Northrop is now controlled, by Douglas. In the meantime the machinists are going ahead in organizing. If we refuse to hear this petition soon the U. A. W. will find their organization dwindling and the members drifting over to the A. F. of L. or to the alleged company union A. W. U. Hollinshead claims that it may be necessary to strike the plant again in order to force recognition as the sole bargaining agent-even though a strike may prove disastrous-it will be better to chance it than suffer the slow death they are now threatened with. Frankly and confidentially the C. I. O. movement in L. A. has not had the most astute leadership and consequently has suffered in power, growth and prestige. However, I do urge action on this case as I do not anticipate with any pleasure the complaint that through my dilatory tactics-either the A. F. of L. or the C. I. O. has suffered. TN: V TOWNE NYLANDER, Director. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD MAY 11, 1937. To: National Labor Relations Board. Subject: Northrop Corporation, XXI-R-104. Answering Benedict Wolf's wire of May 6th, further investigation reveals very definitely that the charge of failing to bargain collectively, with proof of representation based on the previous election, would not be preferable to a new election. There are a number of reasons for this conclusion: The first set of facts: The election held among the Northrop employees in March of this year was conducted entirely by the company with, however, the Mayor of El Segundo acting as an impartial observer. I was requested to assist in this election but refused on the grounds that we could not participate in any election that was not under the Board's supervision. If we should issue a charge at the present time recognizing this company conducted election as a bona fide basis of proof that the union represented a majority of the employees, I believe we would be establishing a precedent that might lead to further difficulties. For example, while I know that the Northrop election was conducted in a fair and impartial manner I am not so sure that the election among the Douglas employees, held about the same time and conducted by the company, was equally fair and impartial. The Douglas election was conducted while some of the employees were on strike and these striking employees took no part in the election. At the Douglas plant the now defunct Douglas Employees Association won the election. Although this organization, the Douglas Employees Association, has been dissolved there is a question before us as to whether or not the new organization, Aircraft Workers Union, is or is not merely a continuation of the Douglas Employees Association. In fact we have a charge that alleges that they are company dominated. Mr. Elliott, the attorney for the Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc., and the Northrop Corporation, told me yesterday that if we are going to accept the vote at Northrop as being evidence of the wishes of the employees it naturally follows that we should accept the vote at Douglas as evidence of the desires of the Douglas employees. I didn't argue the point with him but I think it is perfectly obvious from what I said above that Mr. Elliott's reasoning is faulty. However, I do believe that we would be open to criticism if we took such action in one case and refused to take similar action in another case. The second set of facts that warranted my reaching the conclusion stated in the first paragraph above is that the election of the Northrop plant was agreed upon while some of the employees were engaged in a sit-down strike. These employees, having seen what took place at the Douglas strike, were now seeking a way out and were not in a position to drive too hard a bargain as they were momentarily expecting the sheriff to descend upon them with indictments of "feloniously conspiring" as was the case in the Douglas affair. The striking employees at Northrop agreed that they would leave the plant if Northrop agreed, among other things, to conduct an election within five days in order to determine not whether or not the United Automobile Workers had a majority of employees but merely to determine how many of the employees desired representation by the United Automobile Workers (C. I. O.), and that Northrop would agree to bargain with the union for their members. Another fact that should be borne in mind is that all of this took place prior to that eventful April 12th at which time the general opinion among many of us here on the coast was that the Act would not be sustained by the Supreme Court; consequently the C. I. O. were eager to consolidate what gains they had made and, following the precedent set by the C. I. O. in the east, the local union was willing to sign an agreement for recognition of it as representing its membership. Please remember this was at emergency agreement designed primarily to enable the union to get out of ar ill advised strike and yet to save its face, the nucleus of its membership, and make some small gain. The third set of facts: The employer has refused to recognize the United Auto mobile Workers as the sole bargaining agent but the