shop contract which requires A .F. of L. affiliation, upon the organization going C. I. O. I would appreciate it very much if you would be good enough to forward to me a copy of the charge as well as the complaint in the Plylock Case, and memorandum of law that you may have gotten up or that the Board has prepared which will buttress us in our current struggle. To: Harry George, 2604 S. E. 103rd St., Portland, Oregon. I am enclosing copy of letter received this morning from J. W. Reardon, together with copy of my reply. I think it is wise to be careful about suggesting to unions that they employ attorneys, as a perfectly legitimate suggestion may be misinterpreted as imply. ing that the Board is out to build up business for certain attorneys. Also, I imagine that we could obtain from the Denver office any information that is needed without putting the union to the expense of buying a copy of the transcript. If you can assist the union or unions in this case in drafting a charge or charges. I think it would be well to do so. By the time you receive this, I presume you will have been in touch with Tommy Graham. Depending on how your plans work out, I think it would be well to take care of the Oregon-American case as expeditiously as possible. R. M. G. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WASHINGTON, D. C. JUNE 13, 1938. To: All Regional Directors. use. We are working up some publicity which we think we can put to a very good In connection therewith we would like to put our hands on a group of cases, a study of which would indicate the usefulness of the Board's work. The simplest way of doing this is to have each of the Regional Directors pick ut such a group of cases in their respective regions and send us the list, together with a relatively short statement setting forth the high points which are to the Board's credit, as for example, a big election which succeeded in avoiding a strike and which led to an agreement, or a serious situation which would have had serious consequences if it had not been for the Board's intervention, etc. I should think that if each Regional Director submitted about 5 or 10 such instances we would have a very good sample. Will you please do so as soon as possible, addressing your report to Malcolm Ross, with an original and three copies. Cannery cases-E. K. McClaskey M & M GLP W. U. TEL.-DB Smith Wood-GLP Boeing Audit-DB McCormick Lbr-HG N. W. Star-GLP Cobbs Mitchell-DB MWAK-DB AUGUST 22, 1968. To: Robert B. Watts, Associate General Counsel. In response to the request contained in your memorandum of July 28th, I am attaching a memorandum prepared by Mr. Graham based upon furtier information. You will also find attached some material prepared by the West Coast Labor Bureau, including a document relating to the San Francisco Hote Strike. Although no definite evidence has been obtained, I am confident a hearing would develop considerable proof that strikebreakers have been recruited from. other States. It appears that the unions involved, all of which are A. F. of L affiliates, are fighting an uphill battle. The Hotel Association within the la week re-announced publicly its open-shop policy. A hearing, even though jurisdiction on its face may appear doubtful, wou d likely be productive of helpful results to the affected organizations even though it subsequently became necessary to dismiss the complaint for lack of commerce However, it may be that the Board will not feel justified in venturing into this field. Encl. 5 OCTOBER 11, 1938. From: Arthur Hailey, Field Examiner. 10-11-38: Harry McClellan of the Greenhouse Workers' Union (A. F. of L.) called today in regard to some alleged discriminatory discharges by a member of this association. This particular employer has stated positively that he will not allow any officers of the union to work for him. He has carried out his statement and discharged two.. The union has not yet contacted the employer or the association in an attempt to reinstate these individuals. They intend to do so. The question on McClellan's mind was the Board's jurisdiction. Babcock and I asked a number of questions regarding commerce. It appears that a number of florists are members of associations which handle telegraphic orders of flowers. All florists buy flowers form California during the winter months Some of them send flowers regularly to British Columbia and Alaska. Some of them send flowers by airplane to Idaho. These activities may be irregular and probably are only a small part of the business. Babcock and I stated that jurisdiction was very shaky and that the union should attempt every possible means of settling the case before coming back to us. We said, however, that if a charge were filed we would attempt to settle it without bringing up the matter of jurisdiction. I have no way of knowing whether the union will file a charge. AH: LD A. H. INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD OCTOBER 18, 1938. To: Kenneth McClaskey. From: G. L. Patterson. Subject: Lumbermen's Industrial Union. Attached you will find an inquiry received this morning from the Lumbermen's Industrial Union. On its face this has the appearance of being one of those new independent company-dominated