to indicate to the men that they have no case and are trying to pitch it off on the Board. This, of course, is extremely confidential and not to be repeated, but it does seem to me that the cases don't warrant more than an investigation to show how ridiculous the men's claims are. Of course, if your investigation should show any discrimination we would want to do what we could but if it doesn't, they should either be withdrawn forthwith or a dismissal recommended. gf. JULY 15, 1939. To: Nathan Witt, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C. Subject: Harlan situation. We are in close touch with matters in Harlan County, and the latest information we have is that negotiations between the operators and officials of United Mine Workers are in progress in Knoxville, Tenn., today. A field examiner has been sent down. However, up to the present time the unions have been unable to furnish any evidence that the companies are guilty of any violations of the Act in connection with the present situation. RSM: GG. To: V. J. Perricelli, Lewallen Hotel, Harlan, Ky. Subject: Rembrandt Lamp Corp. Decision. R. S. MACKE. JULY 27, 1939. You will note the decision in the Rembrandt Lamp Corporation case about which you will get a press release today. The Board held improper a unit consisting of polishers and buffers instead of polishers, platers and buffers. Strangely enough, Edwin S. Smith dissented and held the unit correct. PGP: GG. To: Mr. Stevenson. Subject: Sorg Paper Company, IX C 945. Your memo August 2. P. G. P. AUGUST 4, 1939. I think you are right. If Boxwell cannot give us any information, I suggest having Harry Doll in next time you are in town and both of us going over all the evidence we have so far, putting it right up to him as to whether or not he feels we should and could take any action. gf. Mr. Slyer, Seelbach, Louisville. From: P. G. P. Subject: Green Bag Cement Company. AUGUST 7, 1939. I had a long talk with Mr. Stinson today in this matter. He said that he felt that there was no sense in pursuing any further settlement efforts as Scherer would not settle and insisted that I issue a complaint. I did not see fit to do so and he then said would I please dismiss the case since he knew he cannot get any settlement, and let him appeal to Washington. I told him I would be glad to do so; as a matter of fact, I feel I probably should have done so a long while ago-not to let him appeal, but rather because the case is one in which I don't think we should issue a complaint. I am not quite certain that I agree with you that the evidence could not show a violation. I think it is questionable and would be unusually difficult to prove, but there is a slight possibility that we might win it. On the other hand, I don't think the possibility is great enough to warrant the issuance of a complaint. Furthermore, even if the facts were such that a case could easily be proved. I don't think the company is of sufficient importance or the case to warrant our exercising our discretionary powers in issuing the complaint. After all, there has been a great deal of activity by the Labor Board in that particular region and it should suffice without another one. gf. To: Leonard Brin. From: P. G. Phillips. AUGUST 8, 1999. Subject: Dixie-Bell Coal Company, IX-C-394. I The next time you see Golden and Lay, talk to them about Dixie-Bell have withheld action on this a long time on account of their letter, but I do not think the Board will authorize it to be continued much longer. Please let me know as soon as possible. PGP: GGmr. To: Leonard Brin. From: P. G. P. Subject: Kentucky Utilities. Your memo August 7. P. G. PHILIPS. AUGUST 9, 1989 A notice such as you send is one of the most troublesome things in the world It could, of course, be merely an honest statement of policy. I doubt it very much in this particular case. That's why it is so clever. It can, of course, have drast effects. It can be the very thing to ruin the moral of the employees and to mie impossible union organization. That's why it is so good. I doubt very much whether the courts are advanced sufficiently to hold that such a thing is bad. gf. To: George S. Slyer, Brown-Proctor, Winchester, Ky. Subject: Fire Brick Cases. SEPTEMBER 12, 1939. When you return, I think you and I should have a conference with Doll cocerning the fire brick cases. I think you are perfectly right in the way you propose handling this matter As far as I am concerned, I don't think there will be any complaint issued on the 8 (2) charge. The Board is weakening considerably in its views on what should constitute an 8 (2) case, which will be brought to trial. I will go over that with you when we next get together, as well as tell you a lot of here-and-there stuff about my conference in Washington. gf. INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION OCTOBER 17, 1939 Dictated October 16, 1939 To: Philip G. Phillips. From: Karl Filter. Subject: P. Lorillard & Co., Middletown, Ohio. Martin Ernest of 1819 Manchester Street, Middletown, Ohio, was in the office this day, alleging that he had been discriminatorily discharged by the above-na med company on or about the 24th day of February, 1939. Questioning of Mr. Ernest revealed that he had been an employee for the com pany for about six years. Initially he had been a truck driver for a period of about three years and until he had been injured. Following his recovery he was transferred to work as a machine tender and continued on that work until about a year and a half ago when he was transferred to work as a hard laborer, stackit