Grapevine Coal Co.-I thought I was through with this case but yesterday noon Mr. Hayes, Genl. Mgr. came to the hotel and asked me if I would go to Hopkinsville and talk to Mr. Cooper, Pres. of the Co. I asked what he wanted to talk about and Hayes said he did not know but I agreed to go anyway and Hayes took me to Hopkinsville this morning in his car.

Mr. Cooper wants to know right now what farther action the Board is going to take if any. He says that he has been paying his creditors a little from time to time as he could and that they have gone along with him in the hope that conditions would change so that he could pay more. But now some of his creditors say that if there is any prospect of the Board getting a court order that would be a prior claim they will put him in bankruptcy before the Board can take action. He seems to be a fine old gentleman and a square shooter-he is past 75. This opinion is confirmed by Lovelace.

I suggested to Mr. Cooper that he write to you setting out the situation in some detail and helped him frame such a letter. It is supposed to be mailed to you today. I am convinced that he is in a tight spot and think he should be advised by the Board promptly what to expect.

Sixth Vein Coal Co.-I called Mrs. Hamblett, Pres. of this Co. a little before noon today and was told by her mother that she was down-town but would be home soon. Mrs. Hamblett owns 75% of this hotel building and drops into the lobby almost every time she comes down-town so I went down to the lobby and waited. It was only a few minutes until she came in. I spoke to her and said it was important for her interest to talk with me again before I made my report. She immediately became very excited and upset. She said that her stockholders had told her not to talk except on the advice of Gordon, Gordon and Moore and they would not advise her and that could not see me nor say anything. She seemed to be scared half to death.

So far as I can see there is nothing more I can do in the Sixth Vein case here but I am not ready to recommend that the Board petition the Court for an enforcement order. There is such a wide difference between the facts I have uncovered from the payroll and otherwise, most of which Lovelace agrees are true, and the apparent record upon which the Board's decision and order is based, that I have grave doubts as to whether or not the Board could get a court enforcement order if the Co. had even a moderately good lawyer to present their side of the case. I think a complete and detailed report should be made to the Board but I want to talk to you and Sawyer before I write up my final report. There is a bare possibility that Attorneys Gordon and Moore realize the weakness of the Boards position in this case and have deliberately brought about the stalemate that now exists. I do not believe this but it is a possibility that should not be overlooked.

Williams Coal Co.-Tuesday of last week I talked with Mr. Justin Potter, Pres. of this Co., in the hotel here. He said he had to go to Louisville that afternoon but would come back here Friday to settle this matter. He did not show up Friday so I called his office at Nashville. He was there and I talked with him. I wanted to know why he had not come to Madisonville as promised and when he would come. He explained that his partner was away from the office and would not be back until Tuesday night and he would come here Wed. I insisted on an earlier date and he said he would be here Tuesday afternoon or evening. (That would be today). At noon today I received a telegram from him dated Atlanta, Ga. saying that because of illness he could not get back to Nashville until Wed. night. I think he does not intend to come back here at all.

In my opinion this case is as weak or weaker than the Sixth Vein case and it may well be that Potter believes he can win in the court. Because of my doubt on this score I am all the more anxious to get the case settled now so I plan to wire him tomorrow for an appointment at his office in Nashville on Thursday. If I get it will go there with Lovelace and settle the matter if possible.

I plan to see Richardson at Sturgis tomorrow on the West Ky. Coal Co. Case and possibly Cornbleet at Henderson. Whether or not I go to Nashville Thursday it will be impossible for me to handle the Merit Clothing Co. case at Mayfield and get to Indianapolis before next Tues. or Wed. Probably can not Complete the Cornbleet case this week either. So, unless I hear from you to the ontrary, I propose to leave here for Indianapolis as soon as possible in order to get the Williams et al cases out of the way and come back later to clean up Cornbleet and Merit.

New York Times Case:

INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION

/s/ J. C. C.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

DECEMBER 12, 1938.

Personal and Confidential.

To: Robert Cowdrill, Regional Director, 11th Region.

From: Lester M. Levin.

DEAR BOB: Arrived this morning and took up the following matters with various people:

Coal Cases.

Talked to Fred Krivonos and he hasn't done a thing on the matter as yet. He is awaiting the final report from our office in the "Ruckman" case. The report is somewheres in the machinery of the Washington office and hasn't reached his desk as yet. There wasn't much to talk about except that he feels that the Board will not proceed on the 8 (2) charge in the case and will rest merely on the 8 (1) insofar as the P. N. A. is concerned.

Royal Neighbors of America.

Spoke to Nat Witt about this case and he agreed that the Board should make up its mind whether or not we should inform the complainants as to what our future action will be. He stated that the matter was submitted to the Board quite some time ago and he will again bring it to their attention and inform us immediately of their decision. I hope it is in line with my original dissent on the Request for Authorization.

