If the records are produced for scrutiny of Trial Examiner alone, the respondent will file objection. If the respondent examines record, the fact of weakness of actual membership will be revealed and jeopardize the entire organization campaign of the union in Southern California. Besides it will be decidedly injurious for the Los Angeles Times to have evidence as to how the unions carry members for months without dues. I have advised union to refuse request of McNitt without a subpena. I am suggesting to McNitt that he refuse to ask for a subpena and that if respondent wants records in hearing they must request subpena. TN: V [Air mail] TOWNE NYLANDER, Director. To: National Labor Relations Board. Subject: Douglas Aircraft Co. Inc., XXI-C-183, XXI-C-220. JULY 19, 1937. The board has taken 22 days to present its case and when Seward rested, Elliot, attorney for the respondent requested recess for a week claiming that it would enable him to get his case in better shape so that it would expedite the hearing. Mr. McNitt did not grant the attorney's request, but did grant a recess from Friday, July 16th to Tuesday, July 20th. The case has dragged for two reasons: Firstly, we had a large number of witnesses to put on in an attempt to prove the 60 discrimination cases and we also had the company union charge which required considerable time. Secondly, Elliot the attorney for the Douglas Company is a picayunish crossexaminer, often taking three and four hours on the cross-examination after direct examination of from 30 minutes to an hour. When Mr. McNitt objected, claiming that the material had been covered, Elliot entered a strenuous protest stating that he did not intend to be cramped for time. The hearings ran from 9:30 A. M., to 5:00 P. M. every day. Elliot believes that it will take him four weeks to present his defense. Mr. McNitt and Seward believe it can be done in two weeks. This is one of the hardest fought cases we have ever had. To indicate with the type of personality we have to deal with in Elliot, I would like to tell you of a little incident with the transcript. We had a working arrangement with Wahlberg for a number of years that whenever the respondent or any party to the case orders a "daily", we should receive a copy without any additional cost to the Board. This has always been known to the respondent and in the Shell Oil case, a copy was delivered twice daily. There was no objection to this procedure. Elliot, however, who receives a transcript twice daily, learned that Wahlberg was supplying Seward with copies and entered a vigorous protest, stating that he saw no reason why he should put ammunition into the hands of the enemy. Wahlberg talked to me about it, and I explained to him that while we would like to receive daily copies when the respondent receives it, we were not in a position to pay for it and we had to abide by the situation created by Elliot's objection. This means that Wahlberg types out the transcript twice a day for Elliot and at the same time makes the copy we receive, then holds it in his office for seven days as per the contract. Please be assured that we are doing everything possible to expedite this hearing but you can also be sure that Seward is not missing a bet. During the first part of our hearing, a case was also being heard in the Superior Court relative to the criminal conspiracy of 22 of the sit-down strikers. All during this time, Elliot made desperate efforts to secure information at our hearing that could be utilized by the District Attorney in the prosecution, and there was nothing we could do but enter objections and in many instances Seward was compelled to omit certain information in the presentation of our case that would have been injurious to the cause of the strikers in the Superior Court hearing. Elliot's action were all under the guise of cross-examination. Incidentaly, the criminal case resulted in a deadlocked jury and has been reset for trial on August 9th. Consequently during the latter part of our case, Elliot pursued the same tactics evidently hoping something would be revealed to be utilized in the second hearing in the Superior Court. TOWNE NYLANDER, Director. [Airmail] JULY 26, 1937. To: National Labor Relations Board, Mr. Fahy. Seward advised me Friday Morning, July 23, 1937, that he had accepted by long distance telephone the appointment, and that it was necessary for him to leave at once as he had to report for work on Tuesday morning, July 28, 1937. There was no question of my giving or withholding consent in this matter. I suggested to Seward that he write an Air Mail letter to the Board which would give the Board an opportunity to reply before he left. While it is true that Seward should not have left until the Douglas case was straightened out, if he had stayed