the choice between two unions, we have always considered that the observers selected by the opposing unions were sufficient to insure and safeguard impartial and secret balloting. Do I now understand that the employer may have the privilege of stationing observers even in those cases where two or more unions are contesting? At times we have cases where a company union has been disestablished and the employer and bona fide union agree to a "yes-no" election. In such instances the anti-union observers are usually composed of employees who are prominently identified with the company union and I think in this sort of situation it would be most advisable to permit the employer to select non-supervisory and ineligible employees to act as observers rather than permit former representatives of the disestablished company union to appear as election officials. I would appreciate your comments on all of the above matters. In respect to the disposition of used ballots after an election has been held, I agree that a notice to the parties on an ordered election should inform them that the ballots would be destroyed if no objections are filled to the report within five days. But in the case of consent elections, I do not like the idea of indirectly informing the parties that they may file objections. In all consent elections, before the ballots are counted, the observers sign certifications attesting that the election proceeded fairly and impartially and that the secrecy was not impaired. The only objection that might be made following the counting of the ballots would be over the validity of a few challenged votes, but our consent election agreement stipulates that such challenged votes will be finally decided by the Director. As such decision would be the final action taken by this office with reference to consent election procedure, there should not be permitted any further objections to a consent election and to insert in a report of the results of the election words to the effect that ballots will be destroyed unless objections are filed within 10 days seems to be an invitation for the filing of complaints. I would suggest, therefore, that instead of including this phrase, we make it a practice to postpone the destruction of the ballots until 30 days after the election has been held and if a complaint has been filed during the interim the ballots would be kept intact until the controversy is finally adjusted. I have been giving serious consideration to suggesting modification in the usual practice of Regional Directors certifying the results of a cross-check. We are faced at times with the union's insistence that a majority of the employees has designated the union as its representative and when we have persuaded the employer to agree to a payroll check, the union has submitted cards dating all the way from a year or more up to the present. When we protest the submission of cards dating back over a long period of time, we are informed that the employees who signed such cards have never withdrawn or expressed their desire to change their designation and we have no way of determining whether or not the signers of old cards bave since changed their minds. I believe the Board should adopt rules to govern situations of this type and instruct the Regional Directors to insist that only cards signed within a reasonable period prior to the payroll check shall be considered as bona fide expressions of the employees' desires. In most instances I think that cards dated prior to six months immediately preceding the request for bargaining should not be given serious consideration. In its instructions along these lines the Board should prescribe that signatures on cards must be verified by comparison of signatures on cancelled payroll checks or employment cards, etc. Where Regional Directors are skeptical of the genuineness of the union's claims of a majority because of the long period of time between signing of cards and their submission, or for any other valid reason, consent election procedure or Board hearing should be insisted upon, whether the union likes it or not. If an 8 (2) issue, or some other valid reason, has caused the delay in submitting membership cards the Regional Director should be permitted to use his own judgment as to the value of cards signed a long time ago. Consent election procedure should be a subject of any forthcoming revision of Rules and Regulations of the Board. Attorneys for employers are continually seeking advices as to what authority we have to conduct elections and why the Board will not certify the winning union as the bargaining agency. I think a rule could be worded to give some official or semi-official standing to consent election procedure. If not a rule or regulation, why not an official announcement by the Board, addressed to employers in general? ROBERT H. COWDRILL. RHC/erm 218054-41-vol. 24, pt. 2—42 DELAY JANUARY 17, 1939. To: B. M. Stern. From: Robert H. Cowdrill, 11th Region. Subject: International Furniture Co., Cases No. C-1084 and R-1023. With reference to your letter addressed to Joseph M. Jacobs, a copy of which was forwarded to this office, it is noted that Jacobs was advised that decisions are not rendered in representation cases in instances where a complaint case is pending. In my only talk at the convention of Directors, I stressed two points; one involving consent elections and the other, the need of more speedy action on "R" cases which have been consolidated with "C" cases. This latter question was referred to Emerson by E. S. Smith-Emerson replying that quicker action might be given if the Review Division was acquainted by the Regional Director of the need for such speed. The reference in my talk was to the undue delay in certify ing the petitioning unions in the Serrick and Zenite cases and I felt that a prompt Board decision on the "R" issues would have prevented most of the trouble which the unions encountered because of the delay. In this instant case, employees of the Rushville, Indiana, plant have expressed their desire to be represented by the