The only witness who testified concerning the visit of the Examiner, Mike Spingola, testified in answer to questions by the Board's counsel as follows: Q. And your testimony is that he would subpoena you and compel you to talk in court? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did he show you his identification card? A. Yes, sir. Memo to Mr. McTernan Q. That says that he works for the Labor Board? A. Yes sir. Q. You saw that? A. Yes sir. Q. You didn't find that out by looking at his license plates? The Examiner emphatically denies that any time did he pursue a terrorizing attitude toward the above named parties and that at no time had any person been threatened, coerced or intimidated, either directly or by inference. The charge that the Examiner criticized their choice of a union and "told one that she had joined the wrong union" is entirely without foundation. The charge that the Examiner shielded his identity is equally without foundation and can only be the result of a vivid imagination. LL: mfa. Informal Memo-4-1-39 L. LUBLINER, Field Examiner. MARCH 29, 1939. Robert Littler, attorney, phoned that he had been jumped on for what he said about the Board at the Commonwealth Club, particularly about Salaries of Trial Examiners. I suggested he call Cliff O'Brien at Pacific Coast Labor Bureau and perhaps look at Madden's testimony before the Senate Committee. He will do so. Janigian met him on the street and jumped all over him for his statement that the Board was not pro C. I. O., but he still feels it is not. He asked what we objected to in his talk and I told him, among other things, his ideas on how to prevent goon-squads by amending the Act as he suggested were novel and no doubt unworkable. He admitted that he hadn't figured how it would work out but thought it could be done; but agreed that perhaps the police court was the proper place to find a remedy. J. P. JENNINGS. JPJ: mfa. Exhibit No. 1619 [Introduced into evidence in Volume 24, Part I, August 1, 1940] Documents Relating to the Activities of the 21st Regional Office, N. L. R. B. (Los Angeles) PERSONNEL Field Examiners: Memo. To: Towne Nylander. From: William R. Walsh. Subject: Reports to the Board. DECEMBER 13, 1938. For some time it has occurred to me that the attention of the Field Examiners should be directed to a condition which I find exists in some of the reports that are written to the Board asking authorization for the issuance of complaints, and that is this: that the Field Examiner, acting in excess enthusiasm for his case frequently misquotes the testimony of witnesses. For example, in a recent case that we tried the Field Examiner reports as follows: "A is alleged to have stated at this meeting that the workers would back B, the employer, rather than the union in dispute over the two employees. The fol lowing employees, members of the union, will testify to the above, listing C, D. E, and F." At the trial of this case all of the witnesses named in the report were called and asked the specific question of whether A made the remarks as set forth in the report of the Field Examiner. Not one single witness would testify that A said anything like the reported statement. Also, in the same report, under the heading of "Comments" the Examiner reports as follows: "The case is of particular importance as there is also some evidence that certain employer groups are back of this effort to break the union in B (Employer) and if successful it might be the beginning of such a move in other shops." There is no evidence in the file upon which to predicate any such important statement and ernest investigation by the legal staff was unable to elicit any information upon which such a statement could be based. I point out these two instances merely to indicate that reports such as these are misleading to the Board when passing upon the request for authorization. In this discussion of these problems I do not mean to indicate that the Examiner who wrote this particular report was wrong in his statements, but these statements were never verified and the witnesses would not testify as outlined by the Examiner. Probably the reason I am moved to complain about this particular situation is that it is impossible for the legal staff to ascertain in advance the correctness of the Examiner's report, nor is it possible to interview the witnesses prior to asking the Board for authorization to issue complaint. I have deliberately refrained from giving you the name of the case involved here inasmuch as I do not desire to start any controversy with any particular Examiner, but merely in a constructive way attempt to point out a situation which, I think, should be remedied. (Pacific Electric Bldg.), New Federal Bldg. Several men discharged by company at Mayer, Arizona. Members entirely dissatisfied with work of Yeager. Urgently request another investigator be assigned preferably Howard. Kindly give this request your every consideration to the end that we can arrive at an early settlement of this case. Believe it will work to the advantage of both the union and the Labor Board. REID ROBINSON, President, I. U. M. M. S. W. GEORGE PRATT, [Postal Telegraph] DENVER, COLO., August 12, 1939. National Labor Relations Board, (Pacific Electric Bldg.), New Federal Bldg. Understand you are doing some work in the I. A. office. We have tense situation Mayer Arizona with life of local threatened unless some settlement reached. Members opposed investigator Yagers handling situation. Insist on change of investigators. Kindly do what you can to have another man sent there. Understand Yager at Bisbee now. Regards. REID ROBINSON, AUGUST 12, 1939. To: Alice Rosseter, Acting Regional Director. From: William R. Walsh, Regional Attorney, 21st Region. I have received two telegrams this morning from Reid Robinson, President of the I. U. M. M. S. W., one addressed to