General Electric Case.

Spoke to Tom Emerson about this case and it appears that the delay is caused by the fact that the Board has not agreed on what its decision will be. This is all confidential of course, but it appears that there is a "three-way split" and there isn't anything that can be done in the matter until the Board finally decides what it is going to do. The petition by the Pattern Makers is not holding up the decision.

Atlas Underwear.

Spoke to Nat Witt about this case and he stated that he had not as yet submitted the stipulation to Mal Halliday's department for review. He immediately called up Halliday and the stipulation was turned over to Dave Shaw. As far as Shaw is concerned, it appears that the stipulation is o. k. and we probably will receive approval within short order. Nat Witt, at the suggestion of John Abt, local counsel for the T. W. O. C., thought that the approval of the Board should be delayed in order to turn the Cleveland case over to us solely for the purpose of settlement, and have our office call in the officials of Atlas Underwear in order to persuade them to settle the Piqua case along with the

Richmond case. I explained to Nat that the company made it very clear that their stipulation on the Richmond case was solely confined to the incidents arising out of Richmond and that they would be unwilling to make the Piqua case any part of this stipulation. After talking to him about the matter, he finally agreed that the best procedure would be for us to get approval on the Richmond stipulation and then approach the company on the Piqua case after that. However, the Board as yet has not made up its mind whether or not it will transfer the Piqua case to our office.

Quarry Cases.

I informed Nat Witt about the possibilities about what happened in the Quarry cases, and was advised to contact Joe Friedman, the supervisor in the Review Section who handled the decision. I advised Friedman of what will probably happen insofar as a request for a delay in the election and he didn't seem to think there would be any difficulty in the matter. However, when I informed him of the inclusion of the three companies, he stated it was difficult enough to find an Institute unit without making it a rather elastic thing which could be merged by the mere joining of certain individual companies. I told him that as soon as I had word from you as to what our course of action would be I would advise him.

New York Times Case.

As far as that case is concerned, I am going to review the file in Washington and then go up to New York and see the witnesses in order to get the complaint out as soon as possible. It appears that the case was taken out of the Second Region and made a Board case, since there was some disagreement on the policy of whether a complaint should issue. The Board itself will issue the complaint and I will try the case as the Board's attorney. The question involved is one of discrimination, and from what I can gather from the attorneys in the office who are acquainted with the case, the merits are very questionable.

Will keep you informed. Regards to the staff.

LESTER. L. M. L.

INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

To: Mr. Robert H. Cowdrill, Director, 11th Region.
From: Lester M. Levin.

Subject: The New York Times Company, C-775.

FEBRUARY 4, 1939.

DEAR BOB: Just finished the first week of the hearing, and everything seems to be going fairly well. I am enclosing two copies of the Guild News Letter summarizing the first two days of hearing. The story is being killed in all newspapers.

The Trial Examiner granted the respondent's attorney permission to hold rather short sessions, and we are only running from 10 o'clock in the morning until 4 o'clock in the afternoon. I have not finished my direct case and will not finish until the middle of next week. From all indications it looks like this case will take at least another two weeks.

Keep me advised if anything unusual develops.
Regards.

LML: MK
Enc.

INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION

LES.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

APRIL 15, 1939.

To: Mr. Robert H. Cowdrill, Director, 11th Region.
From: Lester M. Lovin, Regional Attorney, 11th Region.
Subject: The New York Times, C-775.

DEAR BOB: It looks like the respondent will finish its case surely next week. I have one or two days for rebuttal testimony and it should be finally wound up.

After this long siege I would like to take three or four days off to rest up -fore coming back to Indianapolis. If this is O. K. with you, will you let me know immediately?

Washington sent me my salary check at the New York Office.
Best regards.

I had several conferences on October 28th with Union Representatives Napier, Bradley and Lee. Despite their efforts they were unable to persuade the witnesses, whom they had suggested the previous day as being in possession of valuable evidence to support the 8 (2) case, to confer with me. However, they were given assurances that these witnesses would supply written statements within the next week.

I contacted the management and there conferred with Company Official (President) Shively in regard to the cases of complainants Bradley and Richardson. Shively insisted that the men had quit and added that the company was perfectly justified in asking that they rework at their own expense certain pieces of work that were faulty because of mistakes of the complainants. He explained the circumstances of these mistakes. I pointed out wherein the company's recital of the facts was in conflict with that of the complainants.