on for two or three weeks more which we expected was required to complete this case, it would mean that he would necessarily have been required to turn down the appointment from the New York State Labor Relations Board. I did not feel that I could do, more than encourage him and urge him to stay with us but he had definitely committed himself to the Eastern job. Before talking to Roland McNitt, Trial Examiner for the Douglas case, I discussed the matter with Seward and Persinger and felt, and still feel, that Persinger will be able to carry on. Roland McNitt, on the other hand, believes that there should be a more experienced attorney than Persinger on this case. It was this belief on the part of McNitt that prompted my second wire to the Board on the 23rd. Personally I am not worried about the matter as I believe that Persinger will be able to handle it. Undoubtedly he will admit much testimony that Seward might have objected to, and the admission of such evidence will, of course, complicate the record. The thing that does worry me, however, is the use of a local man as Trial Examiner. Roland McNitt is absolutely fair but he has to live and earn a living in this glorious City of the Angels. The Douglas case is a "key" case as it ties up very closely with the Merchants Manufacturing Association, Chamber of Commerce and the "Los Angeles Times", and any local attorney who as Trial Examiner for the Board renders a decision against the Douglas Aircraft Company will find himself handicapped. It is undoubtedly a recognition of this by MeNitt in this case and by Carey McWilliams in other cases that has prompted them to be impartial almost to the point of impotence. I believe that McNitt is doing just as good a job as could any man in Southern California. But I again repeat, most emphatically, that which I have reiterated almost adnauseam, that Trial Examiners in our territory should be from out of the State, preferably from Washington, D. C. TOWNE NYLANDER, Director. TN: LG [Air mail] AUGUST 12, 1937. To: National Labor Relations Board. Subject: Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc., XXI-C-183 & XXI-C-220. Over a strong objection by myself, Trial Examiner McNitt this morning stated for the record, that he will advise complainants named in the "B" list attached to the complaint in this matter, to withdraw their charges and to waive all rights of back pay in consideration of the company's offer of reinstatement. I informed Mr. McNitt that he was exceeding his authority in so doing, and he informed me, as he has done several times before, that I didn't know what I was talking about. I wish again to request, as Dr. Nylander has previously requested, that this be made a Board case as quickly as possible. Otherwise, the Intermediate Report may cause considerable feeling in this area. (Dictated but not read by D. P.) c. c. to Mr. Charles Fahy. DAVID PERSINGER. Towne J. Nylander: To: National Labor Relations Board. JANUARY 11, 1937. Copies of informal report were not submitted to parties. I did send one copy to Edises for his information with, however, the admonition that it be kept confidential. TOWNE NYLANDER, Director. FEBRUARY 25, 1937. ARMY RADIO STATION, Fort McArthur, San Pedro, California: National Labor Relations Board Washington DC Stop Northrop sit down strike this morning approximately two hundred fifty out of twelve hundred stayed in plant Stop Re Douglas grand jury indicted all sit down strikers on felony charging conspiracy Stop Sheriff Biscailuz with three hundred deputies armed with gas and machine guns prepared to enforce warrants and arrest sit down strikers Stop Strikers threatened resistance and a dangerous situation and loss of life was imminent Stop After conference with Busick and Schmolder CIO organizers and James M Carter attorney for strikers I proceeded to plant Stop All pleas on part of Carter Mayor Griffith of Santa Monica and others had failed to change attitude of strikers so Seward and I entered plant discussed matter with strike committee pointing out Board was proceeding to hearing on March fifth Stop Committee then voted to evacuate peacefuly Stop All now lodged in county jail Stop Believe our action in meeting with strikers justified as it saved certain bloodshed and possibly complete collapse of union movement in this area. (Official business) NYLANDER, Los Angeles. Charge: National Labor Relations Board, 205 Federal Building. AUGUST 28, 1937. To: National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., Attention: B. M. Stern. From: 21st Region. Subject: Hollywood Maxwell Company, Case No. XXI-C-371. DEAR B. We had no intentions of violating the Board's instructions relative to complaints, but we were faced with a very tough situation in this case. The strike was on and one of our