yourself, and one addressed to George Pratt, relating to Yager's work at Mayer, Arizona. Yager reported in this morning and the situation is as follows: Maurice Howard originally had handled the case and conducted the investigation with reference to discrimination of two workmen in a case involving an 8 (1), (3), and (5). Being unable to complete his efforts on compliance during his trip, Mr. Yager, who was in Arizona on several other matters, undertook to complete the work on the case. The recommendation of Mr. Howard regarding the reinstatement of one man was followed by the Company; the second employee, who was allegedly discharged discriminatorily, had not been reinstated. Yager made further efforts to get this man reinstated and worked out arrangements whereby the employer would sit down with James Robinson and attempt to negotiate a contract. It appears from Yager's report to me that the compliance efforts on this particular case have been exhausted and nothing further can be done either by Howard or anyone else in this situation. Consequently, we do not believe that Mr. Yager should be replaced on the case and Howard sent to Arizona as no good would be accomplished thereby. It had However, this situation presents to this office a much broader problem. been the policy of Dr. Nylander to humor various labor organizations by supplying to them the Examiners with whom they desired to work. This policy, in the opinion of this office, has worked to a decided disadvantage to the office for the reason that if one Examiner had a lucky break on one case and was again requested to handle work for that Union, and did not get a lucky break, immediately the Union would protest that the work was unsatisfactory and ask that someone else be assigned to the case. It is equally embarrassing to the men to be asked to be removed from the case as it is to be asked to be assigned to it. It is therefore the opinion of this office that this particular practice should be discontinued and that the assignment of cases be made by this office and that the Examiner thus assigned complete the case. Arizona has given the office a great deal of trouble. The A. F. L. representatives refuse to work with an Examiner that works on C. I. O. cases and vice versa. This causes a labeling of Examiners which is extremely embarrassing to them and impairs their usefulness. Consequently, this office desires to withdraw all the men who were previously and are presently assigned to cases in Arizona, hand all of these cases to a new Field Examiner, and advise all of the Unions in Arizona that that Field Examiner is assigned to Arizona. If they don't like itthat's tough. When I refer to "this office", I think I had better explain what happened. When George Pratt left the other day he advised the staff that I, being the ranking officer, would be responsible to see that the work was properly carried on inasmuch as it was not feasible for you to be present to direct the actual work. Accordingly, I asked that the staff set up a cabinet to consist of two Field Examiners and one Lawyer; that this cabinet would advise me on questions of policy and that if we made a bad guess, it would be the collective bad guess of the office. Consequently, I feel a definite strengthening in the morale of the office, renewed interest in the work, and a great deal of intelligent effort directed toward the solution of the problems that we have in this Region. This policy, of course, will continue until the Board selects a Regional Director to take over. It is in conjunction with all the Field Examiners that we have arrived at the policy relative to Arizona. The question of preference of Field Examiners by certain Unions locally is somewhat of a problem and we expect to handle this problem in the same way. Undoubtedly for the time being there will be many protests both to you and to the Board, consequently, I am advising both the Board and yourself on our stand. If you for any reason feel that this policy is unwise and should not be followed out, please advise me at once. In regard to Reid Robinson's protest, I would suggest that you wire him on receipt of this memorandum that you are advised that the compliance efforts of this office have been completed on the Mayer, Arizona, case and that no good would be accomplished by Yager's removal. I might say for your benefit that George Yager is a very competent man and I am sure did everything that could be done toward bringing about a settlement of this case. I am enclosing herewith copies of the two telegrams referred to above. WRW ;is fol. lit. WILLIAM R. WALSH, Regional Attorney. 218054-41-vol. 24, pt. 234 Office Memo #55. AUGUST 16, 199. To: Staff of Field Examiners. From: William R. Walsh, Regional Attorney. Subject: Arizona Cases. As you recall, at our first meeting I proposed writing to Mr. Witt to tell him that we were changing our policy toward the Arizona situation and outiİL.LZ a plan that we had agreed upon, which was to withdraw all the Arizona ca from Howard, Yager and McKay and turn them over to Davies, advising the Unions that he was the Board's Examiner for Arizona. I am pleased to report that I have the following wire from Mr. Nathan Witt: "Re: Memo August twelfth proceed as indicated memorandum. Please report further after Davies has worked on Arizona cases." HOWARD WILLIAM R. WALSH, Regional Attorney. POMERANCE MCKAY YAGER JOHNSON DAVIES FILE Trial Examiner Charles Lowy: [Air mail] SEPT. 30, 1937. To: National Labor Relations Board. Subject: North Whittier Heights Citrus Assn., XXI-C-359. Mr. Lowy, Trial Examiner in this case, just advised me that on the basis of the evidence introduced, he feels it is necessary to recommend dismissal of the case on jurisdictional grounds, maintaining the Packing House Workers are agricultural and not industrial. Mr. Persinger feels that Lowy is all wrong, but if Lowy