carry out your promise made during our 'phone conversation and further that you would communicate with me in the matter shortly, either by sending me the nsterials that I had requested of you, or by personally appearing at this office with all of the materials which you removed, for the purpose of going over the same with me so that I might indicate to you those that I desired. I have waited patiently for word from you since last Friday. Your failure to keep your promise made to me on that day leaves me no other choice than to demand of you the immediate return of all the materials which I have previously requested. Very truly yours, FPM/fsb (s) FREDERICK P. METT, Acting Regional Director. In connection with the instant matter, I should like to call your attention to the Board's decisions in the following matters: 1. Hope Webbing Company and T. W. O. C., Local No. 14, Case No. C 988, Decided August 1, 1939, 14 NLRB 5. 2. Wickwire Brothers and Amalgamated Ass'n. of Iron, Steel & Tin Workers of North America, Lodge #1985 Case No. C-1004, Decided October 23, 1939, 16 NLRB 36. I understand that you are familiar with the facts in the Wickwire Brothers case and, therefore, I think it unnecessary to outline the same in this memorand .m In the Hope Webbing Company case, the facts, in short, are as follows: 6/14/37: Charge filed, alleging in substance that the Company was permitting and directing the activities of the N. F. W. U. 6/25/37: Meeting between T. W. O. C., N. F. W. U., Rhode Island Deputy Director of Labor, Edward Schneider, Regional Attorney, and Louis R. Becker, Field Examiner. Respondent-not represented. At the meeting the N. FWU expressed the necessity of taking steps to prevent threatened liquidation of respondent's business and to save jobs of the employees. Discussion then branched to the question of holding an election. The T. W. O. C. represet tative maintained that the N. F. W. U. was company-dominated and that its appearance on the ballot at an election would not serve to renderit a legitimate organization. An agreement was finally concluded whereby it was agreed between the N. F. W. U. and the T. W. Ó. C. that an election would be held at a place to be determined, that both organizations would be on the ballot, t ́e form of which was agreed upon. It was also agreed that the election be conducted under the supervision of the Labor Department of the State of Rhste Island, Conciliation Service of the United States Department of Labor, and National Labor Relations Board, First Region; agreement was signesi by N. F. W. U., T. W. O. C., Department of Labor, Rhode Island, Conciliati -Service, United States Department of Labor, Edward Schneider and Louis R. Becker, National Labor Relations Board. No one at the conference manifested an intent not to abide by the results of the election or to attack the legality of the N. F. W. U. in the event that it won. The T. W. O. C. admitted at the hearing that it had entered into the agreement in good faith and intended to abide by the results of the election although it asserted it had no choice but to sign an agree ment since the alternative meant liquidation and loss of jobs for 600 employees, and that voting in an election held under such circumstances meant "going to vote with the sword of Damocles on your neck." 6/28/37: Election held; won by N. F. W. U., 287 to 243; statement was issued and signed by the representatives of the governmental agencies supervising the election, declaring the N. F. W. U. the winner and certifying it as the exclusive bargaining agency for the company's employees. 1/22/38: Complaint issued under 8 (2); it was alleged that prior to June 6, 1937 and thereafter the respondent encouraged, sponsored, dominated, and interfered with the formation and administration of the N. F. W. U. and contributed support to it. An intermediate Report found these allegations supported by the evidence. At the hearing, respondent and N. F. W. U. contended that the Board, by participation of its representatives in negotiations leading to election agreement, in the conduct of the election itself, and in signing the statement certifying the N. F. W. U. as exclusive bargaining representative, was barred and estopped from contesting the legality of the N. F. W. U. as such representative and from directing an order of disestablishment against the respondent, based on any activities of respondent prior to June 28. The Board, in its decision, states in part as follows: "The first contention, however, involves different considerations. Although the election agreement did not explicitly provide against instituting charges against the respondent for domination of and interference with the N. F. W. U., and no such representations were made by the Board's agents, the provision to designate the Ñ. F. W. U. on the ballot and the subsequent certification of the N. F. W. U. as the exclusive bargaining agency for the respondent's employees must, by implication, be deemed an acknowledgment by the Board's agents of the N. F. W. U.'s capacity to operate as a representative of the respondent's employees. Although we do not agree in the contention that the Board is thereby estopped from proceeding with charges of domination of and interference with the N. F. W. U., we believe that effective adininistration of the Act requires that the Board's agents have the respect and confidence of labor organizations, employers, and agents of other branches of the government with whom their work brings them in contact. In our opinion the policies of the Act will best be effectuated by giving effect to the election agreement and the certification which were participated in by agents of the Board and by agents of the State Department of Labor and the United States Conciliation Service. We shall, therefore, refrain from consideration of the events prior to June 28 as a basis for sustaining the allegations of the complaint with respect to the respondent's domination of and interference with the N. F. W. U. and for ordering its disestablishment as a representative of the respondent's employees, unless after June 28 the respondent engaged in conduct which shows a continuity