EXHIBIT NO. 1630-G MAY 22, 1939. To: Robert H. Cowdrill. From: Beatrice M. Stern. Subject: Cornbleet Bros., Case No. XI-C-499. I discussed your memoranda in this case with the Board, which desires further information. Can you secure a more definite statement as to whether the number of cards signed by the employees on May 31 represented a majority of the employees in the plant at that time Your information given so far shows that approximately 200 signed the cards and that the plant employed from 400 to 450 production workers, although you do state that at the time of the strike on October 11, 350 production employees were employed. Please go into this matter further and with careful detail. Will you also please amplify your report on what happened at the time the employees were refused reinstatement or were discharged in October 1938. Were the cases of the two out of the 40 who refused to sign the pledge differentiated in their treatment by the union from the other 38? Were the 40 deprived of their union membership? Was it on this basis that they were refused employment by the company? Were they discharged by the company? Did the employer first refuse to reinstate them as prior action to anything which the union did by way of depriving them of their membership, etc.? Subject: Richard Cornbleet & Benjamine Cornbleet, doing busines as Cornbleet Bros., Case No. XI-C-499. Mrs. Stern has requested you to have the file in this case studied for the purpose of furnishing a report on the merits. In the meantime, the Regional Office has been requested to furnish additional information on several points. The charge was filed on January 19, 1939, and alleges 8 (1), (2), and (3). The 8 (2) is directed against the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, herein called the I. L. G., which has a contract with the respondent. Commerce.-Richard and Benjamine Cornbleet constitute the respondent partnership, which is engaged in the manufacture and distribution of women's dresses, smocks, and housecoats. The partnership operates two factories at Henderson, Kentucky, and at McLeansboro, Illinois. Between 300 and 450 persons are employed at Henderson, and about 175 at McLeansboro. The partnership operates 60 retail shops in 15 different States. Annual sales exceed $750,000. The charge filed involves only the Henderson plant. 8 (1). On May 26, 1937, partner Richard Cornbleet procured the circulation of a company union petition in the plant. In addition a company union speech was made during working hours by an "instructor," and an outsider was called in after work to make an anti-union speech, to which the employees were required to listen. The same evening about 200 of the employees themselves held a meeting to discuss organizing a bona fide union. The following day the plant was closed indefinitely, allegedly for “Slack business." On May 29 a contract between the respondent and the I. L. G. was negotiated in St. Louis. None of the employees were members of the I. L. G. at the time It is not clear whether the contract was actually signed at this time or whether it was signed later, on June 1. On May 31 a meeting of the employees was called in Henderson, apparently by local business men. After a number of anti-union speeches were made at the meeting, a C. I. O. organizer who chanced to be present was permitted to make a speech in favor of the C. I. O. He was not interrupted or interfered with. The organizer, apparently connected with the U. A. W., then led about 200 of the employees to another meeting place, where the employees all signed C. I. O. cards. These cards did not bear the name of any particular C. I. O. union. It does not appear whether the 200 employees signing these cards constituted a majority of those employed at the time. Pursuant to arrangements by Richard Cornbleet, a meeting was held in a local hotel on the afternoon of June 1. This was attended by about 54 employees, including most of the supervisors. Cornbleet brought one Perlstein, the C. I. O. district director, and three other I. L. G. officials to the meeting. Cornbleet then introduced Perlstein and withdrew. Perlstein obtained 25 or more signatures to I. L. G. membership cards, and officers of an I. L. G. local for the respondent's employees were elected. On June 2 the plant was reopened, and employees returning to work were given blank sheets of paper which they were instructed to sign in order to obtain work. The employees later were informed that the blank sheets had mysteriously become applications for membership in the I. L. G. and authorizations for the check-off of I. L. G. initiation fees. The I. L. G. contract called for a closed shop, provided for arbitration of disputes, and prohibited any strikes. The contract by its terms was effective until December 31, 1938, but gave the respondent an option to extend its life one additional year. This option was exercised. In setting up the I. L. G. local for the Henderson plant, Perlstein selected a union manager to be in charge of the local's affairs. Thereafter during