local courts issued one of the most drastic anti-injunction decisions, which threatened to completely route the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, so after discussing the matter with Mr. Walsh, I wired you as I did, because I did not know what the Board's instruetions were in the matter. You know that sometimes it makes it much easier to deal with a recalcitrant employer when we have a complaint ready to issue, and I don't like to bluff in the matter of issuing complaints because sometimes they call your bluff. However, I think we will straighten this situation out, as we worked last night until 1:30 and believe that Monday afternoon we will have the matter fully adjusted. I imagine that you have your hands full, and sometimes I forget that this is only one of twenty-one offices and shoot things into your lap that I should handle myself. Please forgive and forget. TN: AA TOWNE NYLANDER, Director. MAY 16, 1938. To: Nathan Witt, Secretary. From: William R. Walsh, Regional Attorney. Subject: Ace Foundry, Ltd., Case No. XXI-R-384. DEAR NAT: Your letter to Doctor Nylander of the 14th inst. in the abovecaptioned case has been referred to me for attention. You inquire as to what procedure we employed in this case. The situation is substantially as follows. Having no other instructions to go by, the Doctor and I decided that the procedure I am about to outline would fit the circumstances. We issued a Subpena after proper authorization from the Board and inasmuch as the employer had been extremely nasty to our Field Examiners, we decided that the hearing on the subpena should assume the proportions of a formal hearing, So the Doctor was going to act as the Examiner himself but became engaged and he asked me to sit in his place. In order to make it look right we went to the hearing and he announced that by virtue of the Rules and Regulations he was appointing me to act as Trial Examiner in his place and nobody objected so I proceeded to act. We had a court reporter present, swore the witnesses and proceeded to examine them. After the transcript arrived it seemed that Something else ought to be done so I issued an Intermediate Report. All of these proceedings may or may not be erroneous. However, if we are in error, it is of course your duty to correct us. The Doctor and I have discussed your letter at length and decide that the procedure we used was indigenous to the Twenty-first Region. Whether it was erroneous or not I will leave to your more considerate judgment. However, the procedure was instrumental in bringing forth the information as to the Company's business. Sincerely yours, MAY 17, 1938. To: National Labor Relations Board. Subject: Ace Foundry, Ltd., Case No. XXI-R-384. Answering Witt's letter of May 14th relative to our procedure in examining the records of the company under subpena duces tecum, previous experience had indicated to us that the examination of the records by a Field Examiner under subpena duces tecum, when the respondent had an attorney and in one case, several attorneys present, did not bring the best results. The issuance of the subpena and then an informal examination of the records seem to me to cause quite a let-down in the attitude of the employer and the attorneys. In some cases they were evasive and, not being sworn, were inclined to make statements that I had occasion to openly question. In this particular case, the attorney for the respondent advised us after the subpena had been served that if we were going to make a real examination of the records he would be glad to comply but if we were going to make only a cursory, informal examination, he didn't see that anything could be accomplished and would be inclined to advise his client to resist the subpena. Furthermore, the employer in the present case had been extremely unfriendly, refusing to produce any information whatsoever, apparently on the advice of an attorney; so I decided that when the subpena was answered I would have a court reporter present and conduct the examination myself, sitting as a sort of an Examiner and have the actual examination done by an attorney working with me. When the respondent and his attorney appeared, I found myself tied up in another matter, so I asked Walsh to do the examining. The attorney for the respondent wanted to know by what authority I could designate Walsh instead of doing the job myself. While I was fully aware of the limitations imposed upon the Regional Director under Article II, Section 23 of Rules and Regulations, I proceeded, however, to make the statement that, acting as agent for the Board I was designating Walsh as Examiner for the purpose of this examination. This the record will show. The examination was a very lengthy one as the respondent brought down some two hundred pounds of