employees of its Milwaukee Plant. Since that time, the company has refused to bargain with the C. I. O.

Immediately after this recognition as sole bargaining agent, negotiations for a contract with the Harvester Employees Industrial Union were begun. These negotiations were concluded on November 1, 1937, when a contract was entered into between the International Harvester Company, Milwaukee Plant, and the Harvester Employees Industrial Union.

This contract further entrenched the Harvester Employees Industrial Union. They now had sole bargaining rights and the prestige of a signed contract. It became more and more difficult for the C. I. O. to maintain itself in the face of these overwhelming advantages handed out by the company to the Harvester Employees Industrial Union. The officers, representatives and stewards of the H. E. I. U. continued to take advantage of their contract by collecting dues and soliciting membership on company time and property without serious opposition from the company.

Once again the C. I. O. protested against the discrimination against their organization and the encouragement of the Harvester Employees Industrial Union. In response, on November 4, 1937, Mr. Leiser, plant superintendent, sent a letter to Mr. George Henning, president of the H. E. I. U., advising him that "under no circumstances will any labor organization be permitted to solicit union membership or collect union dues during working hours." The activities of the Harvester Employees Industrial Union on company time and property then slowed down considerably, but only for a short time. The reopening of the Milwaukee Plant after the shut down in August, 1938, witnessed another surge of activity of the officers, representatives and stewards of the Harvester Employees Industrial Union in order to reestablish their badly shattered organization. Despite the fact that the company knew that the National Labor Relations Board was conducting an investigation on charges of unfair labor practices and despite the fact that they were conducting negotiations with this office for the purpose of settling those charges, the company renewed its contract with the Harvester Employees Industrial Union on November 1, 1938, (it expires November 1, 1939). At the present time the Harvester Employees Industrial Union claims as members approximately 55% of the employees of the Milwaukee Plant.

In summarizing the above, it is apparent that:

1. The Harvester Employees Industrial Union is in reality an outgrowth of the Harvester Industrial Council Plan with its form modified to give it the appearance of a bona fide union.

2. The Harvester Employees Industrial Union was organized on company timeand property by the employee representatives when they were still employee representatives under the Harvester Industrial Council Plan and being paid by the company.

3. Some foremen and strawbosses have favored the H. E. I. U. and have interfered with the Farm Equipment Workers Association and its successor C. I. O. organizations.

4. The plant management discriminated in favor of the Harvester Employees Industrial Union by granting it bargaining rights for its members on May 5, 1937, and by not granting this right to the Farm Equipment Workers Association until June 7, 1937.

5. The management further discriminated against the Farm Equipment Workers Association by withdrawing this recognition (for members only) on June 16, 1937, and granting the Harvester Employees Industrial Union sole bargaining rights simply on the basis of a certified public accountant's check as to majority.

6. On November 1, 1937, the company consolidated the position of the Harvester Employees Industrial Union by giving it a written contract and the Harvester Employees Industrial Union has maintained this position by virtue of the sole bargaining rights and other rights and privileges granted under this contract. 7. The company further favored the Harvester Employees Industrial Union by exempting its officers from the requirements of seniority when the plant reopened in August, 1938, after a temporary shut down, and by failing to grant this right to the C. I. O. officers.

8. The company maintained the favored position of the Harvester Employees Industrial Union by renewing its contract with the Harvester Employees Industrial Union on November 1, 1938, despite the fact that efforts at settlement of the charges filed against the company by the C. I. O. were being made at the time.

COMPANY'S POSITION

The company claims that it knew nothing of the activity of the employee de sentatives prior to the organization of the Harvester Employees Indust Union. It points to the fact that on April 21, 1937, it disestablished the Harveste Industrial Council Plan in accordance with its interpretation of the requirement of the law and that it sent a letter to each employee informing him of his re and privileges under the National Labor Relations Act.

It further states that whenever it found that some foremen were violating the Act and, thereby, incidentally, the policy of the company, all foremen we immediately called together and warned to stop, and that from that day to t present time the company has continually warned them to be impartial and ne to interfere with the rights of the employees.

