NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Attention: From: Date: 3/5. This case is being reported today. It will take at least 6 weeks more, I should say. COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION, Referred to: Mr. Thomas I. Emerson, Asst. General Counsel, NLRB. By ANTHONY WAYNE SMITH. MARCH 2, 1938. Re Inland Steel & S. W. O. C., NLRB case No. C-252. Shoreham Building, Washington, D. C. (Att: Nathan Witt, Esq., Thomas I. Emerson, Esq.) GENTLEMEN: Mr. Philip Murray has requested that the present situation of the workers concerned in the above matter be brought to the attention of the National Labor Relations Board. We appreciate the length of the transcript in this case. We cannot fail, however, to remember that the matter has been in the hands of the Board for over nine months, nor to note that there appears to be no probability of the issuance of the decision in the near future. Meanwhile, not only do the rights of the workers concerned in the principal case remain unenforced, but a continuous succession of additional discriminations against union members is taking place. The respondent, as a result of the hearings held last summer, is in possession of all the information necessary to accom plish its anti-union purposes. The grievance committee of the union find it almost impossible to deal with the great number of complaints that are brought to it for adjustment. In view of these facts we have two requests to make, and would appreciate word from the Board with regard to each: (1) We ask that the decision in this matter be expedited and that we be given some idea as to the date on which we may expect final determination. (2) We ask further that a special investigator be dispatched either from the regional office of the Board in Chicago or from the Washington office of the Board itself, and that such investigator undertake to prepare further proceedings against the respondent with regard to its recent unfair labor practices, complaints to issue at the earliest opportunity. We are writing today to our representatives in the field to make sure that proper charges are prepared in the event that this has not already been done. We are in receipt of a letter from the C. I. O. which states that there is a "D tinuous succession of additional discriminations against union members" by this company. "The respondent as a result of the hearings held last summer, is in possession of all the information necessary to accomplish its anti-union purpos The grievance committee of the union find it almost impossible to deal with the great number of complaints that are brought to it for adjustment." For your information, we have advised Assistant Counsel for the C. I. O. te instruct local officers of the union to prepare and file with you charges of alleged discriminations, and that you will investigate them promptly. B. M. S. INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION To: National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C. Subject: Inland Steel Company, C-252. MARCH 30, 1938. Attached hereto is letter received from Mr. Parks McGregor, Recording Secretary of the Steel Workers Organizing Committee, Lodge No. 1026, East Chicago, Indiana with reference to the above case. Mr. McGregor has been advised of the reference of this letter to our Washington office. DEAR SIR: A motion was made and carried by our lodge that I write this letter asking you to give a decision on the Inland Steel Case as soon as possible. I am resp. yours, Mr. PARKS MCGREGOR, Rec. Sec. STEEL WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE C. I. 0.-INLAND LODGE NO. 1010-C. I. O. Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America Auditorium Hall, 3436 Michigan Ave., East Chicago, Ind. RESOLUTION Whereas: The case of Inland Steel Company has been pending before the National Labor Relations Board since June 8th, 1937, and Whereas Over five months have passed since the hearings in the Inland Steel case have adjourned on October 14th, 1937, and Whereas Inland Steel Company is utilizing this delay to discriminate against our Union members; Therefore Be It Resolved: That we members of Inland Lodge # 1010, consisting of employees of Inland Steel Company, at its meeting of March 17th, 1938, go on record demanding an immediate decision by the N. L. R. B. in the case of the Inland Steel Company and the SWOC (NLRB Case C-252), and Be It Further Resolved: That copies of this Resolution be sent to the members of the NLRB; J. Warren Madden, Donald Wakefield Smith and Edwin S. Smith; to the President of the U. S. A. and to the Secretary of Labor. Signed by: WM. MAIHOFER, Wm. Maihofer, President. EXHIBIT NO. 1632-E EPISODE DEALING WITH SAPOSS PARTICIPATION 1. Memorandum from David J. Saposs, dated June 10, 1937, entitled "Written trade agreement as epitome of collective bargaining." This memorandum was taken from E. S. Smith's file. It deals with prospective testimony to be used in a case and on page 5 it says: "4. All the steel companies, including Inland, have agreements covering their coal mines and provide for the closed shop, yet these concerns have not suffered." Note that Inland is the only manufacturer mentioned by name. * * 2. Memorandum from Bliss to Dorfman, dated July 31, 1937, concerning compilation of statistics for use in Inland case. The memorandum states in part: furthermore, the figures look as though they would require considerable interpretation and that it probably will be desirable to have them introduced through Mr. Saposs." 