Norton Coal Corporation, XI-C-1, C-1405: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD OCTOBER 10, 1938. Attention: Mr. Robert H. Cowdrill. Enclosed report was held up until Morgan's return, so I could include dropping of 8 (5) angle if he would do it, which he did. Clark has finished up Dawson Daylight and Tri, and as fast as I can get to it I'll get in a summary (similar to the others I've sent in) on these 2 cases of his. That leaves Flat Creek, Empire and Blue Valley. I'm in the middle of Flat Creek now and might finish investigation by tomorrow night. Morgan has returned and seems to be very well satisfied. They didn't tell him anything definite but he feels he got a good audience with Edwin Smith and that everything is being done that can be done. To: James C. Clark, Madisonville, Kentucky. Subject: Norton Coal Corp., XI-C-146. SEPTEMBER 19, 1938. In the last paragraph of your memo to me on the above case you stated that the general manager of the company mentioned he had accepted a contract with the P. M. W. on the basis of a petition signed by practically all of the employees, and that although he thought the N. L. R. B. would hold this petition valid you informed him that you did not think so. You are in a very difficult situation in the coal fields where three aggressive parties are making all sorts of statements and claims and it would be best for you not to state any personal opinions on any subject that may come up during your investigations. Always keep in mind that in the eyes of the people you are interviewing you are a representative of the Board and when you express an opinion, even though it may be only a casual remark, it may have reverberations which might be harmful to the Board or to yourself. Be particularly careful as to statements made in connection with the representation of the P. M. W. or the U. M. W. as the A. F. L., has already broadcast information to the effect that the Board has taken action favorable to John L Lewis and detrimental to the claims of any other labor organization. Just a word to the wise! RHC/em INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION MADISONVILLE, KY., Sept. 16, 1938. To: R. H. Cowdrill. Subject: Norton Coal Corp., XI-C-146. Called on Mr. Sterling Lanier, General Manager, at his office in Nortonville today and discussed this case for more than hour. After considerable hesitation he agreed to give me a list of all employees as of May 24, 1937, the date Morgan claimed a majority. He also agreed to furnish a statement showing the cause of discharge of the ten complainants that allege discrimination. At least two of these he claims were never discharged and are working now. This information will be ready next Tuesday. Before going to Nortonville I went to Morgan's office and checked over his cards as I had done in both the Trio and Flat Creek cases but that does no good because Morgan does not know now and apparently never knew how many employees there were at the time he made his claim. Of course he did not have access to the Co. Pay Roll and could not be expectced to know the exact number but he could have determined the approximate number. So far as I can find out he made no effort to determine the number on the pay roll at the time he made his claim but went on the theory that if he had a majority at the time of the hearing he would win his case. He assumed that every case would go to hearing. Another difficulty is that many men signed up with the U. M. W. while on layoff for the reason that organizers can reach them better when they are not working. When they sign while on layoff they show on the card the mine they last worked for. In most cases where they have not been called back Morgan does not know it and so keeps them listed as working for the mine shown on the card. A lot of such men have not been called back because these mines are putting in machines to Save labor and say that is the only way they can keep running. Lanier said he had accepted a contract with the P. M. W. on the strength of a petition signed by practically all of his men. He thought the Board would recognize this petition. I told him I did not think so. RE: Swift & Co. and United Packing House Workers, L. I. U. No. 328, XI-C-149, XI-R-51. DEAR MR. FAHY: In order to understand fully what happened at the Swift & Co. Hearing here on Saturday, November 20, some knowledge of previous events at the Hearing is necessary. The main issue in the consolidated cases is the alleged violation of Section 8 (2) by the Respondent. The alleged companydominated union is an unaffiliated organization of Swift & Co. employees. The charges were filed by a C. I. O. affiliate. The independent union intervened, and throughout the course of the Hearing Paul H. Schmidt, attorney for the independent union, and Louis L. Roberts, chief counsel for Swift & Co., made much of and emphasized the following: (1) The improper investigation and actions of an NLRB Field Examiner who was alleged to have been prejudiced, and who was charged with having helped foment much labor trouble. (The Trial Examiner, Mr. Herbert Wenzel, is reporting on this phase of the case) (2) The Communistic and anarchistic means used by the CIO organizers. Emphasis was placed on such facts as: (a) "Evansville was a quiet, peaceful city until the CIO came in to attempt organization of the auto, electrical, packing and furniture workers." (b) Testimony given by Evan F. Becker, Swift & Co. Superintendent, that Francis Finkley, Sub-Regional Director of the CIO, told him during bargaining negotiations that "unless contracts were signed with the CIO, all the workingmen in Evansville would be walking the streets by October 1, and when that happens there will be murder." Note: I may say in passing that both Morris J. Levin, the CIO attorney, and myself from the start of the hearing attempted to keep such evidence out of the record on the ground that it was irrelevant and had nothing to do with the issues in the case. On Thursday, November 18, Mr. Schmidt, counsel for the Intervenor, attempted to introduce evidence that the CIO had ordered a boycott of Swift & Co. products, thereby threatening to stop production in a local packing plant which uses Swift products, and which had recently signed a contract with the CIO. This evidence was ruled out, but the local papers played up the issue rather strongly. On