petitioning union, but the Company refuses to bargain with the union until the Board has made its certification. Recently we were informed by the union that the Company intends, shortly, to increase the number of employees and the union desires to negotiate a contract as soon as possible in order to prevent the unfair practice which have been experienced in the past. The Trial Examiner's Report has been rendered in this case, with the Company complying and the union filing exceptions. If the decision of the Board is delayed for an extremely long time, it is my belief that the union will be weakened by the inaction. For this reason, may I beseech to the Board to decide on the "R" issues immediately? RHC/erm To: Lester M. Levin, Regional Attorney, 11th Region. MARCH 31, 1939. Enclosed herewith is a chart of the cases in which authorization has been requested. The first column contains the names of the cases; the second column the initials of the attorneys who will handle them; third column indicates if Board authorization is pending; fourth column indicates if cases have been authorized, and if so, the date of trial. You will note that trial dates have been set on two of them. Another. (I. P. & L.), has been authorized. All the rest are pending authorization except Kingan and we expect to send in a request for authorization on it in the next few days Walter will take Acme-Evans on April 10 and by the time he is through with it we expect Link-Belt to be authorized, and he will try that. That will take his time for the month of April. During the same time I will try Monte Glove on April 6 and follow it at four or five day intervals with Showers Brothers, Van Camp's and Kingans. When that series is finished (assuming International Furniture is reopened) I can take International Furniture which is already prepared and will be no trouble. That takes care of seven of the cases during the month of April and leaves Polks Sanitary Milk, I. P. & L. and Atlas Underwear. As said before, I. P. & L. is already authorized and we expect Polks Sanitary Milk and Atlas Underwear to be shortly. We have no definite plans as to these three and arrangements as to them will probably await discussion between yourself and Mr. Cowdrill on your return. An analysis of the above information, I believe, indicates that our present case load will not be burdensome to the Legal Department unless these Kentucky Coal cases should come in. My information is that it has been suggested by Nathan Witt that it might be advisable to hold up authorizations on the Kentucky Coal cases until we see the outcome as to compliance on the part of the group of oper ators included in the decisions just handed down by the Board. Of course we are all wishing you loads of luck in the Times case. Enc. CCS/ge COLONEL C. SAWYER. from: Robert H. Cowdrill, 11th Region. Subject: Personal and Confidential. Replying to your request of December 14, with reference to the report of Mr. Wenzel, please be advised that I was fully familiar with the activities of Mr. Watson during his investigation of the charges filed against Swift & Company at Evansville and was aware of the fact that during the trial, attorneys for the respondent and the alleged company union attempted to put into the record statements detrimental to Mr. Watson. I want you to know, also, that these statements were the subject of a phone conversation between myself and Mr. Shenkin, our attorney at the hearing, and that Mr. Shenkin requested my advice as to whether or not it would be necessary for Mr. Watson to testify in the case to repudiate disparaging remarks which the opposing attorneys were making during the trial. When Mr. Shenkin was queried as to whether or not such remarks were based on statements of fact, he replied that neither attorney attempted to prove by witnesses or by specific accusations just what Mr. Watson was doing that was detrimental to any particular party or in violation of any instructions from this Office or of the Board. Mr. Shenkin further stated that both the trial examiner and himself agreed there was nothing Mr. Watson could place on the record as rebuttal for the reason that the remarks of the attorneys were vague and indefinite. It is a wonder to me that the respondent's attorney did not mention at the Learing that I, also, was not very cooperative, because both Mr. Watson and myself endeavored in every way possible to induce the Company to consent to an election under conditions that were satisfactory to the petitioning union and this office and, in the ordinary case, would have been perfectly satisfactory to the average employer who was faced with a similar controversy. Both the officials of the Company and their Attorney, Mr. Roberts, were adamant in their attitude and I know that they deliberately stalled all of us along in the hope that they could discourage their employees from continuing their membership in the C. I. O. Local. If Mr. Watson was abrupt in some of his remarks to the management or their counsel, I do not blame him a particle and, no doubt, you will agree with me that none of our field examiners should ever approach an arbitrary employer on bended knee. As for the remarks of the attorney for the intervenor, this gentleman, a Mr. Schmidt, introduced himself to Mr. Watson during the investigation and claimed that he represented the Swift Employees Association. He was unknown to Mr. Watson at the time and was asked to supply information as to the original formation of the Association and the parties responsible for its instigation. This This Mr. Schmidt claimed he could not do as he had been retained only recently and was not familiar with all details. He promised, however, to furnish Mr. Watson with answers to his various questions at a later date, but never did so. was the only meeting between Mr. Watson and Mr. Schmidt and it occurred in Mr. Watson's hotel room in the presence of another field examiner, Mr. Freter. Nothing happened during this meeting which could cause Mr. Schmidt to complain of Mr. Watson's purported C. I. O. attitude, as