the life of the contract the respondent from time to time violated its terms, but rank and file union members were unable to get the union manager to present any grievances under the contract. On the whole the 8 (1) seems sufficiently clear and strong. A possible difficulty may arise if the 200 C. I. O. cards signed on May 31 constitute a majority and could be deemed applications for membership in the I. L. G. (This is one of the points on which the Regional Office has been requested to furnish additional information.) Since the I. L. G. contract was negotiated on May 29, it is clear that there was no relation between the C. I. O. membership cards and the respondent's recognition of the I. L. G. It might be urged that the employees' subsequent signatures, being obtained without coercion, constituted a ratification of the recognition of the I. L. G. as bargaining agent. This argument should not be persuasive since a designation of the C. I. O. can hardly be regarded as a designation of a particular component organization of the C. I. O. unless there be extrinsic evidence showing that designation of the component organization was in fact intended. There does not appear to be such evidence in this case. 8 (2). Since this case involves a national labor organization, there should be no 8 (2) allegation. 8 (3). On October 10, 1938, the respondent announced discontinuance of a 10-per cent bonus on piece work, which bonus had been granted early in 1937. That evening a number of union members, including a vice president of the local and the chairman of the shop committee, asked the union manager to call a meeting to discuss a protest against this wage reduction. The union manager refused to call any meeting, saying it was "the company's own business if they wanted to take off the bonus." The next day 200 out of a total of 350 employees went on strike, and from October 12 to October 31 the plant was completely shut down. On October 22 the picket line was removed by the strikers upon receiving assurance from local business men that they all would be reinstated. The following day all employees were called to a meeting at the union hall and told to sign a paper declaring that the strike was illegal and pledging allegiance to the I. L. G. On October 31 about 40 of the strikers were denied reinstatement when the plant reopened. Only 2 of these 40 had refused to sign the pledge on October 23; 35 of the 40 are named in the charge as having been discriminated against. No details are given as to the manner in which these persons were denied reinstatement, but the respondent has indicated that primary responsibility for the denials of reinstatement rests with the I. L. G. It appears that the 35 persons named in the charge were discriminated against fos participating in the strike, in violation of the I. L. G. agreement with the company. (This is one of the points on which the Regional Office has been requested to furnish additional information.) Since under 8 (1) the I. L. G. contract should be regarded as illegal, when entered into it would appear to provide no valid basis for the discrimination against the strikers. It could scarcely be urged that the employees, by participating in I. L. G. affairs up until the strike, had demon strated a willingness to accept the I. L. G. as their bargaining agent, since they were forced to join the I. L. G. in order to work. A nice question may arise, however, as to the effect of the action of the strikers in signing the I. L. G. pledges on October 23. 1938. If those signing constituted a majority of the employees at the time, it might be urged that their pledges to the I. L. G. were not coerced in any way by the respondent, and thus the I. L. G. on October 23, 1938, became the duly authorized representative of a majority. A more realistic view, however, is that the strikers regarded the strike as a lost cause and simply acquiesced once more in the illegal relationship between the respondent and the I. L. G. It thus seems that the 35 discrimination cases will stand up, unless the Regional Office discovers additional material which would require the opposite conclusion. It is indicated in one of the weekly reports on the case that the I. L. G. has offered to obtain reinstatement of those discriminated against if they will pledge loyalty to the I. L. G. It is doubtful that this offer is in good faith. Even if it were, the acceptance of such offer as a basis of settlement would only perpetuate what amounts to a union "racket." It should be noted, in closing, that the I. L. G. contract covers both plants of the respondent. The foregoing evidence is limited to the Henderson plant. Evidence as to what happened in the McLeansboro plant conceivably might be relevant to the present case, although it would have no controlling importance. It might be well to proceed against the respondent as to both plants if the evidence respecting the McLeansboro plant would justify such procedure. Conclusions. The file as it now stands indicates that a sound 8 (1) and (3) case