Saturday November 20 Mr. Finkley, the CIO Sub-Regional Director, was called by the Board in rebuttal to deny the testimony of Superintendent Becker. On cross-examination by Mr. Schmidt it was revealed that a bulletin (enclosed herewith and marked Exhibit "A") had been circulated in Evansville, and especially at the plant of Servel, Inc. (against whom an N. L. R. B. case is now being prepared), by the United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, a CIO affiliated. This bulletin was alleged to be both contemptuous of Board's proceedings and subversive of good government. The bulletin was read into the record and made an exhibit in the case. It was made clear that the complainant Packing Union had nothing to do with the preparation or circulation of this bulletin, although much was made of the fact that all the CIO organizations in Evansville shared offices and stenographic help. However, Mr. Roberts (who is also City Attorney and Director of Public Safety here) made a statement that left Mr. Wenzel and myself with no alternative but to act immediately. Mr. Roberts said, in part, as above, that that portion of the bulletin referring to the hearing was both contemptuous of the Board and subversive of good government. He made it clear that he was not perturbed by the unflattering remarks in the bulletin concerning himself but that, in the interests of good government, steps should be taken to punish the offender and prevent the recurrence of similar acts. Counsel for all parties joined in Mr. Robert's statement, and Mr. Wenzel stated on the record that immediate action wonid be taken. During the noon recess Mr. Wenzel and I spoke to you, and Mr. Levin prepared an apology and retraction which was immediately memeographed and circulated as an addendum to the issue of the bulletin then about to be distributed. (A copy of this bulletin is enclosed and marked Exhibit "B.") Every effort was made to have Arthur W. Meloan (the CIO organizer in Evansville for the UER & MW of A and the man who was proven to have been solely responsible for the issuance and circulation of the bulletin) return from St. Louis, where he had gone because of an illness in the family, and appear before the end of the Hearing. This, although we did not finish until 2 A. M. Sunday, November 21, could not be done, through no fault of Meloan's. Mr. Wenzel and I conferred with Meloan when he arrived late Sunday morning. He was roundly censored and informed that his actions were to be the subject of a report to the Board. Mr. Wenzel and I then urged that Meloan send a telegram of apology to the Board. (A copy of this telegram is enclosed and marked Exhibit "C"). The press was then called in and due publicity was given to this apology and retraction. (There had of course been much publicity when the bulletin was first uncovered). I do not believe, as I told you over the phone that a conviction under section 12 of the Act could be obtained. There was talk of this at the hearing. I feel sure. furthermore, that however unfortunate the incident may have been, Meloan did not intend to be disrespectful or contemptuous. He sincerely meant everything that was said in the telegram to the Board. In view of all these facts I recommend that the matter be dropped. The had effects of the occurrence have been dissipated as much as possible, and 1 know that no one concerned desires further action in the matter. I am sending a copy of this report to Mr. Wenzel at his request. I know he concurs in my recommendations and in the general sentiments I have expressed. He will undoubtedly so advise you in the near future. Sincerely yours, Enc. (3) HERBERT N. SHENKIN, Attorney, Eleventh Region. P. S. I want to mention at this time that I am of course not unaware of the Consolidated Edison difficulty. In view of the fact that the same CIO affiliate was involved here, I felt it imperative to take immediate and decisive action. Ignorance and prejudice could have easily linked this situation with the one that is now causing so much trouble. Trio Coal Company: MADISONVILLE, KY., September 20, 1938, To: James C. Clark, Madisonville, Kentucky. Subject: Charleston Colliers, Inc., XI-C-130; Providence Coal Mining Co., With reference to your memos of September 19, I will await your further reports on the Charleston Colliers and Providence Coal cases. Regarding Blue Valley-you do have a complicated situation existing there, but I think you should inquire as to whether or not the approximate 130 employees who were working during the spring of this year were the same group of employees who were working in the mine prior to the flood of January 1937. Also, whether or not the 34 employees of August 1, 1938 are a part of this same group. I realize that a long time has elapsed since December 1936 and it is improbable that the Board would rule that those men who signed cards in July 1937 should be considered as employees of the Company at this late date. However, in order to have the answers for any such possible questions, you may as well obtain all of the information available at this time. As mentioned previously, the membership claims of the UMW are of such a long distant time that every effort should be made to have the union reassert its bargaining rights as of a more recent date. Regarding Flat Creek and Trio-with reference to your inquiry concerning the last sentence in the first paragraph on page 2 of my memo of September 15; my opinion as to the status of employees whose jobs were eliminated because of flood conditions and the installation of new machinery, would apply to every other case where the company's operations had ceased or were reanced on account of like circumstances. However, it must be understood on all such cases that the UMW must be given full opportunity to file its contentions due to the fact that although it may appear that circumstances are similar in two or more cases the actual facts may cause a change of viewpoint. Remember my instructions have always been to get every available bit of information from all parties concerned, because only when a complete story is at hand can we pass judgment on the matter. INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION SEPTEMBER 15, 1938. To: James C. Clark, Madisonville, Kentucky. From: Robert H. Cowdrill, 11th Region. Subject: Flat Creek Coal Company, XI-C-114; Trio