employer has not refused to bargain collectively with the union for the union's membership. While I recog nize that technically we might hold the employer in violation of the law in refusing to recognize the union as the sole bargaining agent, I believe the case would be so weak that it would be folly to carry it to a formal hearing. The fourth set of facts: The United Automobile Workers recognize that the Aircraft Workers Union, allegedly a company union, is encroaching upon the field and unless the former organization, the United Automobile Workers of America, secure some immediate additional concessions from the employer the Aircraft Workers Union will enter the lists and become a serious competitor It is, of course, recognized that it is almost impossible for a union to achieve anything in the way of collective bargaining or securing concessions on a partial recognition basis. The fifth set of facts is perhaps the most important of the entire lot. Jack Northrop, President of the Northrop Corporation, is one of the better employers in southern California. He is as straight shooting with his men as it is possible for him to be in the anonymous position in which he finds himself. Douglas holds a controlling interest in Northrop. Douglas is dominated by the Merchants & Manufacturers Association, the Chamber of Commerce, and our beloved friend Harry Chandler of the Los Angeles Times; incidentally Chandler supplied Douglas with the initial capital which enabled him to start what is now the largest airplane manufacturing plant in the world." Northrop can not recognize the United Automobile Workers as the sole bargaining agent without incurring the wrath of the combined antiunion forces of Los Angeles. Even though be is president of the Northrop Corporation the control rests in the hands of Douglas Northrop would be delighted to recognize the United Automobile Workers as the sole bargaining agent and would give them a decent agreement. If we hold a hearing, order an election, and the United Automobile Workers win, Northrop would then be in a position to proceed with his bargaining without beinig subjected to the criticism of his fellow employers in southern California. I would suggest that the Board authorize me to conduct a hearing in this matter and let me set the date for May 24th. Incidentally, Mr. George Castleman, International Representative of the International Association of Machinists, advised me this morning that in view of the fact that they have such a small membership in the Northrop plant they do not expect at the present time to intervene in any way in any hearing we may conduct in the present case. TOWNE NYLANDER, Director Outer Harbor Dock & Wharf Company: To: National Labor Relations Board. From: 21st Region, Los Angeles. Subject: Outer Harbor Dock & Wharf Co., XXI-R-41. JANUARY 7, 1936 The petition in this case was filed on December 28th by the Ship & Dok Foremen's Association. Communication with the employer resulted in their sending us a letter in which they recognized this Association as representative of the ship and dock foremen employees of the various steamship lines and stevedoring companies involved. There are two groups of ship and dock foremen involved in this matterone group about 15 in number belong to the ILA; the second group about on in number have formed an independent union called the Ship & Dock Foremens Association. It appears that this latter group worked during the 1934 strike and have consequently been branded by the ILA as strike-breakers. Prior to the present marine strike, this group, now composing the Association, had not applied to the ILA for membership, maintaining that a foreman who has the rights to hire and fire had no place in the ILA. However, since the present marine strike they became worried about their status when and if the strike should be settled, believing that possibly the ILA would insist upon their being discharged and the foremen who belonged to the ILA being placed in their positions, so they banded together and petitioned the International ILA for a charter. This charter was granted but the San Pedro ILA refused to install it claiming that if this outside group of foremen were given a charter, they would then be in a position to discriminate against the foremen who are now members of the ILA. Donnelly and Fetzer, President and Secretary respectively of the ILA, claim that if a separate foremens' local is chartered, the charter should be granted to those foremen who are now members of the ILA. Even though the employers have conceded that the Association is representative of the majority of the ship and dock foremen employees, we are not issuing a certificate of representation and have explained to the officers of the independent association that the issuing of such certificate at this time would further complicate the matter and might result in the ILA now taking a definite stand. We suggested to the members of this independent association that they should make their peace with the ILA, secure membership in that organization if they cared to and then when the charter for the foremens' local was applied for, they would be charter members of the