusing to bargain collectively with its employes in that it refused to sign a written agreement. The union complained that Examiner McCarthy refused to admit evidence concerning the company's attitude toward organized labor prior to the passage of the Wagner labor relations act. STOPPED BADGERING The other complaint related to McCarthy's conduct in refusing to permit Bernard Alpert, attorney for the labor board, to badger a witness. "I was fired," Mr. Carthy said tonight, "when I stopped the board's attorney from badgering a witness, which was conduct shocking to one's sense of decency and fair dealing. "It is reported that the board has not been sustained by the circuit courts of appeals since March as much as prior thereto, because its findings have not been supported by evidence. This would seem to be a natural result of hearings conducted otherwise than the Producers' hearing. None of us are mind readers and should not be torchbearers in a quasijudicial position. However, a 'purge' is on and new trial examiners are being hired. The principle involved is fundamental. The statute is sound and in time such conditions will be corrected, if we all use our best efforts. Although Mr. McCarthy's conduct was not satisfactory to the complaining union and the labor board attorney, he indicated at the close of the hearing that his intermediate report would recommend a finding that the company was guilty of an unfair labor practice in violation of the Wagner Act. Such a finding would be based upon refusal of the farmers' co-operative to sign a written agreement. In two other cases, the labor board has held that refusal to sign a contract constitutes a violation of the Wagner Act, but the courts have not passed upon this muchdisputed question. ORAL AGREEMENT In the Producers' Produce case, Mr. McCarthy said there was no refusal on the part of the company to bargain collectively, as required by the act. The eviden disclosed that the company entered into an oral agreement with the union and that C. E. Lane, president of the company, obtained a 90-day stay in which t "educate" the farmer stockholders as to the advisability of signing the contract "But the 90 days have elapsed and the contract has never been presented to the stockholders," Examiner McCarthy declared at the hearing. The company also was accused of discharging two employes because of uns activity in violation of the Wagner Act. Mr. McCarthy's report, it was indicated, will not sustain this charge, nor recommend that they be reinstated with back pay. The evidence disclosed that the men never belonged to the union, that both were discharged for cause before the union was organized. SEPTEMBER 6, 1938. To: Mr. Wagner, Ruffner, Charleston. I attach herewith copy of letter received from the Local in the Mullens, W. Va matter. You better show it to Jack Easton so he sees we are on the job. I wrote to the Local that as soon as they desire action I will send a field examiner in. gf. To: Mr. Brin, Hermitage, Louisville. Subject: Lorillard. P. G. P. SEPTEMBER 8, 1908. Will you diplomatically contact Sam Evans and see if there is any possibility of a the A. F. O. L. in Louisville cooperating with the C. I. O. local in Middletown? The C. I. O. is very willing to do so. They are being told in Middletown that work is being moved to Louisville, while they are telling the boys in Louisville the converse statement. See what can be done. I understand from Sam Sponseller that Saa Evans is not very cooperative. gf. To: Mr. Martin Wagner. P. G. P. NOVEMBER 3, 1938. I agree that Whetro's use of the Board for political purposes is foul. As a mat ter of fact, he is much more interested in politics than in the Labor Movement anyway. I would be rather careful with him. gf. To: Mr. Stevenson. From: P. G. P. Subject: Frigidaire Corporation. NOVEMBER 5, 1938. Please arrange a meeting between C. I. O. and A. F. O. L. groups in your presence at your room in Dayton. Please consult me before doing so. It is understood, of course, that this meeting is confined to the executive board of the two unions. gf. 1939 JANUARY 11, 1:32 To: Mr. Wagter, Ruffner, Charleston. From: P. G. P. Subject: Mt. Vernon Dairy Co. Your memo Jan. 10. It would be too bad if Ritchie has a few more scraps with us. I hope he his a strong heart. His reaction about DuPont interests me tremendously. I happen to know that at a meeting of the National Association of Manufacturers Spargo stated that his company had received fair treatment here. Incidentally, he phoned me last week concerning a personal matter upon which he wanted me to do him a favor. Regarding your remarks about DuPont in general, when Folio desires to proeeed we will, of course, do so. I agree with you, however, in what you say about an election. I think you are a thousand percent right that we should issue complaints in cases where they probably could be used as a basis for negotiation and settlement. The only difficulty, in fact the difficulty, is that the Board violently disagrees and does not feel we should issue more complaints than it will allow is to proceed to trial on. Once in a while in a rare instance they will permit the procedure to be used that you suggest. I don't think