Concerning the contract with the Harvester Employees Industrial Une. company claims that this was a legal contract entered into in good faith as a res.: of the fact that the Harvester Employees Industrial Union signed up a major of the employees in its organization.

COMMENTS

At the present time, the Farm Equipment Workers Organizing Comm** has requested Mr. Van Bittner to make an effort at settlement by direct negoʻz tions with the International Harvester Company. To date these efforts have not resulted in a settlement.

This case is one of seven or eight cases involving the International Harvester Company and it should, in our opinion be consolidated with the others. If a complaint and hearing are authorized, one complaint should be issued covering all the cases and on hearing held.

EFFORTS TO SECURE COMPLIANCE

We have held many conferences with the Milwaukee Plant management and with the officers of the International Harvester Company in an effort to obtar the disestablishment of the Harvester Employees Industrial Union. To date the International Harvester Company has refused to do so, but has hinted tra' it would agree to cancel the contract with the Harvester Employees Industria Union if an election was held within a specified time (60 to 90 days to determ whether or not the C. I. O. or the Harvester Employees Industrial Union and represent the employees.

CALENDAR OF IMPORTANT EVENTS

1919: Harvester Industrial Council Plan established in all plants of the Inter national Harvester Company.

Spring, 1936: Employees organized secret organization known as A. B. C. CL.5 Nov. 12, 1936: National Labor Relations Board orders disestablishment of t.e Harvester Industrial Council Plan at the Fort Wayne Works.

December, 1936: Employee representatives began talking about the organizata L of an independent union.

April 1, 1937: Wisconsin Labor Relations Act passed.

April 12, 1937: Supreme Court sustains constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act.

April 1-14, 1937: Membership cards to Harvester Employees Industrial Un distributed throughout company plant on company time and property.

April 14, 1937: Harvester Employees Industrial Union mass meeting at South Side Armory.

April 17, 1937: Harvester Employees Industrial Union mass meeting at Eaze Club. Officers elected.

April 21, 1937: The company notified all employees of the disestablishment of the Harvester Industrial Council Plan.

April 28, 1937: Committee representing Harvester Employees Industrial Univa requests bargaining rights.

May 5, 1937: Bargaining rights for members only granted to Harvester Employees Industrial Union.

June 7, 1937: Bargaining rights for members only granted to Farm Equipment Workers Association, C. I. O.

June 16, 1937: Sole bargaining rights granted to Harvester Employees Industrial Union.

Nov. 1, 1937: Contract between Harvester Employees Industrial Union and International Harvester Company entered into.

Jan. 3, 1938: Addendum to the agreement covering restoration of seniority arrived at.

August 1938: Seniority privileges waived for officers of the Harvester Employees Industrial Union.

Nov. 1, 1938: Contract with Harvester Employees Industrial Union renewed. (S) FREDERICK P. METT.

Enc.

The files in the above case and this memorandum have been reviewed by the legal division. I concur in the request for authorization of complaint and hearing. If this case is consolidated with the cases presently pending in other regions against the respondent, it is estimated that it will take seven (7) days to introduce the evidence with respect to the instant case. If the cases are not consolidated, it is estimated that the hearing in this matter will take fourteen (14) days. (S) WM. R. CONSIDINE, Acting Regional Attorney.

To: Leonard C. Bajork.
From: Nathan Witt.

N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 343-B

FEBRUARY 21, 1939.

Subject: International Harvester Company, Cases Nos. XII-C-228, XIII-C-809, XIII-C-834, XIII-C-939, XIII-C-940, XIII-C-933.

Complaint has been authorized on XII-C-228. You are authorized to issue complaint on the Thirteenth Regional cases, as well as that case. You will find attached hereto an order transferring XII-C-228 to your office and consolidating it with the other cases. You will also find enclosed herewith a letter to Fred Mett, advising him of the transfer of this case and telling him that he will be called upon to assist you when it comes to trying the case. For your information I am enclosing herewith a letter which Mett sent in on February 18, advising that there is some indication that the Farm Equipment Workers Organizing Committee and Harvester Employees Industrial Union in the Milwaukee plant are conducting negotiations looking forward to a possible getting together. This would be a very interesting development.