unions. Before answering the inquiry we might do a little checking around to see what its history and background is. GLP: lat Attach. [Western Union] WASHINGTON, D. C., November 9, 1939. ELWYN J. EAGEN, National Labor Relations Board, Dexter Horton Bldg., Seattle, Wash. Re Bloedel Donovan Lumber Mills R-695: We have wire from company as follows: "What we believe to be the representatives of a majority of our employees in the unit established by your order have requested your body thru your regional office in Seattle to immediately hold the election that you ordered months ago to determine the proper bargaining agency officially Stop We have made a similar request Stop Your Seattle office has in effect flatly refused Stop The very apparent reason is that local 46 I. W. A., affiliated with the C. I. O. is now opposing this election for the simple reason they do not think they can win it Stop Your investigators from Seattle last week contacted none of the interested parties other than Local 46 Stop We feel that our men and our company are entitled to know whom the majority wishes to represent them and you having ordered an election as the result of a hearing held at the instigation of Local 46 should now conduct the election promptly Stop This matter is the principal thing that is delaying reopening plants and is prolonging real distress in this community Stop We prefer to have you settle the matter but if you refuse to take any action we will be forced to take other steps at the request of our men to establish the wishes of the majority in a manner so fair that it cannot be questioned by anyone Stop We will appreciate a reply. Bloedel Donovan Lumber Mills, by J. N. Donovan Mgr." At same time we have wires from scores of business men and organizations in Bellingham and Independent Lumher Workers Union has wired White House. We suspect all these developments but wish you would make immediate check on situation as you know, point that troubles Board is difficulty of holding election before plant reopens and effort to compel Board to do so indicates possible attempt to smash both unions with back to work movement Am advising company you are investigating. NATHAN WITT. National Labor Relations Board. INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD JULY 7, 1939. Personal and confidential. To: Elwyn J. Eagen, Nineteenth Region. Subject: Your memorandum June 21-Field Examiner McGuire. The Board considered your memorandum and McGuire's memorandum to you dated June 17. The Board was somewhat troubled by McGuire's report since It contains indications that he apparently concerns himself somewhat with the internal affairs of the unions. It is important that he and all of our other agents stay out of internal affairs except where absolutely necessary in connection with some case in the office. The Board wants you to talk to McGuire and other members of the staff, so that if this situation does exist it can be rapidly cleaned up. N. W. Exhibit No. 1621 [Introduced into evidence in Volume 28, November 28, 1940, and ordered to be printed with the exhibits of Volume 24, Part II] DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE 11TH REGIONAL OFFICE, N. L. R. B. (INDIANAPOLIS) ACCEPTANCE OF PETITION West Kentucky Coal Co.: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ELEVENTH REGION VINCENNES, IND., January 17, 1938. Re: West Kentucky. Confidential-Destroy when read. DEAR BOB: Enclosed you will find the petition in the West Kentucky case. I am sending it to you to have the necessary copies made and served, and to call it specially to the Board's attention for consideration with the "C" case I have filled the petition out from memory. I have also enclosed another petition signed by Morgan in blank and attested by me to be substituted for the one I filled out, at your discretion. I mean this-I am not sure of the number of men Morgan claimed to have at No. 2 and No. 8. The number I have used are close enough and will do but you should be able to find out the exact numbers from the files or transcripts. I refer you to Earl Suver's testimony on Tuesday, January 4 for this information. I assume you have this transcript. If you decide to use the blank petition I am sending, you might substitute, under description of appropriate bargaining unit, the following: "No. 2 and No. 8 mines at Sturgis, Kentucky. The production employees, exclusive of supervisory employees, at these mines form two distinct and separate units." One other change you might make is to refer to the exact number of the "C" case-I haven't it here-I think it is C-133. I have sufficiently identified the stipulation, but you may have the exact page of the record by now. These helpful additions can be included at your discretion. When the petition is finally completed, and copies sent on their way, you might destroy this letter and the petition not used. This sort of thing shouldn't be kept around the office. Sincerely, ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGAL PROBLEMS HERB. Administrative and Legal problems arising in the Eleventh Regional Office and submitted to the Board for proposed agenda for conference to be held from November 14th to 16th, 1938, inclusive I. REFUSAL