DuPont is such a case. Suppose they did break it up, you would only have another one. About the only value a hearing has in an 8 (2) case is education. I think if you issue a complaint and then accept a settlement which isn't going to give any satisfaction, it is worse than issuing none at all. GF. FEBRUARY 1, 1939. To: Mr. Leonard Brin. From: P. G. P. Subject: Emmart Packing Co., Louisville. I don't like to dismiss a case of this sort if you can possibly get a withdrawal. I agree that under the circumstances it is rather difficult to approach the company. On the other hand, they wrote me a fairly decent letter about it, a copy of which I enclose. I would suggest that Pinger ought to show that to his members and then withdraw it. I have no doubt you could also get the company to write me stating that "we are not employing and would not employ spies," which ought to satisfy them. The trouble with dismissing a case is that it gives the union a right to appeal to Washington and go through a lot of red tape, which Pinger would doubtless do in this particular situation. gf. To: Mr. Martin Wagner, Charleston. FEBRUARY 7, 1939. 1 I enjoyed your comments on the Walsh Amendments. As a matter of fact, I think they are worse than you state. It's plainly an effort to the Board made by narrow minded men whose anger against the C. I. O. is so bitter that they would, to defeat the C. I. O., defeat the only decent, honest Board that the Government has ever designed to help labor. The Board is really very worried about them. I will tell you when I see you about what I learned in Washington. As a matter of fact, they have called in several field attorneys to do nothing but work on the possibilities of the amendments. They are also expecting the manufacturers to shoot in some even worse, and there is quite a possibility that legislative riders may be attached to the appropriations bill in a foul and vicious fashion. gf. To: Mr. Slyer. From: P. G. P. Subject: Adler Manufacturing Co. FEBRUARY 21, 1939. See what you can do about getting a withdrawal in Adler. Ed Weyler ought to be able to handle it as there is nothing left for us to do. If the union won't withdraw we have no alternative but to dismiss, as all other issues are taken care of. gf. To: Mr. Leonard Brin, Hotel Continental, Pineville. Following are your assignments as of April 1st: IX C 923, 924, 928. Kentucky Printing Company. APRIL 1, 1939. Attempt to settle the strike and adjust cases. On the evidence there can be no complaint issued and, therefore, your efforts at mediation must be paramount. Deleted by order of the committee. IX C 254. Elkhorn Coal Co. Attempt to clean up this chestnut. IX C 709. Kentucky Straight Creek. The instructions given February 26 read as follows: "Call on that so-and Atkins and call him a liar. Anyhow, see what you can do about it. If yo can't do anything I will then ask him again to come to Cincinnati. Send e a report after you see him." Is there any reason to vary these instructions IX C 394. Dixie Bell. I will hold this open until I can talk to Golden in person. IX C 834. Straight Creek Coal. IX C 835. Barker Straight Creek. IX C 836. Kentucky Cardinal. IX C 838. Coleman Fuel. Which of these cases look like good ones? Which of these cases shot": the union be asked to drop? In which is it possible to get any form of st tlement? I don't think you ought to go to the mountains until you fee better but I feel that you get some action on these cases after you do. IX C 786. Town Talk Cap. No action is necessary as these cases are being handled by SWOC from Pittsburgh. Kindman, Kentucky, cases. Mr. Armistead will let you know if any further action is necessary. IX R 293. Southland Coal. IX R 280. Diamond Ashless Coal. gf. Does the union desire action? The Board raises hell when I hold the "R" cases very long and I like to know what they are all about. To: Mr. Leonard Brin, Hermitage, Louisville. MAY 11, 1939. The following telegram was received today from Mr. Pat Ansboury, Business Agent, Truck Drivers Local Union # 89, Louisville: Please send representative in here of the National Labor Relations Board I am having trouble with the Reliance Trucking Company. I wrote Mr. Ansboury that you would be in Louisville Saturday and that! was asking you to contact him. I would appreciate it if you would do so. gf. To: Mr. Martin Wagner, Charleston, W. Va. Subject: Ohio Apex Company. Your memo June 7. JUNE 12, 193 You are right in your answer to Chappel. It is completely up to the union s to whether they prefer to leave the case in the hands of the Board or to pern.." the Department of Labor to go in. The latter will try to steal everything they can, and after they have bitched the case good enough, will ask for your help gf. To: Mr. Stevenson, Portsmouth, Dayton. From: P. G. P. Subject: IX ( 910. JUNE 19, 199 Did you know the last time you were in Portsmouth there was also a mat named Buford Moore, 3702% Rhodes Ave., New Boston, Ohio, who filed 1 similar claim against Wheeling Steel? I feel very definitely that these claims are falses. In fact, my correspondence with the Pittsburgh office of S. W. 0 C would indicate that the business representatives in Portsmouth are too yellow |