exists. S. G. EXHIBIT NO. 1630-I Cornbleet Brothers, Henderson, Kentucky, Robert H. Cowdrill James Poland, former representative of the UAW and the CIO in Evansville, Indiana, called at the office to discuss with the Director his activities in respect to this case during May and June of 1937. Mr. Poland reports that he was the sub-regional director of the CIO in southern Indiana at the time, and that, upon the request of certain employees of Cornbleet Brothers, two of his organizers proceeded to Henderson for the purpose of investigating the need of a CIO local amongst these employees. These two men reached Henderson at the time of a public meeting, and, during this meeting, addressed the employees in behalf of the CIO. Later, meetings were held in the park and in Evansville, and it is Mr. Poland's recollection that at least 280 cards were signed during this period. Mr. Poland was at one of the meetings in Henderson, but, due to the lack of a suitable meeting place, he arranged to bring the girls from Henderson to Evansville, via trucks, where they were addressed in the CIO headquarters. Mr. Poland knows that at one time 280 cards were signed and believes that, subsequently, more cards were signed, and he also distinctly remembers that these cards were the usual CIO yellow cards that were in use at the time, and that these cards did not designate any particular union. Mr. Poland also recalls that he wrote to Mr. Dubinsky of the ILGWU in an attempt to have that union send a representative to Henderson, but he was informed by Dubinsky to "mind his own business", and that these original cards remained in the possession of the CIO headquarters in Evansville until Mr. Poland's subsequent departure from that region. When eventually the strike was called off and the girls went back to work under an ILGWU contract, Poland called a committee of these girls in Evansville, told them of his inability to do anything further for them and turned over to them the amount of money that was collected with the cards, received a receipt for this money, which was finally forwarded to Homer Martin. Mr. Poland promised to write a detailed report as to all of his activities in connection with this affair, and is willing to testify if the case proceeds to a hearing. This report will be furnished within a few days. EXHIBIT NO. 1630-J NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Attention: Mr. Halliday. From: Nicoson. Date: 6/1. Cowdrill is to furnish further information. Garrett has reviewed files and finds strong case on the merits. I agree. I discussed with Mrs. Stern who suggests we hold up our report until Cowdrill information arrives and then have another look. This is the proper thing to do because this case is a hot potato. INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION To: Beatrice M. Stern, Assistant Secretary. From: Robert H. Cowdrill, Regional Director, 11th Region. JUNE 1, 1939. The questions asked in your memorandum of May 22nd have not been answered until this time because we were awaiting the visit of a former CIO organizer, Mr. James Poland, who was very active in this case during May, 1937. Mr. Poland called at this office during the late afternoon of May 27th, and I am enclosing a memorandum of the conference which was held between myself and Mr. Poland. I was also promised a report in writing by Mr. Poland, but it has not as yet been received. However, you will note by the memorandum that several doubtful issues in the case were cleared up by the interview with Mr. Poland, and, particularly, the query in reference to the number and existence of cards that were signed by the CIO during the strike period in the plant which took place the latter part of May, 1937. You will note also that Poland recalls 280 or more cards being signed, that dues were paid thereon, that the cards did not designate any particular union, that following the signing of the ILGWU contract, the strike was called off, and, eventually, the dues money returned to the employees, the cards remaining in the UAW office for several months thereafter. I believe the above paragraph answers fully your first question in your memorandum of May 22nd, and, although it indicates that a CIO union did obtain designations from a majority of the employees, the cards so secured were not used thereafter. The difference between the number of employees in the plant as of May, 1937 and as of October, 1938, I understand, was caused by a reduction in the working force. It must be realized that although all of this activity was in behalf of the CIO, and, although the company officials were preaching against the employees joining the CIO, the Cornbleet Brothers signed a closed shop contract with the ILGWU which was a CIO affiliate at the time, and signed such contract when this particular union did not represent any of the employees in the plant. In reference to the second question, as stated in the authorization request, the Mayor of Henderson and the Secretary of the Board of Trade arranged a settlement of the strike on the promise of