records which were gone into rather thoroughly. When it was all over and we received the transcript from the reporter, I asked Walsh if he would summarize his findings which would save me the tedious task of going through nearly one hundred pages of transcript. This Walsh did, and while I do not agree that the term "Intermediate Report" should be used on this summary. I do feel that the procedure that we used was particularly valuable. especially in this case. The union was very well pleased with the thorough way in which we went into the matter and, in view of the fact that the Steel Workers Organizing Committee have been after me for the last six or seven months claiming that our examinations of the records of foundries, cast iron, and steel plants have been too perfunctory to bring about the correct results, I was eager to impress them with the thoroughness of the job being done. I can recommend this type of procedure in exceptional cases as the respondest replies much more satisfactorily when an Examiner sits, a reporter is present, atl witnesses are sworn than respondents have in the past at our informal type of examination. TN: mld TOWNE NYLANDER, Director. To: National Labor Relations Board. JUNE 9, 1938. Several times in the past when the AFOL had filed petitions, particularly in the Atolia Mining Company and the Johns-Manville Corporation cases, the CIO filed charges alleging a violation of 8 (2) which I took only as an 8 (1) however as these charges were filed several weeks prior to the time that we set dates for hearings, I held up the "R" cases until we disposed of the "C" cases. In this particular matter the representative of the Furniture Workers Union came into the office June 8th at 4 P. M., with the hearing on the CIO petition scheduled for 9:30 on June 9th, filed a charge and requested that I hold u the hearing until the "C" case was disposed of. I suspected then, and stil suspect that this charge was filed in an attempt to postpone our action in the California Woodturning Company case, as at a previous meeting John Murray International organizer for the carpenters, admitted to me that the AFOL had no members left in the California Woodturning Company and consequently they protested an election. The charge alleges that the superintendent coerced the men into switching their affiliation from the AFOL to the CIO and threat ened them with discharge if they did not make the change and that the AFOL employees were laid off and discriminated against. Trial Examiner Stephenson, who is hearing the "R" case, XXI-R 452, antjelpating a motion for continuance by the AFOL, asked me what I would recom mend if such a motion were forthcoming. I suggested to Stephensen that be should deny the motion, saying that he had no authority to continue on the basis of the alegations brought in and if a charge had been filed it would be investigated by the Director and the Board would ultimately advise wh action should be taken, but that he would continue with the "R" case I also suggested that if the AFOL wished to bring in evidence on discrimination, coercion and intimidation in an attempt to prove that the CIO union was po a proper union in this matter, that he should admit such evidence into the R case, within reason, as such action might placate the AFOL, would afford us a basis of investigation, and might speed matters up as it will be extremely difficult for us to investigate this at the present time as all persons involved are attending the hearings. I recognize full well that the introduction of 8 (2) evidence into a 9 (e) case is not permissible but I believe that a departure from the regular proce dure in this case would be of some value. TN: js To: Mr. Robert Watts, Associate General Counsel. TOWNE NYLANDER, Director. Subject: Shell Oil Company of California, Case No. R 551. JUNE 23, 1938. We have received the comments of the Review Division on the record în the above-captioned case. I referred this comment to Mr. Sokol and I am her with attaching a copy of memorandum from him to me, which I believe wil clarify the situation from his point of view. I followed this hearing rather closely inasmuch as the situation was extremely tense, and I was of the opinion that both the Trial Examiner and thAttorney handling it had their hands full at all times to prevent physical vio lence being done to themselves, as well as the petitioning union, by the four teen interveners. We in this office appreciate that the record is full of extraneons materia' and statements not worthy of credit, but owing to the extremely violent frame of mind that all the parties were in, I think that Sokol and Kennedy did a very creditable job of getting anything done. While the review attorney feels the Board's attorney might have pointed the way for all union repre |