Mr. J. H. WALSH, STEEL WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, Indiana Harbor, Indiana. Works Manager, Inland Steel Company, DEAR SIR: This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of April 11, in which you again decline to meet in joint conference to negotiate a written wage agreement with the Steel Workers Organizing Committee. It is indeed disappointing that your company persists in refusing to comply with the National Labor Relations Act and the orders of the National Labor Relations Board. As to your statement that you have reason to believe that the Steel Workers Organizing Committee does not represent the majority of your employees, kindly remember that at the first conference held with you this question was discussed and you did acknowledge that the majority of your employees had chosen the Steel Workers Organizing Committee as their collective bargaining agency, and the question in dispute was that your company would not negotiate and sign a written wage agreement with the Steel Workers Organizing Committee. Since that time an additional number of men have secured membership in our union, thus increasing the majority. Therefore, there can be no question that the Steel Workers Organizing Committee represents the majority of your employees in your plants No. 1 and No. 2 at Indiana Harbor, Indiana and your plant at Chicago Heights, which make up the unit in dispute. Very truly yours, EXHIBIT No. 1632-AI (SD) VAN A. BITTNER, By N. B. COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION Regional Office, Des Moines, Iowa, Room 1, Garfield Bldg., E. Sixth and Locust St. Mr. HERBERT J. VOGT, APRIL 21, 1938. Field Examiner, National Labor Relations Board, 20 North Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois, DEAR MR. VOGT: Please accept my thanks for your arrangement with the Board to have forwarded to me copies of the Inland Steel and Republic Steel decisions as soon as they are printed in pamphlet form. Our plans for the State Convention which is two days away have materialized and at this date we have 169 credentials in and we expect about 50 more. From all indications we will have a very successful Convention and I regret very much that you will not be with us. Thank you for your prompt reply, and with the very best of wishes, I remain Fraternally yours, DEAR MR. MADDEN: The Milwaukee County Industrial Union Council heartily commends the National Labor Relations Board for the recent decision in the Inland Steel case. 218054-41-vol. 24, pt. 2- -58 We are in full accord with your decision declaring that refusal to sign cleary violates the Wagner Act and that a written agreement is an "integral element of the collective bargaining process. On behalf of our delegates, representing 65,000 organized CIO workers. I wish to express our appreciation for this decision. Very truly yours, MEYER ADELMAN, uopwa. # 42. c. i. o. EXHIBIT NO. 1632-AK MAY 3, 1938. MEYER ADELMAN, Secretary-Treasurer, Milwaukee County Industrial Union Council, Room 4098, Plankinton Arcade, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. DEAR MR. ADELMAN: Thank you for your letter of April 27th expressing your appreciation of the Board's decision in the Inland Steel case. Sincerely yours, mp/da. EXHIBIT NO. 1632-AL NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Attention: Mrs. Stern. J. W. M.. Chairman. GENTLEMEN: I hasten to correct an error of faulty memory which occurred this morning when I was asked how long the Board's case in chief took to present. I find, upon investigation, that the Board's case ended after a little over 2000 pages of testimony had been taken. I believe the date was July 17th, the starting date having been about June 25th. Yours respectfully, FREDERIC BURNHAM. EXHIBIT NO. 1632–AM APRIL 7, 1939. To: Bertram Edises. From: R. C. Barrett. Subject: Inland Steel Company, C-252. It is requested that the date for submission of draft of the brief in the above case be extended from April 10 until April 13. A previous memorandum of March 30 requested an extension until April 19, but because all reasons for such extension were not specified the date for submission was extended only five days. In addition to reasons previously specified, additional time has become necessary, first, because a great deal more time and effort than originally estimated has been required in stipulating with the petitioner on the size and contents of the printed record; and, secondly, because petitioner's claim of lack of due process in the hearing has required far more intricate study and briefing than was formerly thought necessary. RCB ra. R C. B EXHIBIT NO. 1632-AN To: Messrs. Fahy, Watts and Emerson. From: Richard C. Barrett. Subject: Inland Steel Company, Case No. C-252. APRIL 13, 1939. This case involves an independent violation of Section 8 (1) plus 8 (2) and 8 (5), the latter consisting of refusal by the employer to embody any terms that might be agreed upon with the Union in a signed contract. Little comment is necessary upon the relation of the Board's decision to the record in the case. The decision is fully supported by the evidence in every respect (with an inconsequential exception in the precise count of the Union's majority in the appropriate bargaining unit) and is admirable for its temperate, judicious and clear treatment of the evidence. In the Board's discussion of 8 (1) and 8 (2), there is mentioned the conversation between James Walsh, works manager of the Inland plant at Indiana Harbor, and William Maihofer, president of one of the Amalgamated lodges in that plant. Walsh asked Maihofer why it was that any of the men should prefer an outside union. This incident is cited by the Board in support of its 8 (1) and 8 (2) findings. It would seem that this discussion could better have been omitted from the decision. There is nothing to indicate that Walsh was in any way attempting to threaten or coerce Maihofer or the men he represented so far as this conversation is concerned. On the contrary, it appears to be a purely friendly and 'confidential discussion. It is not necessary to the case inasmuch