Cornbleet Brothers that they would reinstate all employees who went out on strike. On the strength of this promise the committee handling the matter for the striking employees pulled off the picket line and it was arranged for all employees to report at the union hall. When the employees appeared at the union hall they were asked to sign the "Statement and Pledge of Allegiance" copy of which accompanied the request for authorization. After they had signed this pledge, certain employees were told to report at the factory where, in turn, they were told that they would be notified when the factory was ready to open. However, the union manager, Miss Zappone, did not send all of those who signed the pledge to the factory. With one or two exceptions, she did not send any of those who had served on the picket line to the factory. The two who refused to sign the pledge went to the factory on their own initiative and were told that they would have to go to the unit and be okeyed for reinstatement. Most of the thirty-eight who signed the pledge, but were not sent to the factory by the union, went to the factory on their own initiative but were refused reinstatement. It appears that the unit manager, Miss Zappone, and Cornbleet Brothers had made up a list of flame who had served on the picket line, and perhaps one or two others who had twen active during the strike, who were not to be reinstated; but there is no direct evidence to prove this. It is a strong belief of the complainants in this ca❤ that such list was made up and the procedure adopted and the events that fo lowed indicate pretty clearly that there must have been an agreement betweez the union and the company not to reinstate these forty employees. This might come out at the hearing if authorized, in cross examining company witnesses ar ILGWU witnesses, but none of the complainants can testify that such a list had been made. All of the forty who were refused reinstatement were suspended from the union indefinitely. It is probable, however, that most of the forty would agree to agam join the union or have their membership reinstated if they could get their jobs back by so doing. We have no evidence to prove it, but the complainants in this case appear to be receiving support from the UMWA, District 23. It is known that organizers for the UMW are keeping in close touch with the complainants and Mr. B. N. Gordon who is the attorney for the UMW, District 23, Madisonville, Kentucky, is also the attorney for the complainants in this case. I believe the above answers all the questions you asked in your memorandum of May 22nd. RHC/LW. enc. R. H. C. EXHIBIT NO. 1630-K JUNE 5, 1939. To: Mr. M. J. Nicoson. From: Sylvester Garrett. Subject: Richard Cornbleet and Benjamine Cornbleet, doing business as Cornbleet Bros., Case No. XI-C-499. Regional Director Cowdrill has furnished additional information in this case, which bears on its two most doubtful aspects. On the whole, this information strengthens the conclusion that a legally sound case exists here. As you know, one of the serious questions here presented was whether the contract between the respondent and the I. L. G. was valid when entered into, or was subsequently validated by action of the employees. The facts as they now appear are: (1) on May 29 respondent, having failed in efforts to form a company union, negotiated a contract with the I. L. G., although the contract was not signed until June 1; (2) about May 31 and thereafter approximately 280 employees (a majority) signed C. I. O. membership cards and apparently paid a fee therewith; (3) the cards thus signed did not designate any particular C. I. O. union, and the signatures were obtained by a U. A. W. organizer; (4) at a meeting arranged by respondent on June 1, Perlstein, district head of the I. L. G., was presented to a group of employees by the respondent's officials and proceeded to sign up members for the I. L. G., but obtained less than 30 signatures; (5) on June 2 the plant was reopened (it having been shut down May 27 after the employees had manifested unwillingness to tolerate a company union), and all returning employees were required to sign blank sheets which later mysteriously became applications for I. L. G. membership and authorizations for the check-off of I. L. G. initiation fees; (6) following reopening of the plant, the U. A. W. organizer informed the 280 employees who had signed C. I. O. cards that he could do nothing further for them, and returned their initiation fees. From these facts it seems clear that neither the 280 employees who signed C. I. O. cards nor the district I. L. G. officials regarded the signatures to the 280 cards as constituting a designation of the I. L. G. as representative of the employees. Therefore, the 280 cards signed in this case conferred no authority on the I. L. G. unless the signature of a C. I. O. card automatically constitutes a designation of the appropriate C. I. O. component union. Whether or not the Board should proceed in this case seems to depend on whether this latter |