g containers in the plant. His health has not been good and he repeatedly asked that he be given lighter work because he felt that he could no longer continue on a hard laboring job which he was doing. Subsequently, to his third or fourth stich request, he was preemptorily laid-off by the company. He has been drawing a employment compensation and the company, on the form authorizing the payment of unemployment compensation, stated as the reason for the authorization "part time." It is not clear what the company intended by that phrase. The man states that he has repeatedly asked for work but has always been met with non-committal answers by the employment office. He stated that he joined the C. I. O. union shortly after it was first started at the plant in 1937. He carried no evidence of membership in the union and stated that he has allowed his union dues to lapse for some length of time. Examination by Martin Wagner clearly showed that he was in no way active on the picket lines and the man admitted that he was never in any way active in the union although he claimed to have attended meetings with reasonable regularity. He could give no reason whatever for belief that the company was in any way aware of his union activities and was at a loss to give any reason why he should have or might have been singled out for discrimination by the company because of his union activities. He stated that he had gone to see the union officers at Middletown several times, requesting them to take his case up with the company, but the union was of the opinion that he had quit his job rather than having been discharged or laid-off. (Investigation probably will reveal if those were the true facts.) It was explained to the man that he had every right to file a charge with the Board but that in the light of the evidence it was not felt that he had a very strong case. Because of the fact that the union has already filed charges against the company on behalf of several persons, I suggested that he should first consult with Harry Doll while he was in the city and that I would be very glad to discuss the matter with Mr. Doll and would be helpful in amending the charge so as to include the name of Martin Ernest should Mr. Doll request it. The time now being 5: 15 p. m., the writer has not heard anything from Mr. Doll and probably nothing further will be heard from Martin Ernest. KF: SP KARL FILTER. INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION DECEMBER 12, 1939. To: Mr. Phillips. From: William S. Gordon. Subject: Gardner Richardson Company, IX-C-1073. On December 11, James T. Mason, one of the former complainants, called at the office. He said that on his reinstatement he was informed that he needed vision correction and that he would be rejected for employment if he did not get the correction by December 22. He has attended to this and was OK'd by the nurse recently. He gave me some notes which he made on the statements made to him by the various company officials who interviewed him on his reinstatement in October. Mason told me one thing which it may be well to inquire into. He said that while he was being examined by the nurse on October 12 (October 13?), two girls came to the nurse's office for their physical examination prior to being hired in. Mason heard the nurse say to these girls, "We don't have any union here-we don't need any. We have the best collection of men to cooperate with the company." WSG/bw Memo. To: Mr. Phillips. From: Karl Filter. Subject: Re Kentucky Ridge Coal Co. W. S. G. Only the following cases are still outstanding against the above Co.: (1) Richard Lawson, (2) John D. Collins, (3) Barton. Conferences were held with the following persons on 12/9 at Pineville & Harlan concerning these men James -?-, Lawrence Dwyer, James Golden, Dr. Stacy, Thomas (Jack) Whitfield. Results of those conferences were (a) In re Richard Lawson: Asher Land Co. refused to enter into conditional lease with Richard Lawson as agreed previously. Lawson via Golden agrees to settle for two yrs. free occupancy of premises & then vacate. Golden conveys ofer to E. B. Wilson & offer accepted by Asher Land Co. subject to the approval of Ky. Ridge Co.-its lessee. Ky. Ridge via Jack Whitfield, claims lack of knowl edge of late events. Latest offer at Lawson rejected tentatively. Whitfield agrees to settle issues with Asher Land Co. either the 11th or 12th. (b) In re John D. Collins: Positive diagnosis of T. B. made, following admi: istration of O. T. test, by the county health officer. Dr. Stacy, representing Ca agrees that this is not conclusive. Collins is to have additional X-ray plates made as soon as possible. (c) Barton is to submit to eye examination by eye specialist as soon as possible to determine condition of his eyes. H Mr. William H. Taylor, a former employee of the above company, came in today. He believes that he was discharged for union activities and wanted to find out the procedure on filing charges and prosecuting a case before the Board His story is this: He was employed by the company about 91⁄2 years ago in the ice cream department. His regular job is making and packing fancy individua ice cream moulds, but he states that because of his many years of experience he can do almost any job in the department. As you know, the Teamsters have had a contract with the company for some time covering the dairy employees and truck drivers. About two years ago the C. I. O. was talking of organizing the ice cream department and Taylor went to the Teamsters Union and urged them to take in the employees