3. Memorandum from Saposs to Dorfman, dated August 19, relating to material sent by Dorfman which had been prepared by Stone, respondent witness Saposs said he would like to "* talk the matter over with Mr. Fahy and Mr. Witt." * * 4. Memorandum from Saposs to Messrs. Madden, E. S. Smith and D. W. Smith. dated December 15, 1937, relating to testimony in the Inland Steel on written agreements. It enclosed a copy of his analysis and went on to say: “* Mr. Fahy has also been supplied with a copy." On page 5 of the memorandum Saposs raised the question as to how the additional data was to be used most effectively. He suggested that it could be introduced by way of rebuttal and by recalling Stone, respondent's witness, or a bulletin could be prepared on the entire subject of which the Court could be asked to take judicial notice. 5. Memorandum Saposs to Madden, E. S. Smith and D. W. Smith, dated September 23, 1937, related to a bulletin on "written trade agreements" that Saposs wanted to issue in view of the number of cases of which the subject was an issue. He again referred to the analysis of respondent's presentation in the Inland case that he had given to Mr. Fahy. National Labor Relations Board June 10, 1937 WRITTEN TRADE AGREEMENT IS EPITOME OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING A. FOR DIRECT TESTIMONY I. Essence of Collective Bargaining. a. Self-organization. b. Represented by representatives of own choosing in negotiations. Commonly known as union recognition. c. Consumation of negotiations through written trade agreements. d. Employers concede A and B but challenge C, yet under modern industrial and business conditions (1) no business would consider a business transaction completed unless the results were recorded in a written document, and (2) the whole history of collective bargaining reveals that the epitome of collective bargaining is a written agreement negotiated by and entered into with employers by chosen representatives of the workers, acting through a self-organized, self-directed, and self-financed labor organization. II. History of Collective Bargaining. a. How and why written trade agreement was introduced. 1. Employers at first objected but gradually began to appreciate importance as assuring continuity of production, industrial peace, and certainty of established labor conditions, so could make long range contracts with assurance that labor cost would not change before fulfillment of contract. 2. Now employers dealing with unions take written trade agreement for granted, and demand it. b. Just as anti-union employers have denied the right of their employees to self-organization, to be represented by representatives of their own choosing. they have also denied the right of their workers to demand a written trade agreement. 1. A glaring inconsistency is the fact that these same employers have entered into written agreements with their company unions. (a) And many of these company unions originally were granted the closed shop. III. Evolution of Written Trade Agreement. a. Trace development from verbal understanding to simple memorandum, to comprehensive and highly technical written trade agreement. 1. Illustrate by such industries as steel, printing, coal, railroad, garment. b. Show that there are practically no instances where verbal trade agreements are used in labor relations arrangements with large firms, and in important industries. IV. Complex Nature of a Written Trade Agreement in an Industrial Order. a. Analyze salient provisions of modern trade agreements by subject matter. 1. Illustrate from such industries as steel, printing, coal, garment, railroad. 2. Such involved and highly technical stipulations could not be entrusted to memory. b. Complex nature of written trade agreements require machinery for their interpretation and administration, which is provided for in the written trade agreement. 1. No matter how carefully agreements are drawn, (a) differences arise as to the meaning of provisions and clauses, and (b) because of the dynamic nature of industry, new factors and problems that could not be anticipated, which must be adjusted in the light of the agreement. c. Describe structure and functions of machinery set-up for interpretation of trade agreements, in railroad, printing, garment, coal, steel. V. Significance and Value of Written Trade Agreements. a. Assures employer industrial peace and continuity of production during duration of agreement. 1. Knows for that period what his labor cost will be. 2. Can make long range contracts and be certain of making delivery. b. Avoids misunderstandings that would inevitably arise under verbal agree ment. 1. Complicated provisions could not be carried in mind. c. Provides machinery for peaceful adjustment of differences that arise during duration of agreement. d. Agreements are religiously observed by labor organizations. 1. Labor organizations and their representatives have proved highly responsible; there are very few instances of broken agreements. 2. Employers demanding union responsibility can secure it through written trade agreements. 