new local. Donnelly and Fetzer have agreed to suspend the rules prohibiting the initiation of new members during the strike and will admit to membership, most, if not all of the members of the independent association. A meeting for the purpose of discussing this matter has been arranged for January 8th. We expect that the matter will be ironed out at that time and we will then be in a position to recommend to the Board such action as the circumstances will warrant. TOWNE NYLANDER. Director. TN: V Producers Mines: To: National Labor Relations Board. Subject: Producers Mines, Case No. XXI-C-350. JANUARY 27, 1938. This case was heard in Kingman on the 24th and 25th, and both Walsh, who tried the case, and Wilbur, the Examiner, agree that it is perhaps the poorest case that we have ever had. I am blaming no one for this, as I personally made the investigation and feel that, while the case was not particularly strong, it was sufficiently strong to warrant our going to hearing; particularly in view of the fact that on the outcome of this case depended to a large extent the future activities of the Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers in that particular section of Arizona. However, our case was based on certain alleged facts which could not be established. Several of our witnesses fizzled out on voir dire and there is nothing left for Wilbur to do but issue an Intermediate Report dismissing the matter. Please advise if it would not be advisable to attempt to secure a withdrawal by the Union so as to save the issuance of a Report-or would you rather look over the record before any action is taken? I am sure that Godwin will withdraw if I present the matter to him, and it will be far less injurious to the interests of the Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers to have the case withdrawn than it will be to have an Intermediate Report handed down that dismisses the case. TN: le Shell Oil Company: To: National Labor Relations Board. From: 21st Region, Los Angeles. Subject: Shell Oil Case, XXI-C-111. TOWNE NYLANDER, Director. DECEMBER 23, 1936. The Shell Oil Company has definitely refused to stipulate that proceedings in XXI-R-11 be broadened to include the question of representation and unit as affecting all employees. I am convinced that, at the present, the Board should not proceed under 9 (c) as it would undoubtedly involve an order for an election which is, under the circumstances, an extremely dangerous procedure unless the request comes from the unions. My own investigation in the matter has convinced me that the unions cannot now win an election for several reasons. 1. Many of the employees who were sympathetic towards the union but not members, have become antagonistic because of the boycott action taken by the unions during the summer and fall of 1936. The company has stressed to the employees, how this action has curtailed their employment and has even intimidated indirectly that this action has jeopardized many jobs, by decreasing demand. 2. The five international unions involved are not very closely knit, and are liable to break up into separate antagonistic units on the slightest provocation. The current A. F. of L.-C. I. O. controversy is at the bottom of it. Each of the unions concerned feels that it might win an election among the employees of its own craft, but hesitate to risk a general vote, which the unions believe, would aid the Industrial Union (Oil Field Workers) more than it would the craft unions, if it resulted in favor of the unions. I believe the best procedure that can be followed at the present time is to carry the case through to a conclusion attempting to prove, as is now being done, that there has been a violation of Section 8, subsections (1) and (2), ignoring the alleged violation of Section 8, subsection (5), and moving later to conform pleadings to the proof, or move to dismiss Section 8, subsection (5). The difficulty is proving this latter charge arises from the fact that the unions did not have among their members a majority of the Shell employees at the time of the company's refusal to bargain and the only definitive indication of the desires of the employees other than union membership was given in an election held by the Petroleum Labor Policy Board in December 1934. Though in that election the unions won a majority of the votes counted on a state-wide basis, there is nothing definite to indicate what changes in sentiment may have taken place in the ensuing year and a half and the company can introduce substantial evidence that an active minority of its employees desired at that time the continuation of the company union system and at the present time its establishment. It is absolutely essential from the union standpoint that a violation of Section 8, subsections (1) and (2) be established. For if the Board should rule that the company was not guilty of a violation of these two unfair practices, the five international unions would be left out on a limb as the company could point very definitely to the boycott action as being ill-advised, coercive and without any foundation of an anti-labor practice. It appears to me that a violation of