the only issue under discussion was the formation of the employees association at the plant. I do not like Mr. Wenzel's report because it is based, and admittedly, on hearsay and rumors and is particularly disconcerting when he further admits that he does not know Mr. Watson and therefore does not know anything about his experience, length of service or successful record of adjustment of cases. The mere fact that it was the respondent's belief that the case could have been settled without a hearing is not sufficient, in my mind, to justify accusing a field examiner of neglect in his duty. I, personally, see to it that Mr. Watson and all other field examiners in this office make every effort possible to adjust a case before legal proceedings are even contemplated. You have my assurance that Mr. Watson did a good job on the Swift case and his unsuccessful attempt to bring about compliance was wholly due to the opposing tactics engineered by Attorney Roberts and his client, Swift & Company. RHC/em INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION DECEMBER 14, 1937. To: Robert H. Cowdrill. From: Nathan Witt. Subject: Personal and Confidential. I am enclosing herewith copy of a letter from Trial Examiner Wenzel to Chief Trial Examiner Pratt concerning Field Examiner Watson. I should appreciate any comments you may care to make on Mr. Wenzel's report. Enc. N. W. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DECEMBER 1, 1937. To: Mr. George O. Pratt, Chief Trial Examiner. DEAR MR. PRATT: In addition to my regular letter relative to the procedure and conduct of cousel during the Swift & Company hearing at Evansville, Indiana, I submit this confidential report covering the activity which prompted my long distance call on Saturday, November 30. I enclose copy of the report of Herbert Shenkin, Board's attorney, which, in substance, states the facts. The attorney for the intervening company union frequently attempted to bring in immaterial and irrelevant matter, which was properly objected to by Mr. Shenkin and sustained by the undersigned. The bulletin itself (a copy of which is enclosed) containing the alleged contemptuous remarks, was read into the record before any objections could be made and, once read, respondent's attorney immediately demanded that action be taken, leaving the Board's attorney and CIO attorney with only one alternative, that being to agree in the request. As this was near the noon recess, I adjourned, with the statement that I would consider the charges and announce any contemplated action after the noon recess. Subsequently we phoned Washington and thereafter acted pursuant to instructions from Mr. Fahy. The newspapers played up the charges and statements of respondent's counsel but the following day Mr. Meloan appeared and offered an apology, and the subsequent press stories cleared up the situation as I accepted the apology and announced that I would recommend to the Board that the matter be closed. Although the incident was embarassing to Board's counsel and myself at the time, it was finally adjusted and no harm done. Board's attorney, Shenkin, in his report mentions the charges against Field Examiner Watson and that I would report directly on this phase of the case. The respondent's and intervenor's attorneys both made numerous attempts to bring in evidence that the field examiner in his investigation was prejudiced and that his conduct was arrogant and unbecoming a government officer. I ruled out any evidence of this nature as improper and did this because I believed it to be immaterial and irrelevant to the issues in the complaint and also out of an esprit de corps feeling for any member of the staff. I do suggest, however, that some investigation be made of the activities of Examiner Watson, as it did appear that his conduct while in Evansville was harmful to the Board if the alleged charges are true. It also appeared that The Swift & Company case could have been mediated and settled to the satisfaction of all parties concerned before the hearing if Watson had personally conducted himself in a more gentlemanly manner. I do not know Field Examiner Watson and my information is based on hearsay, but I do know that there was considerable bad feeling following his visits in Evansville and that this feeling did not exist as to any field examiner other than Watson. Sincerely yours, Enclosures: HERBERT WENZEL (Trial Examiner). 1. Report of Herbert Shenkin to Mr. Fahy. 2. Shop Bulletin of November 12. 3. Shop Bulletin of November 19, containing addenda with retractions. 4. Copy of telegram of Arthur Meloan with apology to the National Labor Relations Board. INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION DECEMBER 20, 1937. To: Mr. Robert H. Cowdrill. From: Nathan Witt. Subject: Personal and Confidential. Thank you for your memorandum of December 13th, concerning the activities of Mr. Watson during his investigation of the Swift case at Evansville. Your report is completely satisfactory. I want you to understand that when I send reports like that of Wenzel's for your comments it does not mean that either the Board or I take any charge that it is made too seriously. I am following the practice of sending such comments and charges along just for the purpose of completing the record, and perhaps occasionally uncovering difficulties which may have occurred. N. W. To: Nathan Witt. (2) Taylor MAY 11, 1938. From: Robert H. Cowdrill, 11th Region. DEAR NAT: In reply to your memo regarding the appointment of Alden R. Taylor as a field examiner to this office, I will be happy to have him on our staff for the purpose of breaking him in to our work and to teach him the whys and wherefores. You did not say just what caused the Board to doubt Taylor's adaptability and I assume you wish me to make my own determination of his possible usefulness. Send him along and I will report to you from time to time as to my reactions and before the end of three months I will send you my recommendations as to the progress he has made. Best personal regards. Sincerely, RHC/em |