[Western Union] WASHINGTON, D. C., Apr. 6, 1936. ROBERT H. COWDRILL, Hotel Vendome, Evansville, Ind.: Board thinks settlement as you have outlined it very good. Make sure that all loose threads taken care of and make every effort to have Galloway election petition withdrawn. If that done probably advisable withdraw charge against Labor Conciliators also and close case completely. Wire immediately results s that we know whether to send out trial examiner. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, MAY 4, 1936. To: Edwin S. Smith. From: Robert H. Cowdrill. Subject: Mt. Vernon cases. Regarding your memo of May 2nd, I will look into the questions you raise in respect to present conditions in Mt. Vernon, and as soon as I receive the desired information I will write you fully. Sincerely yours, ROBERT H. COWDRILL. MAY 4, 1938. Miss MADGE KING, United Garment Workers of America, % McCurdy Hotel, Evansville, Indiana. DEAR MISS KING: May I request that you write me as soon as possible as to the present conditions in Mt. Vernon, especially in respect to the activities of your organization at the Garment Corporation plant? I want to know whether or not there have been any acts of interference with your organization, by either the Garment Corporation or the Chamber of Commerce and if, since the settlement, there has been any change of attitude in respect to your organization among the Garment Corporation employees. I have not seen or heard of Galloway since he promised to withdraw his petition, and I understood that his last meeting with the employees was cancelled. Is Galloway still active in Mt. Vernon? Has he made any recent appearance, as far as you know? Please advise me regarding any happenings that will be of interest, so that I can decide what should be done in respect to the Board's further action in these matters. I have read with interest your memorandum of April 28. I do believe you will be wise to keep close watch over this situation. I have an idea that the charge against Galloway will probably be renewed, or should be. I wish you would write me your opinion as to just what are the net results of the settlements to date. For instance, have the United Garment Workers any right to feel confident that they can press for organization now without interference? What is the attitude of the Garment Corporation and of the Chamber of Commerce likely to be toward the United Garment Workers in the future? Is there reason to feel that Galloway is still hanging around the picture? Sincerely yours, /s/ EDWIN S. SMITH. To: Edwin S. Smith. MAY 8, 1936. From: Robert H. Cowdrill. In further reply to your memo of May 2nd, please be advised that under date of May 5th Miss Madge King, organizer for the United Garment Workers of America, states there has been no further interference from the Chamber of Commerce in Mt. Vernon, and that though rumors were about to the effect that Galloway has recently been in Mt. Vernon, she has not been able to verify these reports. These rumors, as well as one that the Amalgamated and the Garment Corporation have reached an agreement, seem to be without foundation, as I know that no contract was entered into between the Amalgamated and the Garment Corporation, and if Galloway had been in Mt. Vernon and in any way active, someone in this small town would have broadcast the news. The Garment Workers, I am sorry to say, have very little chance of organizing these employees, but in my last conversation with Miss King, she was told that the opportunity now presents itself to call a meeting without any interference from anyone. In Miss King's letter of May 5th she tells us further that a mass meeting is planned for the near future and at that time they will advise me of the results. The order of the Board denying the petition has been received and we are this week closing the case from our docket. Sincerely yours, ROBERT H. COWDRILL, HOTEL MCCURDY EVANSVILLE, INDIANA ROBERT H. COWDRILL MAY 5TH, 1936. Director, National Labor Relations Board, 539 Architects Building, Indianapolis, Indiana DEAR MR. COWDRILL: In reply to your letter of May 4th. To my knowledge I know of no interference from the Chamber of Commerce at Mt. Vernon. Last week it was reported that Galloway was in Mount Vernon, but I haven't been able to verify this report. At the same time members of the Amalgamated reported there had been an agreement reached through your efforts between Rissman and the Amalgamated. There has been very little change of attitude between the employees of the Garment corporation and our organization, and there will be small chance of a change of attitude as long as the above petty agitation continues. I am planning to hold a mass meeting in the near future, to see what the result will be, although I do not expect great results until Galloway and the Amalgamated are completely out of the picture. Walter Burnett, and Audrey Horton were put to work at the Keck-Gonnerman Monday morning. They reported the bulletin had not been posted, and they were not returned to their former jobs. Burnett was given the poorest job in the plant. Just before eight o'clock Monday Wm. Gonnerman came to Burnett saying I expect a days work, Burnett replied haven't I always given you a days work, Gonnerman replied "Yes" but isn't it alright to tell you. Will report anything of any importance to you. Yours very truly, /s/ MADGE KING, Organizer for United Garment Workers of America. JUNE 11, 1936. Miss MADGE KING, % McCurdy