in that department rather thơm let them join the C. I. O. At the request of the Team sters Union Taylor got all of the employees in his department to attend a meeting at that time, where a great majority of them joined the unit. A contract was entered into with the company covering the ice cream department. This provided for a closed shop and check-off. Since that time Taylor has not been particularly active in the union, has held no office, and has served on no committees, but he states that the men in the department always look to him for advice about the union because he was the one who brought it in. In January 1939 he went to the union with a complaint about overtime for the men. The union took this up with the company and forced the company to pay the men all the back overtime that was due. At that time Jos. Ellig. the head of the ice cream department, warned Taylor that he'd better stop going to the union and “squawking" all the time. Taylor took this advice and took no part in any of the union's activities from January 1939 until November He did not even attend most of the union meetings during that period. On November 1, 1939, the union signed & new contract with the company which provided for a wage increase for all employees on a 54-hour week. On November 6, two of the union men were out at the plant and had a conversation with Taylor while he was at work. At that time he complained bitterly about the contract and told the union organizers that it would not get a raise for anyone in his department, as they were all on a 48-hour week. The union then were surprised at this and said that they would take it up with the compny immediately and insist on a different arrangement for the ice cream department so that the employees in that department would also get a raise. To days later, Taylor was laid off, allegedly for lack of work. He says that men with much less seniority than he were retained and that he could prove without doubt that he was the most valuable man in the department. He took his grievance to the union organizer, Pete Doll, who promised to take it up with the company and see that he was returned to work. When the union did take Taylor's ense up, the company officials told the union men that they were sur prived at this interest, since Taylor had worked at French Bauer as a seab and strike breaker during an old teamsters strike there. The union thereupon dropped the case and refused to do any more about it. Taylor admits that he worked at the plant during the old strike. He says that he was working in Lexington, Kentucky, at the time and the company wired him to return to work immediately. He returned and found the strike on. Having no money and no job, he went to work anyway. He says he explained these facts to Pete Doll at the time he joined the union and Doll told him it wouldn't make any difference. I explained to Mr. Taylor his right to file a charge and the procedure which we would follow if he decided to do so. He realizes the many weaknesses of his case, however, and said that he wanted to think it over and have another talk with Doll before he made up his mind. He is more afraid of antagonizing the union than the company, because he does not want the union to black list him as it has threatened to do. MI/bw M. I. INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DECEMBER 19, 1939. To: Philip G. Phillips. From: Mary Iliff. Subject: Beechwood Dairy Farms. (No case.) A Mr. Lindner, whose son is employed by the above company, came in today. He told me that the company has a contract with the Teamsters to pay its drivers $39.00 a week. In spite of this contract, the drivers only get $22.00 a week. Recently the company told all the drivers that it would give each of them a check for $39.00 each week, which they would cash at the company's office, and return $17.00. Mr. Lindner says that he does not think the union will do anything about it but wanted to know whether his son and the other employees could sue on the contract. I explained that we had no jurisdiction over such a case and that if he wanted to sue on the contract he would have to consult an attorney. He then asked me if I would recommend an attorney who was familiar with labor law. I told him that it was not our practice to recommend attorneys but that I would be glad to furnish him with the names of several attorneys who handle labor matters and that he could select any one of them. I told him that J. W. Brown was a local attorney for the A. F. O. L., Julius Holzberg was a local attorney for the C. I. O., Taft, Stetinius & Hollister were attorneys for the Amalgamated Clothing Workers and the I. B. E. W. in some cases, and that Mr. Sagmeister, a local attorney, was an officer of the Brewery Workers Union. M. I. MTI GF Exhibit No. 1618 [Introduced into evidence in Volume 24, Part I, August 1, 1940] Documents Relating to the Activities of the 20th Regional Office, N. L. R. B. (San Francisco) Activities in Regard to Amendment of the Act: To: Benedict Wolf, 3401 Broadway, N. Y. C. JANUARY 4, 1939. Since receipt of your letter of December 21st I have been endeavoring to reach as many A. F. of L. unions as possible, and requesting them to write or wire their congressmen and senators as you suggested. No doubt you are aware that California is the battle ground in the A. F. of L.-C. I. O. fight. Because of recent hearings conducted by the Board in which A. F. of L. contracts were involved, and the national policy of A. F. of L., I believe the local officers are not free to act although many are so disposed. |