schedule. I am glad to say that we are just about cleaned up now, this being of the final matters which require consideration. After careful consideration of the reports submitted by former Regional Director Clark and yourself, I do not see that much purpose would be served in proces?ing with the case. In view of the settlement in Case No. C-462, I do not see mitt hope of proving any discrimination, especially since it cannot be demonstrate! that the company has discriminated by the hiring of new employees. All tat there now seems to be in the case is some 8 (1), but as you indicate in the last paragraph on page 13 of your memorandum of April 20, the complainants dese reinstatement of the strikers and not simply an order requiring the company to cease and desist and post notices. In view of the entire history of the case, my suggestion is that you refuse to issue a complaint unless there have been further developments which you des”. to submit to the Board. (Recd. Oct. 17, 1939, 12th Region NLRB.) N. W. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 337-E NOVEMBER 10, 1959 (Registered Mail. Re: A. F. Gallun & Sons Company, Case No. XII-C-326 % United Automobile Workers of America (CIO). 2620 West Fond du Lac Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Mr. GEORGE KIEBLER, United Automobile Workers of America (AFL), 1302 West Vliet St., Milwaukee, Wisconsin. DEAR SIRS: The charge against A. F. Gallun & Sons Company in the above captioned matter, charging a violation of Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) 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 15 Washington, D. C., and by filing a copy of such request with me. This request shall contain a complete statement setting forth the facts and reasons upon which the request is based. 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. Yours very truly, (Registered Mail receipt No. 167625). JOHN G. SHOTт, Regional Director, N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 337-F NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 12TH RECION Week ending Nov. 25, 1939 CLOSED CASE REPORT Case No. XII-C-326, Name of company, A. F. Gallun & Sons. Date charge received, August 19, 1938. Date case closed, November 24, 1939 Name of union, Int'l Union, United Automobile Workers of America, District Council #1, C. I. O. Affiliation, C. I. O. Strike, No. Sections of act involved, 8 (1) (2) (3). Number of workers involved, 415. Detailed report as to action taken to close case (if election, give resuits). Memoranda were sent to the Board on Apr. 20 and May 9, 1939, and Board advised on October 14, 1939 that no complaint should be issued. Case was i missed by Regional Director and registered letter sent to Union 11/10/39. (None ADJUSTED CASE REPORT No appeal was made and case was closed. I would like to know if Garet Garrett, a Saturday Evening Post writer, has ever got in touch with anyone in your office in an effort to obtain information on Board activity. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 339 N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 339-A MALCOLM Ross. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, REGIONAL OFFICE, 12TH REGION WEEKLY REPORT ON PENDING CASES Case No. XII-C-32. Name of Company Harnischfeger Company, Address of Company 4400 W. National Ave., Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Name of Union International Union of Operating Engineers. Date charge received 10/6/36. Sections of Act Involved 8 (1) and (3). Action taken during week; giving dates. of letters written and received, conferences held, etc., Oct. 20: Letter to the Harnischfeger Corporation, att: Walter Harnischfeger re chare brought by the Operating Engineers. Oct. 22: Telephone call from Herman Menck, Assistant Works Manager. Herman Menck called at Regional Office and discussed case at length with Regional Director. Mr. Van Vleet, the man discharged, was hired by the Chief Engineer without the knowledge of the Employment officer, which is contrary to the rules of the firm. In addition to this, the man discharged is 57 years of age, and is not considered physically fit to perform the duties of fireman, which requires hard manual labor. Oct. 24: Mr. Kingsland, Business Manager of the Union, called at the Regional Office with Mr. Van Vleet and discussed the case with the Regional Director. Because of the conditions surrounding the discharge of the employee, there is not sufficient grounds upon which to base a proper charge, and the Business Manager of the Union has stated his intention of withdrawing the Charge. Present status of Case. This case will be closed upon receipt of the withdrawal of the Charge by the Union. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 339-B WEEKLY REPORT REGIONAL OFFICE, 12TH REGION Week Ending Oct. 31, 1936 CASES CLOSED Date: Case No. XII-C-32. Name of company: Harnischfeger Company. charge received 10/6/36. Date case closed: 10/29/36. Detailed report as to action taken to close case: Case was closed by Withdrawal of the Charge by the Business Agent of the Union. The facts surrounding the discharge of the employee (as detailed in weekly report of October 24th) do not constitute a violation of the unfair labor practices, and the charge was therefore withdrawn. If intermediate report is issued or agreement entered into, main terms of report or agreement. No report or agreement: charge was withdrawn by the Union. 218054-41-vol. 24, pt. 2-64 Subject: Harnischfeger Corporation, Cases (XII-R-34), R-276, (XII-C-44 C-323. I conferred with Alvin J. Rockwell, of the Washington Litigation Division, both in the morning and the afternoon of the above date. Rockwell came about 11:00 AM and advised me that he had an appointment with Leo Mazz to discuss the possibilities of settling in toto the "C" case. Rockwell and I discussed the terms of a possible settlement. Rockwell asked me whether I thought the Company would enter into stipulation for conser decree embodying the provisions of a recent Board Order and possible mod fcations in the unit declared appropriate by the Board. I stated to Rockw that he would in all likelihood find the company very cooperative, and before be went to the conference I asked him to come back to tell me how things fared a the conference. Rockwell went to meet with Mann at about 2:00 PM and returned to the office at about 4:30. He told me that he found Leo Mann que cooperative and added that various bases of settlement had been discussed. stated further that he thought the following would be satisfactory to the company. 