Hotel, Evansville, Indiana. DEAR MISS KING: In reference to your inquiry of June 10th, I have forwarded copies of your recent letters to the Board and advised them that this office, at the present time, has no jurisdiction over any matters concerning the Garment Corporation and its employees, and advised the Board also to contact the Department of Labor and inform them of this fact. It would be advisable for you to contact Mr. Kerwin again, mentioning my statement, and you will no doubt receive a favorable reply. I note what you say regarding Galloway's men being in Mt. Vernon. Wil you advise me as to what contacts they made, if any, and if there is any reason to believe that they may continue their former activties? I am pleased to hear that the Keck-Gonnerman employees are forming an organization and trust that they will have good luck in their undertaking. Sincerely yours Director, Regional Labor Relations Board, 539 Architects Building, Indianapolis, Indiana. DEAR MR. COWDRILL: Have you received any information as to what action the Labor Board intends to take in releasing the Mount Vernon case to Hugh Kerwin. You perhaps will be interested in knowing that Fred Galloway's men were in Mount Vernon about a week ago. The employees at Keck-Gonnerman have been very successful in obtaining membership in their organization. Yours very truly, /s/ MADGE KING, Organizer U. G. W. of A. BASIS OF 8 (5) CHARGES INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION MAY 12, 1938. To: Mr. Robert H. Cowdrill, Director. Subject: Attitude of Employers on Majority Question in 8 (5) cases. I am sending you herewith two copies of a memorandum entitled “Attitude of Employers on Majoritly Question in 8 (5) cases." One of these is for your use, and the other for the use of the Regional Attorney. This memorandum is extremely confidential. The copies should never leave your possession nor that of the Regional Attorney, and should not be shown w anybody else, either inside or outside of the office. Enclosure. N. W. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WASHINGTON, D. C. MAY 10, 1938. To: All Regional Directors. Subject: Attitude of Employers on Majority Question in 8 (5) cases. The Board has given very careful consideration to the problem raised by the cases, of increasing frequency, in which employers refuse to bargain unless there is first a certification by the Board. As a result of this consideration, you will be guided henceforth by the following principles: 1. If a union, during the bargaining process, offers to submit to the employer its membership list, or the equivalent, and if the employer refuses to receive them, either by insisting upon a Board certification or on some other ground, it will be taken as a sufficient showing on which to base a charge under 8 (5). 2. If the union does not want to submit membership lists, or the equivalent, but offers to agree to a consent election and the employer refuses, the same result will follow. We refer to consent elections because that is a normal way of determining majority, and by agreeing, the employer demonstrates his good faith. 3. If the union makes no contention as to its representation and merely demands that the employer bargain with it as the exclusive agent, and the employer raises no question concerning majority representation by the union, the same result will follow. 4. In all of the above cases, the union will still have to demonstrate in the hearing that it represented a majority at the time of the alleged refusal. 5. If the union asserts it has a majority, but refuses either to submit proof or to agree to a consent election when suggested by the employer, the 8 (5) charge could not be sustained. The same is true where the union makes no assertion, but the employer demands proof or expresses a willingness to enter into a consent election and the union refuses. The same is also true where the union makes the assertion that it has some representation, but refuses to meet the employer's demand that it show a majority or refuses to comply with the employer's suggestion for a consent election. CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS APRIL 24, 1939. To: Nathan Witt, Secretary. From: Robert H. Cowdrill, Director, 11th Region. It is noted that a majority of Board decisions certifying representatives contain the words “Full opportunity was accorded to all parties to this investigation to participate in the conduct of the election by secret ballot and to make challenges." It is surprising tơ me that there has not been any protest from an employer in reference to this phrase, because, except in a few recent instances, no representatives of an employer acted as observers in the conduct of our elections. To preclude any flare-back from an employer whose observers were not present during the tallying and counting of the ballots. I am suggesting that in all of our intermediate reports on elections the Board will be specifically informed as to whether or not observers selected by the employer were present at the polls. RHC-LW. To: Nathan Witt. From: Robert H. Cowdrill, 11th Region. JULY 28, 1938. In addition to the suggestions made by Mr. Levin in the accompanying report, I offer the following comments which I believe should be given consideration. Article I, Section 5, defines the term "Trial Examiner" to mean "the Board, its member, agent or agency," whereas Article II, Sections 7 and 13, states that certain actions might be taken by the Trial Examiner OR the Board. It