Shively described the hearing conducted by the State Unemployment Insurance Board as a mock trial. He stated that the men had not returned and asked for reinstatement until 5 or 6 weeks after the hearing. He stated that when they did return the company was in the slack period and laid off help regularly, and therefore, were not in a position to consider reinstatement of the complainants. Shively stated that the attorney for the State Unemployment Insurance Board had suggested to the complainants at the time of the hearing that they return and ask for reinstatement. It was Shively's contention that despite this advice the complainants did not so return. I did not discuss the 8 (2) case with Shively nor informed him that an 8 (2) charge was pending. It was my opinion that the company should not be contacted in this regard until the Union had exhausted all efforts to supply evidence.

Because the Union had stated that the company was invoking a new seniority policy which provided that the seniority rating of an employee was reduced in proportion to the number of weeks he was laid off, I questioned Shively about the company seniority policy. He stated that the company was still following the seniority policy which had been arrived at at the time of the settling of the previous case. He stated that the Independent had submitted a new contract which the company were on the point of signing and which contained the same seniority policy as previously referred to. In my opinion the company should be asked to submit their seniority policy and payrolls because it seems entirely possible that the company has deviated from its previous seniority policy in such a way as to indicate discrimination against Union members.

I then conferred with complainant Bradley, who informed me that the counsel for the State Unemployment Insurance Board had not advised the complainants to return and ask for reinstatement but that they had done this at from two to three weeks after the hearing and were again refused reinstatement. Bradley states that at the hearing the Company Superintendent referred to "labor trouble" as being a possible cause of the complainants' discharge or voluntary quitting. Bradley states that he can prove that employees had never been previously subjected to such harsh treatment in the past when found guilty of mistakes. It is his impression that if we can obtain a transcript of the State Unemployment Insurance Board hearing it will contain valuable evidence to support his contention that the company's explanation of the circumstances surrounding their termination of employment was a mere camouflage, and the real reason was their Union activities.

The Union representatives asked that they be given two weeks to produce witnesses who will of their own knowledge give testimony which will substantiate the leads heretofore mentioned in this report. If at this time the Union has been unsuccessful, I believe that a representative of this office should personally contact the organizers and officials of the alleged company union. The Union states that if after this procedure has been followed no additional evidence is forthcoming, they will request withdrawal of charges.

The Union is now working in conjunction with Union Representative Tullar in an effort to supply the needed evidence. Union Representative Napier promises to keep this office informed during the next few weeks of the results of the Union's efforts along these lines.

REM/im

To: Nathan Witt, Secretary.

From: Robert H. Cowdrill, 11th Region.

Subject: Memo M-793, dated February 2, 1939.

MARCH 21, 1939.

This office does not make it a practice to notify an employer, immediately, that charges are filed against him. I understand, however, that such practice is followed in other offices. It is my belief that an employer, upon being advised charges have been filed, in advance of any investigation of the matter, is given an opportunity to take steps to hamper the impending investigation and possibly forestall our efforts to obtain the true facts: particularly so where an 8 (2) violation is an issue. However, when the Examiner has secured sufficient evidence to support the charge the employer is promptly notified and, when possible, prior to the Examiner's visit to the Company's office.

In cases where we find no possible merit the Company is not informed of the filing of charges and the charge is subsequently withdrawn. In accordance with paragraph D. of Memo M-793 you instruct the Regional Directors to notify employers when a case is actually closed. However, these instructions should not apply to cases where the charges are unfounded as the accused employer had no foreknowledge that charges had been filed against him, unless, of course, he had been informed by someone outside of this office.

Therefore, in those cases where an employer has not been contacted in any way and is apparently unaware that charges have been filed, I do not deem it advisable to inform him "that no further action will be taken at this time." To my mind it is rather a bewildering performance to an innocent employer (and there are a few!) and we should in such cases just let the matter die.

For instance, an employee who has been laidoff might file a charge against a company alleging his dismissal was caused by union activities and upon investigation it was acceded by the union that the layoff was in accordance with strict seniority rules. The company, notified of the filing of the charges, and eventually of the case being closed, might very well take it upon itself to penalize the complaining employee, thereupon leaving itself wide open for a valid charge. It might be a good way to create business, but I think we would be at fault in the first instance.

Will you agree with me that, under the above or similar circumstances, the employer should not be advised of the filing of the charges or subsequently that the case is closed?

RHC/erm

Morgan Packing Co.:

To: Robert H. Cowdrill, Director, 11th Region.
From: Beatrice M. Stern.

JULY 12, 1933.

Subject: Morgan Packing Company, Cases Nos. XI-C-575; C-687; C-688; R-325; R-326; R-327.

Thank you for your memorandum of July 6th. We shall await your further report with interest. I agree with you entirely in your summing up of Mr. Curtis' letter. It is a surprising document. It is clear from the nature of the charge that the Union intends to base its allegation of refusal to bargain collectively on events occurring since May 19, 1939. Under the circumstances, we are definitely closing the remaining open cases listed above. We are not making any formal representation to the respondent to this effect, however.

B. M. S.