Section 8, subsections (1) and (2) can be shown. Mr. Seward has to establish (1), that the company's bulletin of May 5th inviting the employees to form a company union resulted in the formation of such company union despite the fact that the later bulletin of the company dated May 16th completely set aside the bulletin of May 5th; (2), that in the formation of this company union, there was a certain amount of activity of non-union employees on company time in holding meetings, passing petitions, etc., which, while not ordered by the employer was encouraged at least by being permitted to go unchallenged; (3), Mr. Seward will have to proceed on the theory that the calling together of representatives of the employees in Los Angeles between June 18th and June 25th inclusive was a violation of subsection (2) and that the last sentence of subsection (2) namely, "an employer shall not be prohibited from permitting employees to confer with him during working hours without loss of time or pay" applies only to employees as individuals acting only in their own behalf and that when such employees were representatives of others they constituted a labor union as per definition under Section 2, subsection (5). The company maintains that the calling together of this group of employees, even though they did act as representatives of other employees, was permitted by the above quoted part of Section 8, subsection (2). The record will bring out that the employees did not receive travel or other expenses but were reimbursed for all the time lost from their regular employment. Mr. Fred Phillips, International Representative of the Old Field Workers who is the only union representative contributing very much to help us, although other officials are present at the hearing, is fully aware of the entire situation and tells me that all the unions ask for is, first, the assumption by the Board of jurisdiction over the oil industry and, secondly, that there has been a violation of subsections (1) and (2) which will, of course, justify, for the unions, the boycott action taken by the internationals. Mr. Phillips is fully aware of the fact that the Board may not care to attempt enforcement of an order requiring the employer to disestablish the company union. What Mr. Phillips fears more than anything else is that the other oil companies in California who have representatives sitting in at the hearings daily, will seize upon the methods used by the Shell Oil Company to establish similar company unions in their own organization and to completely weaken the position of the Oil Field Workers; and he feels that the hearing and an order, even if unenforced, will accomplish much in restraining other companies. The hearing will undoubtedly continue until after the first week in January and even though we are expending a great deal of money on this hearing, I think the expenditure is justified if it will prevent the other oil companies from attempting to follow in the foot-steps of Shell. (I blush when I recall how poor a forecaster I was in telling you the hearing would last only ten days.) Sincerely, TN: V Confidential TOWNE NYLANDER, Director. JANUARY 12, 1937. To: BENEDICT WOLF, Secretary, National Labor Relations Board. Subject: Shell Oil Company case, XXI-C-111, XXI-R-II. Your wire of today mentioning the distressing length of the Shell hearing finds me in perfect agreement that it has continued too long. I have been more distressed, however, concerning the merits of the case. I feel that it should have been an R case which might have permitted us to offer some constructive suggestion. The C case is a weak one. There is, however, indication of preference on the part of the company, for the Conference Delegate Plan. To get this, Mr. Seward has had to face the problem of developing his case from unfriendly witnesses. I have been liberal in allowing testimony in order that Mr. Seward would have every opportunity to develop his case. He has done a most excellent job with the facts he had to work upon and with the limitations of his witnesses. Much of the testimony has gone in over the objection of the respondent. The government rests its case today, the 21st day of the hearing. Now having allowed the Government full latitude, I must in fairness allow the same to the company. I do not feel that I can, under the circumstances, do more than request that they move along as rapidly as possible. We have had a harmonious relationship thus far. I am requesting Mr. Seward to make a confidential report which you may read in connection with my own. We are glad to have with us today Mrs. Stern. I could not ask Mr. Seward to spend the night in hearing when all alone he has been using long hours each day interviewing witnesses after hearing hours. Please know that I wish to speed the hearing as much as possible for I feel that my absence from my own office is working an undue hardship on Mr. Mueller. I shall do all that I can to speed it with full consideration of fairness which I know you would not have me overlook. Sincerely, The situation in San Diego has quieted down and the A. F. of L. apparently have matters well in hand. 218054-41-vol. 24, pt. 2- 36 |