Coal Company, XI-C-157. It is noted by your reports on the above coal cases that the UMW failed to prove its majority claims as of the date when they attempted to bargain with the companies. I also understand that certain circumstances in these cases may have possibly changed the employee status at the time. However, what I am particularly disturbed about is the fact that the UMW has charged these companies, and possibly others, with refusal to bargain and now are found to be in a position of not being able to prove their claims. It would be advisable before approaching a company for a payroll, in the future, to have a talk with Mr. Morgan to determine whether or not the facts as set out in his original charge, as to date and membership, have been subject to any change in the interim. On the Trio Coal case it is noted that of 131 eligible employees the UMW had 49 members on June 9, 1937, but subsequent to that date it obtained additional membership among 39 employees. If these facts had been known prior to your calling upon the Company, the Union should have been advised that it would be necessary to again contact the Company and request an opportunity to discuss an agreement. Then, if the Company had refused, the original charge could have been amended as to the date when such bargaining was attempted and consequently the payroll required of the Company would have been as of the later date. It is assumed you will have further cases involving an 8 (5) allegation and to prevent the same results happening in these future investigations, it would be best to make an inquiry as to the Union's records on the subject before making any contact with the Company. In reply to the question you asked on the Flat Creek case as to the status of employees following the flood of January 1937-it is my opinion that the former employees of this mine can no longer be considered employees of today, since it appears from your report that the loading and cutting machines eliminated the positions of a substantial number of those men who formerly worked for the Company. The UMW must establish a majority membership among the present employees in order to be in a position to demand bargaining rights for its organization. Since dictating the above, I have your letter of September 14 on the Trio Coal case, in which you inform me of the results of a further check of membership cards. And again it is concluded that the UMW did not have a majority at the time of the request to bargain. Morgan does have cause for some of his antagonistic feeling and with the IMU and PMW issues also involved I think we must proceed cautiously and intelligently in all of these matters. RHC/em. RHC Wayne Works, Incorporated, XI-C-451: FIELD MEMORANDUM Robert D. Malarney, Field Examiner. RICHMOND, INDIANA, November 3, 1938. On October 25th and 26th I conferred with Union Representatives Napier, Bradley, Reed, Allen, and Lee. I received the following information which the Union is now checking with me and attempting to obtain signed statement: 1. The meeting just before the election in a local saloon between organizers of the company union and company officials, at which, it is alleged, the company officials supplied liquor. 2. The company union organizer (president) is and was a stockholder of the company. 3. Some information to the effect that the company union pre-election notices were mimeographed in the company offices. 4. Recent solicitation by the plant superintendent. 5. Asking new employees to join the company union and questioning their opinion or affiliation with the C. I, O. by Personnel Manager before being employed. 6. Proof obtained from company records that the key men in the company union are and were supervisors. 7. Letter from President of company, Shively, to Kohler, organizer and president of the company union, asking latter to form the Wayne Works Employees Association, is in a safety deposit box of a local bank. 8. Information that company union president Kohler made the statement at a company union meeting that the company had paid for the services of Attorney Keisker. 9. Some information that a local cleaner and dyer was told by company union president Kohler that the "company is behind company union." So far all of the above information or leads are in the form of hearsay evidence. The union is now in the process of contacting witnesses who can testify of their own knowledge to the above events. Those whom the union cannot persuade to come to the hotel will be contacted by me. The union had not prepared to supply me with witnesses and we are just getting a schedule of appointments arranged. I am holding off on contacting the company or the alleged company union officials until the Union has supplied every available witness and I have checked every person suggested by the Union who could not be persuaded to come to the hotel. It will help a great deal if the union can supply willing witnesses rather than those from whom the information has to be "picked out." For this reason, I have the Union now contacting witnesses who can testify to the above allegations before contacting them myself. It is my guess that this case can be broken but apparently it is going to take more time. On October 27th I conferred with the Union Committee and received further information to the effect that a company union member read a letter which he states was from Company President Shively to company union organizer, Kohler, asking the latter to start a "company union." Said witness will submit a signed statement at a conference arranged for tomorrow morning. I conferred with complainant Bradley on the 8 (3) charge but as yet have not been able to contact complainant Richardson. I intend to approach the company tomorrow in reference to the 8 (3) case. A conference was arranged with a witness for tomorrow morning who will submit evidence to the effect that he was paid by the company to act as an observer. I conferred with Union Official, Paul Allen, who substantiates evidence to the effect that company union organizer Kohler was a stockholder in the company at the time he organized the company union. The Union is of the opinion that it will be better strategy to allow the Union to exhaust its efforts to produce friendly witnesses to support the leads mentioned in my report before I contact the company union officials and the company. |