one of downward adjustment of wages. At one time in 1931 wages were reduced from 35 to 45 per cent at one fell swoop, and the reductions totaled from 50 to 60 per cent during the period from 1929 to 1933. It became a very serious question as to whether or not the necessary deflation from the high point of 1929 could satisfactorily be handled by the industry on a general wage policy basis, and shortly after 1931, when the big cuts were taken, insurgent strikes developed all over the industry. Trade union officials were held to have sold out to maunfacturers. They were under very serious pressure. The manufacturers at that time recognized that there was only one thing that could save the situation, and that was a 100 per cent closed shop and a checkoff, because it was only in that manner that the union could be made to survive the deflationary process that was being taken in an orderly fashion. At that time the 100 per cent closed shop and the checkoff went into effect to insure continuance of the plan that was to everyone's advantage. Without these devices, the union probably would have passed out of the picture." If your attorney in the Inland case could get Taylor to testify to the employers' position and if he could get some of the railroad people to testify as to the railroad companies' position, I think this whole issue of the check-off and the closed shop might be washed out as policies that both employers and unions sometimes advocate so that neither side is in a position to throw stones at the other about them. It seems to me that meeting the issue in this way might demonstrate that it is irrelevent to the controversy over whether written agreements shall be made or not, whereas if testimony on these issues is merely excluded on the ground of irrelevancy the courts may not be convinced. Sincerely yours, WM. M. LIESERSON. EXHIBIT NO. 1632-T NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD JULY 6, 1937. To: Mr. Nathan Witt, Assistant General Counsel. Enclosed please find original and two copies of application for subpena duces tecum requested by respondent in the above matter and addressed to the Independent Union. The application calls for the applications for membership, admissions to membership, resignations of members, and members in good standing of the Indepdent Union on June 8, 1937, and thereafter. My opinion is that the subpena should not issue. The counsel for the Independent Union admitted at the hearing that the Independent does not have a majority of the employees of Inland Steel Company in any appropriate unit. This, in my opinion, makes all evidence with reference to membership in the Independent Union irrelevant. The sole issue is whether the SWOC has a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit. Even if some of the employees belong to both the SWOC and the Independent, it would not tend to prove that the membership in the SWOC was decreased to that extent. Subject: Inland Steel Company, XIII-C-351. Enclosed please find original and three copies of application for subpenas filed with the trial examiner by counsel for the Inland Steel Company. I called to the attention of Mr. Ballard, chief counsel for respondent, that the subject matter to be testified to by the proposed witnesses was not set forth in the application. He replied that the omission was deliberate, in order to test the rules and regulations of the Board in this regard. He added, however, that respondent genuinely desires to have the individuals named in the applica tion testify in this matter. Regards, SOL, I. S. Dorfman, Attorney. ISD: INM. Enclosures (4). (Written notation:) Mrs. Hern: The Board today granted this application. C. F. National Labor Relations Board, 20 North Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois. Board has granted application Inland for subpoenas listed in application transmitted with your memorandum of August sixth. EXHIBIT NO. 1632-U CHARLES FANY. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD JULY 9, 1937. To: Mr. I. S. Dorfman. The Federal Steel Mediation Board has released its final report on its efforts to mediate the steel strike. I am sending you this release, issued by the Department of Labor under date of July 2, 1937, with the thought that it might be useful to you in the Inland Steel hearings, as it contains several interesting references to the Inland Steel Company. I am at the same time sending you copies of Exhibit C of this report. This statement was issued by Inland at the time that negotiations broke down. and wes sent to me by Miss Perkins' secretary, Miss Jay. I inquired to see whether we could obtain certified copies of either of these documents. Miss Jay felt that these could not be certified by the Department of Labor as the mediation efforts were not official acts of the Department of Labor. I am sending them to you nevertheless with the idea that if you desire to use them it would probably be possible to secure identification of these documents through one of the officials of Inland. (Written notation:) Best of luck in the hearings. Betty. E. T. B. To: Dr. Saposs. From: Charles Fahy. EXHIBIT NO. 1632-V JULY 16, 1937. Subject: Bulletin on written trade agreements and union recognition. I have not been able yet to read the manuscript of this proposed bulletin but write now to say that although I am in favor of such a bulletin being issued, I do not think it should be issued prior to the Board decision in the Inland case. The question of what constitutes proper collective bargaining and whether or not there is an obligation when accord is reached to make or execute an agreement is a matter primarily for the Board to decide in its judicial function. For the Board to issue a bulletin on this question when the very subject is pending before it in its judicial capacity would not I think be wise. The law in this regard should be established by Board decision. Perhaps after the decision in such a case as Inland the bulletin might be desirable. CF: few. EXHIBIT NO. 1632-W CHARLES FAHY. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD JULY 29, 1937. Memorandum. To: Mr. I. S. Dorfman-13th Region. Subject: Inland Steel. Dave asked me to find out whether you had introduced the report of the Federal Steel Mediation Board and the statement issued by Inland following the termination of the Mediation Board's efforts, as exhibits in this case. He is attempting to obtain affidavits from McGrady to the effect that the mimeographed release of July 2 is a true copy of the Mediation Board's report and that the statement of Inland is a true copy of that handed to the Board on June 24, 1937. He feels that it is extremely important to have these two documents in the record and requests you to let him know whether you have been able to introduce them in their present form. If we hear from you to the contrary, we will send you McGrady's affidavits to enable you to get this material into the record. Would you please let us know as soon as possible so that we can get these affidavits to you before the hearings close. E. B. E. B. EXHIBIT No. 1632-X NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD AUGUST 2, 1937. To: Mr. I. S. Dorfman-13th Region. Subject: Inland Steel. At McGrady's suggestion we are sending the report of the Federal Steel Mediation Board and statement issued by Inland to Charles P. Taft and requesting that he sign affidavits that these are true copies of the originals. These go out to him in the mail this afternoon and to make sure that they reach you before the hearings close, I have asked him to send these documents directly to you by air mail and special delivery. You should receive them some time the middle of this week. E. T. B. EXHIBIT NO. 1632-Y AUGUST 14, 1937. To: Dr. David J. Saposs, Chief Economist. Subject: Inland Steel. Enclosed please find copy of "Bibliography of Collective Bargaining Historically Considered", offered in evidence by respondent thru the witness, Dr. R. W. Stone, Associate Professor of Industrial Relations, University of Chicago. The examiner has taken the offer under advisement, and I have requested leave to cross-examine Dr. Stone with respect to this document at a later date. In addition thereto, I objected to the offer of the document on the ground that the witness was available and his testimony would be the best evidence and that any document prepared by him should, therefore, be excluded. The document was presumably prepared because of the request of the examiner that Dr. Stone supply any evidence or citations to authorities, with relation to collective bargaining historically considered, which you failed to state in your testimony. If you have the time and are so inclined, please examine the document. I shall greatly appreciate any suggestions from you with respect to the accuracy of the facts stated therein and possible lines of cross-examination. We have just begun to question the thousand and one witnesses and hope to finish sometime before next Christmas. Send certified copy of list of steel companies who have signed agreements with S. W. O. C. via air mail Stop If list needed photostat and return original. DAVID J. SAPOSS. To: Dr. David J. Saposs, Chief Economist. JULY 6, 1937. Subject: List of companies with whom S. W. O. C. has entered into contracts. Enclosed please find certified copy of list of companies with whom contracts have been entered into by the Steel Workers Organizing Committee. I should like to have this copy returned and would, therefore, appreciate it were you to photostat this copy and return the original to me. Diplomatic relations have now been resumed with the Inland Steel Company, and their emissaries are now present at the hearing. The record is shaping up very nicely, due in good measure, of course, to your highly instructive discourse on labor relations. I have been told by more than one person that he received a free course in labor economics while attending the hearing. National Labor Relations Board, 20 North Wacker Dr., Chicago: Please send immediately three photostatic copies of independent steel companies statement to Taft. DAVID J. SAPOSS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD JULY 28, 1937. Memorandum. To: Mr. I. S. Dorfman, 13th Region. From: Elizebth Bliss. Subject: Inland Steel. Dave told me to drop you a line to inform you that it is possible that by the end of this week we will have statistical material showing that a vast majority of those concerns dealing with a union have written trade agreements. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, as you know, made a study of company unions some time ago. In that study it sent questionnaires to 14,000 concerns and received answers from a large majority. In that questionnaire the companies were asked whether they dealt with a union and whether they operated under a written trade agreement. Dave and Joe Senturia, who worked on the study, both feel that a compilation of these figures will show a high percentage of those dealing with unions operated under written trade agreements. This material is now being compiled, and we hope to have it in two or three days. This will be sent to you as soon as it is ready and will be very useful in refuting the testimony of Mr. Stone. E. B. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD AUGUST 28, 1937. To: Mr. Isaiah S. Dorfman. From: David J. Saposs, Chief Economist. Subject: Stone's testimony in the Inland Steel case. I regret to report that press of other work has diverted my attention from finishing the analysis of Stone's testimony. I have gone over the brief which they submitted and have dictated a lengthy memorandum covering each point. However, I have only gotten into his testimony and would like to go over that as carefully as the brief before I formulate general conclusions and recommendations as to what we should do next. I hope to get at it again the beginning of the week and will try to finish it up without any further delay. To: Mr. I. S. Dorfman. D. J. S. SEPTEMBER 10, 1937. Subject: Analysis of Respondents' Presentations on Written, Signed Agreements in Inland Case. Dave asked me to send you the following analysis which he has made of Dr. Stone's testimony. He expects to take this matter up with the Board in an effort to determine what should be done next. He personally does not feel that it is necessary to return to Chicago to refute Dr. Stone's testimony, or to discuss the brief submitted by respondents' exhibit. He seems to feel that the matter can be adequately covered in our brief if the case is taken to the courts. When the Board reaches a decision on this matter, Dave will undoubtedly get in touch with you. ETB: k. EXHIBIT NO. 1632-Z E. T. B. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD SEPTEMBER 22, 1937. To: Mr. Nathan Witt, Assistant General Counsel. Subject: Steve Ivan. Steve Ivan was interviewed by me on June 14, 1937, and a stenographic report of the interview was made, a copy of which is herewith enclosed. (I am not enclosing a copy of the transcript of the testimony of Steve Ivan, since there is a copy in the Washington office, dated July 10, 1937, and beginning with page 1349.) On July 10, 1937, he was called as a witness for the Board. He testified that a certain Mr. Dan Callis, an assistant foreman employed by Inland Steel Company, did not ever speak to him about the SWOC or the CIO, whereas during the interview he stated that the assistant foreman had asked him to quit the CIO and join the Independent Union. As soon as I realized that his testimony was going to be adverse to the Board, I dismissed him. I then asked for, and was granted a recess, during which recess I approached Ivan and stated that I |