should give out an intermediate report recommending dismissal, the damage to the organizing activities of the Packing House Workers during the period between the intermediate report and a possible reversal by the Board would be such that it would take years to overcome. Persinger has not introduced any economic data and I feel it is essential that we should have in the record economic data and also date relative to the strikes and the effect on interstate commerce of such strikes in similar Packing Houses, such as the lettuce deal in Salinas and the lettuce and melon deals in the Imperial Valley. Consequently I recommended to Persinger that he ask for a continuance for the purpose of introducing new evidence on interstate commerce aspects when the respondent finished his case tonight or tomorrow. This will mean a delay of approximately 28 days, as Lowy, the Trial Examiner, is leaving for Chicago at noon on October 1st and does not expect to return until October 28, 1937. During this interval of time I propose to send a copy of the transcript to the Board with the request that you go over the material that is now in, advise us what we should do to strengthen our case, and I also request that you have Dr. Saposs and his staff prepare as much information for us as they have available. When Dr. Saposs gets here on October 6, 1937, I propose to discuss the entire matter with him so that he will see our problem and be better able when he returns to Washington to have his staff procure what is needed to bolster this case. I am particularly worried over the entire matter because it involves more than 65,000 workers, most of them now being organized for the first time in history and as a group are perhaps more in need of organization than any other group of workers in the United States. The "R" case, Sierra Madre Lamanda Citrus Assn., XXI-R-286, has been completed and the Board will undoubtedly, if the evidence warrants such action, instruct me to hold an election among these workers in the immediate future. Such an order from the Board cannot be appealed and evidently cannot be enjoined and will have a most salutary effect upon organization during the period of time elapsing between the present and the time the North Whittier Heights case is finally concluded. We know positively that the North Whittier Heights case will be appealed and carried through to the Supreme Court for decision if the Board's decision is against the respondent. I hope I am not unduly alarmed about this case, but I do not want to see a record leave this office that is not as complete as it is possible to make it even though such completeness may involve a lapse of time. TOWNE NYLANDER, Director. To: National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C. Subject: Charles Lowy-Your memo of Oct. 2nd. OCTOBER 7, 1937. Mr. Lowy is a meek and mild little man, without the courage of his convictions (if he has any convictions), and who takes considerable time to explain very carefully to counsel for respondent just why he feels it necessary to rule in a certain manner, and who is normally afraid to overrule any objections or motions made by respondent. Mr. Lowy lacks anything in the nature of a dominating personality and mental decisiveness. In short, he is a very poor Trial Examiner. During the past year, Lowy has suffered a prolonged illness which has apparently aged him tremendously and caused him to lose his grip. A year ago, he was far from satisfactory,-now he is impossible. In brief, "he doesn't know what it's all about", and he doesn't have the force to utilize what little knowledge he has left. Now to answer your question: He conducted the hearing as the above description would suggest. TOWNE NYLANDER, Director. dp/llg [Air mail] NOVEMBER 29, 1937. To: National Labor Relations Board. Subject: North Whittier Heights Citrus Association, Case No. XXI-C-359. The record in this matter was closed Friday, November 26th. At the present time, all packing houses in Southern California are running at minimum capacity. They will continue to do so until late in December or early in January when the navel orange season opens. At that time, the unions will again begin a strong drive for membership. There are about 65,000 packing house workers in the State who will be definitely affected by the Board's decision. There will be 100,000 or more agricultural laborers who will be indirectly affected by the Board's decision, in that, if the packers are organized the agricultural laborers can be organized successfully, otherwise, it would be impossible. It is important that the unions' drive get off to a good start early in the season. Mr. Lowy, trial examiner in this matter, is not only timid but completely ignorant of the issues and law involved in the case. Persinger and I are very much afraid that Mr. Lowy will find that the Board has no jurisdiction. Such an intermediate report would have a disastrous effect, particularly by reason of the fact that it will be handed down about the first of the year. In order to avoid the adverse effects of an intermediate report finding no jurisdiction and in order to give the unions the benefit of a favorable Board decision at the time when the packing houses begin to reemploy large numbers of persons, I strongly recommend that this case be made a Board case and that it be given precedence in an effort to complete the decision by the middle of January if possible. DP: is ec Tom Emerson, Assistant General Counsel. Trial Examiner Roland McNitt: To: National Labor Relations Board. From: 21st Region, Los Angeles. TOWNE NYLANDER, Director. Subject: Samson Tire & Rubber Corporation, XXI-N-4. MAY 16, 1936. Trial Examiner McNitt insists that the union bring its records into the hearings. The union strenuously objects. I dislike seeing precedent established of union records being produced in open hearing. |