1. Reinstatement of Stein. H 2. Payment of approximately $500.00 to each of the following: Stein, Chelupes. and Schmittinger. (No reinstatement to go to Schmittinger and Chelupek, the Company being adamant in its position with respect to these two men.) 3. Consent Decree. Rockwell went on to state that nothing definite had been agreed upon at his conference with Leo Mann and that nothing would be agreed upon until a furt er conference was held between Rockwell and Leo Mann, with Mr. Coppin atten ling for the company. Before Rockwell left for Chicago he asked me to contact Sonneman to “feel him out" in respect to the possible settlement of the cases as advanced by him I promised that I would feel out Sonneman and would write to him during the coming week. FPM:LS N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 340-B Twelfth Region MARCH 9, 1939. To: Files: Attention, Mr. Mett. From: John G. Shott, Regional Director. Subject: Harnischfeger Corporation C-323 (XII-C-60). Alvin Rockwell called from Chicago this morning on the Harnischfeger matter. and reported that he had talked to Leo Mann. Mann made such a weak offer that Rockwell didn't believe that the Board could go along with it. Leo Mann offered to reinstate Stein but refused any back pay. Rockwell had told Mann that if he would offer Stein full reinstatement and back pay that he would subu. t that part of the offer to the Union. Rockwell thinks there is no alternative now but to turn the case back to the Briefing Section in Washington. JOHN G. SHOTT JGS/fsb N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 340-C MARCH 18, 1939. To: Frederick P. Mett, Attorney, Twelfth Region. Subject: Harnischfeger Corporation, Case No. C-323. All settlement negotiations in this case have now been discontinued, and it has been referred back to the Briefing Section. I can see no objection in your communicating this information to the Union. It is regrettable that the negotiations did not turn out favorably. for your cooperation. Best regards. Thank you A. J. R. [pencil notation:] March 20, 1939. Called W. O. Sonnemann and gave him message referred to in above. F. P. M. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 340-D MAY 10, 1939. In re: Case No. C-323, Harnischfeger Corporation. Regional Director, National Labor Relations Board, 623 North 2nd Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. DEAR SIR: As I have advised you, we have signed the stipulation for a consent decree in settlement of the above case. As you know, the proposed form of decree calls for the posting of a limited form of notice. You will also recall that in discussing this matter in your office when Mr. Rockwell was in Milwaukee, we advised you that concurrently with the posting of the notice called for by the decree, the company intended to post a further notice respecting the company's consistent position regarding some phases of the subject covered by the first notice. I, therefore, enclose a copy of the two notices which the company intends to post promptly upon the entry of the consent decree. 7t encls. Yours very truly, LEO MANN. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 340-E JUNE 2, 1939. To: John G. Shott, Director 12th Region. Subject: Harnischfeger Corporation, C-323, R-276, C-60, R-34. Enclosed are copies of the Board's Order Approving Stipulation in the aboveentitled cases. Encls. (Enclosed Order Approving Stipulation in the above cases is on file with the committee.) (Stipulation entered into before the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Harnischfeger Corporation was received in evidence, marked “N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 340-F," and is on file with the committee.) (Decree in United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit In the Matter of National Labor Relations Board v. Harnischfeger Corporation was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 340-G," and is on file with the committee.) DEAR MR. WITT: I have had your letter of June 30 for the past ten days have delayed any comments with respect to the matters referred to therein pening the outcome of my discussions with Mr. Shott. These discussions, tho g. disconcerting, have finally resulted in Mr. Shott admitting that he had been a error in his statements to you. He informed me last Saturday that he was tot convinced that his suspicions that I had committed certain irregular actions wer entirely unjustified, and that in simple fairness he would so advise the Board at his earliest convenience. In addition to the discussions with Mr. Shott referred to above, I have reviewer " in my mind, in I believe, an honest and critical manner, my relations with All and CIO leaders, business and other people. It is therefore with a sincere exviction that I say that there has not been any undue intimacy between me aɛ: any people in the labor movement, and that I have never talked of purely interta board matters with any AFL or CIO leaders, and specifically that I have never discussed Field Examiner Hoebreckx attitudes or social views with any of these people. I agree wholeheartedly with you that it is "of the utmost importance that the relations of our staff members to people in the labor movement should be that no one can ever claim that there has been undue intimacy or that any staf member is talking to outsiders about matters which are purely the business of the Board." I recognize fully my responsibility as a public servant and I wish t assure you that in the course of my work I act and have acted impartially towards all parties, and that my conduct in every situation is determined by the purposeof the National Labor Relations Act and the policies laid down by the Boar! If after reading this and Mr. Shott's letter the Board is still disturbed by a matters that have not been thoroughly clarified, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss them with you or any person designated by you. In any event, I would appreciate learning whether these letters dispel the anxiety raised in the Board's mind by the erroneous reports transmitted to it. Sincerely yours, I. KOMAROFF, Field examiner. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 342 ISLAND LIME & STONE Co. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 342-A 323 W. WASHINGTON ST., MARquette, MichIGAN, Oct. 30, 1937. (Re Marquette Daily Mining Journal, Case XII-C-173.) Mr. NATHANIEL S. CLARK, Director, National Labor Relations Board, 623 No. Second St., Milwaukee, Wis. DEAR MR. CLARK: The Marquette Typographical Union, No. 978, wishes to drop the charge filed with your Board against the Daily Mining Journal. Your field examiner, Mr. Omer S. Hoebreckx, was in Marquette October 28 and 29 and through his efforts, a settlement was made that was satisfactory to both parties. The evidence which we gave Mr. Hoebreckx, which he in turn presented to the Mining Journal, convinced the Mining Journal that we had a clear case against them. The settlement made was: That Mr. Hansen receive back wages from time of discharge up to date. That he receive a letter of recommendation. That notices be posted in the plant to the effect that there would be no intimidation or discrimination against employees who wanted to become union men by the management. The only concession granted the Mining Journal was that Mr. Hansen not |