may not be significant, but I think the definition in Article I, Section 5, should be better explained. Article IV, Section 2, designates "All Examiners now or hereafter Some of the duties defined have reference to Trial Examiners and others are mainly Field Examiners' duties. For instance: subsection (b) Trial Examiners duties do not include the taking of secret ballots of employees, although they may, I presume, do so in an emergency. Should not these duties be more clearly defined and Examiners be particularly designated as Field or Trial Examiners? In Article III there is no mention made of consent election procedure in connection with Section 9 of the Act and yet 90% more or less of the Board's activities under this Section is handled through the regional offices by informal agreements between parties. It may or may not be necessary to make an amendment to Article III in order to bring this phase of our activity to the attention of the interested public, but I have something in my "craw" which I have wanted to mention for some time and this comment gives me an ojjer tunity to do so. In numerous cases in the past, we have found that a pen tioning union would have as member a large majority of the employees in a plant and that a rival organization was definitely known to have only a very small percentage of such employees. However, when the petitioner and the employer would agree to settle the representation issue by an election the rivi organization would not agree, thereby compelling the regional director to in stitute formal proceedings. The disastrous results of such behavior upon the part of the representative of the minority group has always caused the members of the larger group to become discouraged and disorganized to such an exten" that time after time a strike was called by this sort of "ham-stringing” tactics. In my opinion "there should be a law against this," but as there isn't ther should be some Rules & Regulations, or if not that, the Board should consider authorizing the regional director to use his own good judgment in a situation of this kind and permit him, when a consent agreement can be arranged between the petitioner and the employer, (assuming, of course, that there is no question of a bargaining unit involved) to conduct and supervise an election on a Yes-No ballot so that the claims of the majority representative might be established, of otherwise, as promptly as possible. Two instances in this State which have caused much dissatisfaction in adi tion to strikes and disorders were the Zenite Metal Corporation of Indianapolis and the Serrick Corporation of Muncie. These cases are more than a year old and yet neither one has been satisfactorily settled, although both of them could have been adjudicated quickly if the regional director had had the power to conduct an election for the petitioning union without giving heed to the faise claims of an organization who knew in advance that they would be defeated I feel very keenly about this sort of situation and I wish the Board would take steps to put an end to this farce. RHC/em enc. FEBRUARY 24, 1939. To: Nathan Witt, Secretary. From: Robert H. Cowdrill, 11th Region. Subject: Election Procedure. I would like to make a few observations in regard to the recent instructions relating to future conduct of elections. I am in full accord with the Board rules in having an "or neither" square inserted on all consent election ballots and also to arrange a runoff election in the event neither union receives a majority. However, it never has been the practice in this region to permit a union official to be present at an election unless said official was also an eligible eme ployee of the company. Since a majority of elections involve only a small number of voters, having union officials present would occasion arguments as to conductor procedure and objections which normally would be uncalled for. On the other hand, when an election involves several thousand employees and a large group of observers is necessary to conduct the election properly, it would be feasible and helpful to have union officials present to assist our Examiners and to supervise the observers. In such large elections, I would approve the selection of non-employee union officials. If this particular issue can be left to the discretion of the Regional Director and the presence of a union official is not mandatory, I believe it best in this region not to change our practice in this regard and I trust you will permit me to proceed accordingly. Further, it is my belief that elections of employees under the sole observation and control of the employees, themselves, always will be the most satisfactory procedure. That is, no employer or his agent is allowed to be present and no obtrusive union official should be present, with the result that employees feel free and unhampered Employee observers appreciate the opportunity and the responsibility placed upon them and as a result-win, lose or draw-they are satisfied that the elec tion was conducted fairly, everything having been done under their personal observation. We are now instructed to permit the employer to select observers for the purpose of challenging ineligible voters and to count the ballots. In a "yes" election where it is not practicable to ask the union to select non-union employ ees, we have previously requested the employer to select a few of the nonproduction employees to act as observers. But when the election is to determine |