OF EMPLOYERS TO COOPERATE IN INVESTIGATIONS AFTER CHARGE IS FILED Recently, this office has been faced with a rather difficult situation where the employer refused to furnish this office with any information concerning the alleged unfair labor practices, or manner of doing business for the purpose of establishing jurisdiction. In one particular case (J. I. Holcomb Mfg. Co., XI-C-456), a strike had been called because of an alleged discharge of an employee for union activity. The employer, at the advice of his counsel, refused to furnish us with any information or attend a conference at this office, stating that only after the Board had issued a complaint would he respond to the questions asked by this office. We feel that the employer took this position at the instance of his attorney, who had previously given this advice to several of his clients. In two previous cases (Knefler-Bates Company, XI-C-313; Evans Milling Company, XI-C-314), it was necessary for this office to secure the payrolls of the companies in order to determine whether or not there were sufficient grounds for recommending issuance of complaints. This same attorney advised his clients not to furnish the information. Upon securing permission from Washington to issue the subpoenas calling for this information, the same were served upon the companies. The subpoenas, of course, were issued before the complaints. The attorney advised his clients not to respond to the subpoenas. When we requested the Board to enforce its subpoenas we were advised that the Board did not feel it could it could do so at the present time. Such failure to enforce the subpoenas means, of course, a loss of prestige in this area and makes investigations and the securing of adjustments a very difficult problem. It will become absolutely necessary for us to have some clarification of our right to demand information from the employer in the investigatory stage. II. PROPRIETY OF DEALING DIRECTLY WITH EMPLOYER WHERE ATTORNEY FOR COMPANY IS ONLY INTERESTED IN INCREASING LEGAL FEES This issue arises in a large measure in connection with the problem above discussed. In a certain case, it was apparent to our office that the attorney for the respondent was advising his client to do everything possible to bring on a hearing and the issuance of a complaint, in order to increase his own fees. We have also been faced with this problem in a case where we feel that there is a clear violation of the law and the respondent might settle the case-but the attorney for the respondent is desirous of going to a hearing for his own ends (Vicennes Steel Corporation, XI-C-398). In both cases, when seeking to reach the respondent we have been referred to his attorney. We would like to know whether or not the Board would be willing for us to inform the employer that we feel his attorney is acting in bad faithboth to the interest of the respondent and ourselves-and, that we refuse to deal through the attorney and will only deal directly with the respondent in the discussions of the alleged unfair labor practices. IIL FAILURE OF BOARD TO STATE REASON FOR DISMISSAL OF PETITION PURSUANT TO SECTION 9 (C) The Board has evidently made it a practice not to state its reasons for the dismissal of a petition on the recommendation of the Regional Director. In all such cases the petitioning union is, of course, interested in the reason for the Board dismissing the petition. In one case, a communication from Nathan Witt informed us of what the Board's reason was in dismissing the petition (Showers Brothers, XI-R-137), and we were able to inform the union of the correct reason. However, in another case (Public Service of Indiana, XI-R-134 and XI-R-142), the Board gave us no intimation why it dismissed the petition, and when inquiry was made by the union we had to advise them that we were not sure of the reason. If the Board is reluctant to state the reason for the dismissal in the ordersome clarifying communication should be directed to our office which would state the grounds on which the Board dismissed the petition. IV. POSTING OF NOTICE IN 8 (1) CASES In actual practice, it has been our experience that the posting of a notice in an 8 (1) case does not give the individual employee adequate assurance of the promised change in the company's position from that of an anti-union employer to one who intends to abide by the provisions of the Act. In many cases there are employees who do not work within the plant and, therefore, do not ever see the notice that is posted. We have made it a practice in this office in such cases to require the employer to send individual notices to employees (The Indianapolis Times, XI-C-363). The Board should make more careful inquiry into its cases where specific 8 (1) is involved. In certain cases of clear-cut intimidation we feel it would not be too much of a burden to require the employer to mail individual notices to every employee. V. INADEQUATE RELIEF FURNISHED BY BOARD IN 8 (2) CASES It has been the experience of this office (the same as other Regional Offices) that the Board's Order to disestablish a "company union" is entirely ineffectual where the representatives of the first "company union" are determined to keep it |