with its conduct and attitude prior to June 28." (The Board examines evidence and finds no 8 (2) evidence after June 28 and therefore dismisses the complaint under 8 (2) as to N. F. W. U.) The Bucyrus-Erie case, it appears to me, has much in common with the Hope Webbing Company and Wickwire Brothers cases. Prior to the election agreement in the Bucyrus-Eric case, the S. W. O. C. realized the company-dominated character of the E. M. B. U. but filed no charges; instead it participated in negotiations for a consent election and signed the same on May 5, 1937 along with the E. M. B. U. and the Bucyrus-Erie Company. The election agreement, executed on the Board's stationery here in the Regional Offices, in the presence of then Regional Director N. S. Clark, reads as follows: "The undersigned hereby consent to the holding of an election to be conducted under the Rules, and by the National Labor Relations Board, and each of us agree to abide by the results of this election. "The Bucyrus-Erie Company on its part agrees to bargain collectively with the organization designated as the result of this election." The ballot for the election included the names of the Amalgamated (S. W. O. C.) and the E. M. B. U. The election was conducted by the Board through N. S. Clark. In the Hope Webbing and Wickwire Brothers cases the alleged companydominated unions won, whereas in the Bucyrus-Erie case the company-dominated union lost. No certification of any kind was issued by our office but Regional Director N. S. Clark, for the National Labor Relations Board, signed a statement setting forth the results of the election. Thereafter the Company bargained collectively with the Amalgamated (S. W. O. C.) I believe that the reasons stated by the Board, in the Hope Webbing and Wickwire Brothers cases, for its refusal to consider under 8 (2) the evidence of domination, interference, and support prior to the date of the election, is applicable in the Bucyrus-Erie case. Also, an analysis of the files in the Bucyrus-Erie case reveals no evidence of any kind whatsoever of domination, interference, or support in connection with the E. M. B. U. by the Company at any time since the date of the election agreement. And even if it did reveal minor acts of domination, interference, and support, I would believe that the same would be cured by the statements made by the Company in its published labor policy, which was brought to the attention of all of the employees not only by the posting of the same on the bulletin boards of the Company but by the distribution of the statement of the labor policy to all of its employees. I believe all of us are in agreement that the 8 (3) cases are without merit and do not warrant issuance of a complaint. Summarizing my position with respect to the instant matter, I state the following: In view of the election agreement of 1937, between the Amalgamated (S. W. O. C.), the E. M. B. U., and the Company, entered into at our Regional Office with the consent and approval of our former Regional Director; in view of the election conducted by the former Regional Director; in view of the fact that the file in this matter does not reveal any evidence of unfair labor practices either under 8 (3), (5), (2), or (1), subsequent to the aforesaid election agreement; and in view of the fact that there has been a most unreasonable delay in the filing of charges in this matter, and taking cognizance of M-1118, I recommend that you issue the normal letter refusing to issue a complaint. FPM-EH F. P. M. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 332-B 623 No. SECOND ST., January 8, 1940. Re Bucyrus-Erie Company, XII-C-429. Field Representative S. W. O. C. on behalf of Lodge 1343 of the Amalgamated DEAR SIR: Your charge against the Bucyrus-Erie Company charging a violation of Section 8 (1), (2), (3), & (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, has been duly investigated. Our investigation reveals that the case is not sufficiently strong to warrant the issuance of a complaint by this office. I must, therefore, refuse to issue a complaint in this matter. Please be informed that, pursuant to the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 2, Article II, Section 9, you may obtain a review of this action by filing a request therefor with the National Labor Relations Board in Washington, D. C., and by filing a copy of such request with me. This request to the Board in Washington, and the copy thereof to me, must be filed within ten (10) days of the date of this letter, and shall contain a complete statement setting forth the facts and reasons upon which the request is based. Very truly yours, JGS/fsb JOHN G. SHOTT, Regional Director. (Diaried to Jan. 18, 1940) N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 332-C NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, TWELFTH REGION Week Ending January 20, 1940 CLOSED CASE REPORT Case No. XII-C-429, Name of company, Bucyrus-Erie Company. Date charge received, March 29, 1939. Date case closed, January 19, 1940. Name of union, Steel Workers Organizing Committee on behalf of Lodge 1343 of the Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, C. I. O. Affiliation, C. I. O. Strike, No. Sections of act involved, 8 (1) (2) (3 (5). Number of workers involved, 900. Detailed report as to action taken to close case (if election, give results); Director dismissed the charge January 3, 1940. No appeal was taken and the case was closed after the expiration of the ten day period. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 333 DAVIDSON ORE MINING Co., XII-C-377 N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 333-A JULY 26, 1939. To: John G. Shott, Regional Director, National Labor Relations Board, Twelfth Region, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Re Davidson Ore Mining Company Case, No. XII-C-377. DEAR SIR: This is to request the withdrawal of the charge in the above matter, without prejudice. Request granted: July 28, 1939. /s/ ROY APPLIN, Route #2, Iron River, Mich. /s/ JOHN G. SHOTT, Regional Director. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 333-B NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 12TH REGION Week ending July 29, 1939 CLOSED CASE REPORT Case No. XII-C-377. Name of company, Davidson Ore Mining Company. Date charge received, January 20, 1939. Date case closed, July 28, 1939. Name of union, none (individual complainant). Affiliation,-. Strike, no. Sections of act involved, 8 (1) and (3). Number of workers involved, 1. Detailed report as to action taken to close case (if election, give results). Case investigated by field examiner. Complainant had been promised reinstatement with the Company for a long period and finally notified field examiner that he had obtained a better position and, therefore, requested that withdrawal of the charge be granted. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 334 EAVENSON & LEVERING CO., C-693, C-1633 INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD To: Nathan Witt, Secretary. From: Bennet F. Schauffler, Director, Fourth Region. DECEMBER 14, 1939. Subject: Eavenson & Levering Company, 3rd and Jackson Sts., Camden, N. J., Investigation by Wm. Draper Lewis Jr. Authorization for issuance of a Complaint and Notice of Hearing is hereby requested in the above case. The original charge was filed by the Textile Workers Organizing Committee, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, on September 1, 1938, alleging unfair labor practices under Section 8 (1), (2) and (3). Amended charges were filed on July 24, 1939. If authorized, the complaint will be under Section 8 (1) and (3). THE COMPANY AND ITS BUSINESS The Company was incorporated under the laws of the State of New Jersey on June 24, 1916, with its main place of business in Camden, New Jersey. The Company does solely a commission business in the scouring, carbonizing and depainting wool and wastes. Fifty per cent of the wool received by the company 218054-41-vol. 24, pt. 2—61 for processing is received from Boston, Massachusetts dealers. All of the business of the company, which is comprised of the raw wool and some animal hair for processing, is received from the New England States. The wool and animal hair processed is returned to the shippers' customers, 100 per cent of whom are in States of the United States other than the State of New Jersey. The company employs approximately 300 maintenance and production employees. In Case No. IV-C-406, your case No. C-693, you authorized this office to issue a complaint. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Textile Workers Organizing Committee, Local 229, now known as the Textile Workers Union of America, Local 229, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, filed the charge. It admits to membership all the production and maintenance employees of the company. The Independent Wool Workers Union and the Wool Workers Industrial Union Local No. 1 were unaffiliated organizations which admitted to membership all the production and maintenance employees of the Company. Both these unions were ordered disestablished in the Board's Order, C-693. The Wool and Textile Workers Union No. 21724, and its successor, the United Textile Workers of America, Local 1078, is affiliated with the American Federstion of Labor. It admits to membership all the production and maintenance employees of the Company, with the exception of teamsters. LABOR RELATIONS HISTORY In August 1937, the CIO started organizational activities. These were the first union activities that the Company had experienced for a number of years On September 3, 1937, approximately 106 employees who had shown interest the CIO were discharged. On the same date, with the aid of supervisors, the Independent Wool Workers Union was formed. On November 23, 1937, the Union filed a charge alleging 8 (1), (2) and 3, (IV-C-406). On April 14, 1938, you authorized this office to issue a complaint in this case A hearing was held in Camden, from May 23, 1938, to June 7, 1938. On April 30, 1938, the members of the Independent Wool Workers, with the aid of supervisors, also formed the Wool Workers Industrial Union Local No. 1. On June 13, 1938, the Company and the Union entered into a stipulation where by the Company agreed to disestablish the Independent unions, and to reinstate certain of the discharged employees, listed on Appendix A of the stipulation The other employees were put on two preferential lists, Appendices B and C, and the Company agreed to reinstate those on Appendix B first, when work became available, and those on Appendix C last. On June 16, 1938; all employees on Appendix A were returned to work with the exception of West, DeLue, Flanagan, and Sweeney. The cases of West and De Lue were presented to the Circuit Court of Appeals in the Board's petition for contempt. The cases of Flanagan and Sweeney will be discussed in the paragraphs below. On July 5, 1938, the Wool Workers Industrial Union Local No. 1 filed a charge alleging 8 (5)-(IV-C-531). This charge was dismissed by this office on August 24, 1938, after the stipulation was approved by the Board. On or about July 26, 1938, John O'Neill, President of Local 631, Internationa! Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen and Helpers, commenced organization of production workers (hereinafter more fully set forth). On September 1, 1938, the CIO filed a petition claiming that it represented s majority of the production workers of the Company. It is the Union's intention to withdraw this petition. On September 10, 1938, the Wool and Textile Workers Union No. 21724, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, filed a petition, IV-R 237, alleging that it represented a majority of the production and maintenance employees of the Company. This petition was withdrawn on October 19, 1938 On December 30, 1938, the Circuit Court of Appeals entered a a decree enforeing the Order of the Board. On May 5, 1939, the Board petitioned the above Court that the Company be held in contempt. On August 9, 1939, this petita-9 was dismissed by the Court. On November 13, 1939, Local 1078, United Textile Workers of America, affilated with the American Federration of Labor, filed a petition claiming to represent the majority of the production and maintenance employees of the Company |