3. In various jurisdictions, courts have ruled that unions are suable and trade agreements enforcible, although there are few law suits because unions have been eminently responsible. 4. Fraud statutes? VI. In all important industrial countries written trade agreements are regarded as the epitome of collective bargaining. VII. Sound Business Practice Dictates That All Important Business Transactions Should Be in Writing. a. Quote from economic books on business practice and books on business law. B. FOR REBUTTAL AND CROSS-EXAMINATION I. Why the difficulty in interruptions after signing of recent agreements in automobile industry, etc. a. History of collective bargaining has demonstrated that a bitter strike results in hard feeling which is slowly dissipated. b. Local managers and their subordinates may find it difficult to readjust to the new situation. c. Inexperienced local leaders among the workers are also similarly conditioned. d. It is significant to bear in mind that none of the interruptions were of long duration-they were readily adjusted by responsible leaders on both sides. e. By way of contrast there is the situation in U. S. Steel where the corporation entered into a written agreement with the S. W. O. C. after negotiations and not following a strike. 1. There have been no interruptions and there is a minimum of friction. f. The history of collective bargaining reveals that where both sides act in good faith and show mutual confidence and respect, interruptions practically never occur and friction is reduced to a minimum. g. Aggravating strikes resulting in violence and disturbance usually occur when employers resist the fundamental rights of their employees to organize for collective bargaining. 218054-41-vol. 24, pt. 2-56 II. Is not the closed shop the chief objective of a written trade agreement? a. No, the chief objective is the establishment on a responsible basis of orderly, business-like relations with employers. b. Do not unions demand the closed shop? 1. The unions active in the mass production industries have demanded that they be the spokesmen for their members, but if they can prove that they represent a majority of the workers they be permitted to function as the exclusive bargaining agency for all the workers. c. Is not the closed shop the ultimate objective of unions? 1. Conditions not desires force unions to demand the closed shop. (a) The railroad industry is the best organized in the United States, and the union agreements do not provide for the closed shop. The reason for this is that the unions know that the employers in this industry accept unions as a legitimate and necessary institution, hence they do not fear that employers will attempt to undermine them. (b) It is when employers take an unfair position and resort to unfair labor practices and conduct open shop campaigns that unions, as a means of self-defense in order to protect themselves from being undermined by the employers, demand the closed shop. (c) The general hostile attitude of the press and influential elements of the country are also contributory factors. 2. The United States is the only important industrial country in which unions generally demand closed shop. 3. It is also the only important industrial country in which employers have resorted to widespread terroristic methods in combating efforts of workers at self-organization for collective bargaining, and in breaking up such organizations when formed, by such vicious and anti-social methods as discrimination, labor spies, blacklist, company unions, open shop campaigns, etc. 4. All the steel companies, including Inland, have agreements covering their coal mines and providing for the closed shop, yet these concerns have not suffered. (a) Employers in other industries have enjoyed similar good relations. (b) It is the anti-union employers who have had no dealings with unions that raise the closed shop bogy. JULY 31, 1937. To: Mr. I. S. Dorfman. Subject: Inland Steel. Dave, before leaving on his vacation, requested me to write to you to the effect that the transcript of the testimony in the Inland case for the dates of July 27 and 28 has not been received in this office as far as we have been able to ascertain. He was therefore unable to go over the testimony of Mr. Stone before leaving. He seemed to feel that in case it was necessary to introduce additional testimony on the growing tendency towards the reduction of trade agreements to writing. such testimony could be introduced here in Washington if and when the Board decides to reopen the case. However, if for some reason it seems necessary to introduce such testimony at this juncture of the hearing, Mr. Saposs can doubtless be reached. I will plan to let the matter stand unless I hear to the contrary from you. I wrote you this week that we were compiling statistics to show that a large percentage of those companies dealing with the unions operated under trade agreements. The compilation of this material is taking longer than we anticipated. Furthermore, the figures look as though they would require considerable interpretation and that it probably will be desirable to have them introduced through Mr. Saposs. Considering these facts I think it would be better to hold these figures until the case is reopened here and will do so unless you write that it is necessary to have something in the record closely following Stone's testimony that will refute his argument. eb: rr. E. B |