as the general evidence supporting the 8 (1) and 8 (2) findings is exceedingly strong. The mention of it in the decision might lend support to the criticism that at no time and under no circumstances may a supervisory official safely discuss any matter pertaining to labor organizations with any of the employees. It is not necessary, at least so far as this case is concerned, for the Board to take that position. Approximately one-half of the respondent's lengthy brief to the Board was devoted to alleged procedural errors at and subsequent to the hearing. Presumably a large part of respondent's brief in court will be devoted to the same subject. It might have been advisable for the Board in its decision and order to have discussed and disposed of these claimed errors. In all other respects, the decision is outstanding both for its more than ample support in the record and for its marshaling of the facts as presented by the record. RCB: GF. EXHIBIT NO. 1632-AO INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD R. C. B. JUNE 21, 1939. To: Robert B. Watts, Associate General Counsel. Subject: Inland Steel Company. Congratulations on the Decision of the Seventh Circuit in the above case! I recall that after the third degree that the presiding judge subjected you to, you were not particularly optimistic about the outcome. Obviously your able argument made a lasting impression upon the gentleman. In case you don't receive a copy promptly I am forwarding you herewith a printed copy which I just received. Sincerely, [Written notation:] June 1, 1939, Treanor, dissenting. GLP: vm. Encl. PAT. Memorandum. To: Edmund M. Toland. EXHIBIT NO. 1632-AP From: William J. Shaughnessy. Subject: Remarks of the Congressman from Utah, and excerpts read by hi into the record from "Interstate Commerce Commission Activities, 1887 1937," appearing on pages 286, and 287 of the verbatim record of the hearings Dec. 19, 1939. The book, excerpts from which were read into the record on Dec. 19, entire "Interstate Commerce Commission Activities, 1887 to 1937" is not an offca publication required by Act of Congress, as are the annual reports required is law to be submitted by various commissions and agencies. The Forward of this book, appearing on Page VII, reads as follows: "The Interstate Commerce Commission, at its regular conference on the sixth day of July, 1936, asked the undersigned to direct the preparation of an appropriate historical statement to be published in connection with th observance of the fiftieth anniversary of the creation of the Commission. March 25, 1937, Walter M. W. Splawn" The Congressman referred to Page 58 of this book. The quotation, to whet he referred as appearing in a footnote, is a verbatim reproduction of a statement in the "Annual Report of the Interstate Commerce Commission, 1896,” pp. 56-5. A further reading from this book would have indicated that the Interstaie Commerce Commission has two types of complaints—formal and informal—a_c the formal complaint cases included all of those investigations, “ordered by "b Commission upon its own motion." cf. Page 56 of Interstate Commerce Coa mission Activities, 1887 to 1937." This volume also further states that "In all cases, whether on the formal e informal docket, the law requires complaint, answer, and hearing, and it pr› vides that where damages are awarded the Commission shall make findings the facts on which the award is made." A reference to the law establishing the Interstate Commerce Commission, shows among other things, the following: The investigatory functions of the I. C. C. are set in motion by a mere complaint. cf. 49 U. S. C. Section 13 (1), where the statute, after stating that when a complaint is made and a statement has been submitted to the common carrier in writing, and it (the common carrier) does "not satisfy the complaint within the time specified, or there shall appear to be any reasonable ground for investigating said complaint, it shall be the duty of the Commission to investigate the matters complained of in such manner and by such means as it shall deem proper." NOTE. This statute requires, not a mere notice that a complaint has been filed, but a "statement" of the complaint, which must be forwarded to the conimot carrier against which it is filed. The broad powers given to the Interstate Commerce Commission (and properly so, since by long development in the Low common carriers are a type of business affected with the public interest to the highest degree), are further exemplified in the statute, where it is stated. “TInterstate Commerce Commission shall have full authority and power at any time to institute an inquiry on its own motion in any case and as to any matter or thing concerning which a complaint is authorized to be made and the said Commission shall have the same powers and authority to proceed with any inquiry instituted on its motion as though it had been appealed to by conplaint or petition under any of the provisions of this chapter." cf. 49 U. S C Sec. 13 (2). The sections referred to demonstrate rather conclusively that the type of statute under which the Interstate Commerce Commission functions is differen? to a material degree from that under which the National Labor Relations Board functions, with respect to initiation and investigation of petitions, charges, and complaints. This must necessarily follow when the authority of the statute is so broad as to give the agency the power to proceed ex meru motu. A mere comparison of the quoted sections of the Act establishing the Interstate Commerce Commission and Sec. 10 B of the Wagner Act is enough to substantiate the difference between the two. WJS: MD. Exhibit No. 1634 [Introduced into evidence in Volume 24, Part I, August 1, 1940] Recapitulation and Analysis of the Review Division, N. L. R. B. RECAPITULATION AND ANALYSIS OF N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 245 (Introduced in evidence in Volume 19, page 4143) repared from a comparison of the exhibit with the personnel files of the National Labor Relations Board by A. Guy Hope of the Smith Committee, May 1, 1940] |