I suppose it might be well for you to check with Mr. Mett before issuing complaint since, if the organization complained of in the C (2) charge is going to merge with the C. I. O., there would be small reason for issuing complaint.

Enclosures

(Intermediate Report In the Matter of International Harvester Company was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 343-C" and is on file with the committee.)

N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 344

JOSEPH F. KIERNAN

N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 344-A

BURGESS BATTERY COMPANY, XII-C-177

Mr. NEITZERT. I want to express my appreciation of the kindness and consideration that the Examiner has shown me without waiving any of the errors which I take exception to in the record.

N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 344-B

In Re: Superior Felt & Bedding Co., Local No. 173 International Upholstering Union, Affiliated with A. F. of L., Case No. XVII-R-109.

At the close of the hearing in the above entitled matter, the attorney for the respondent made the following remarks relative to the conduct of the hearing: "Mr. BORDERS. Mr. Examiner, I should like to make a further statement formally into the record, and that is that I appreciate the courteous and firm treatment of the Trial Examiner in this cause.

N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 344-C

In the Matter of West Kentucky Coal Company and International Longshoremen's Assn. Local No. 1549, Case No. X-C-415, X-R-158

HEARING AT MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, DATE, MAY 23, 1939

The following appears at page 354 of the transcript:

Mr. FRANKLIN. I will state to the Examiner in the presence of the parties that he has conducted this case fairly and has been uniformly courteous throughout the entire hearing.

Trial Examiner KIERNAN. There being nothing further, the hearing is closed.

Main 1920

N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 344-D

LAW OFFICES OF

STEPHEN C. ROGERS

Suite 820 Rialto Bldg., 4th and Olive Sts., St. Louis

JANUARY 31, 1938.

In Re: Brashear Freight Lines, Inc. Case No. XIV-C-106. National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: Your letter of January 25th in the above entitled matter, verv kindly extending the time to file memorandum, received. Kindly accept my thanks for your kindness.

Permit me to say that this hearing extended over a period of four days and I desire to commend the most exemplary conduct and rulings of your Trai Examiner therein, Mr. Joseph F. Keiman, who conducted the hearing in an extremely fair and impartial manner, just the same as one would expect in a court of justice.

Very truly yours,

SCR: CD

/S/ S. C. ROGERS.

N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 344-E

OCTOBER 27, 1938.

To: The Board.

From: Edwin L. Swope. Subject: Comments made by Mr. John R. Coen, Counsel for Colorado Milling and Elevator Company during the hearing for oral argument, as to the conduct of the hearing by Trial Examiner Joseph F. Keiran in the Matter of Colorado Milling and Elevator Company and Denver Trades and Labor Assembly (Case No. C-721).

Mr. Coen commended the Trial Examiner on the way he conducted the hearing stating that the respondent received a "fair and impartial hearing." E. L. S.

DEAR SENATOR DUFFY: I now have a report from Nathaniel Clark, our Rgional Director at Milwaukee, in response to your inquiry of May 4th in whic you enclosed a letter from Mr. W. R. Kenney of Marshfield, Wisconsin.

1 Charles G. Franklin, Madisonville, Kentucky, appearing for Intervener, Employees' Mutual Benef Association.

Mr. Clark spent several days in a careful inquiry into the stories about Komaroff but was unable to find a single person who claimed to have heard him make any such statement as he is accused of. Mr. Clark finally went to Mr. Kenney for sources of information and Mr. Kenney advised him that he had rechecked the stories and no one would vouch for them, but that everyone had "let him down.' I am returning Mr. Kenney's letter to you, and thank you for bringing it to my attention. I regret, as I know you will, that this kind of rumor can be made up, apparently out of nothing, and widely disseminated.

Very truly yours,

jwm/mp/da Encl.

J. W. M. Chairman.

N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 345-B

(Personal and Confidential)

To: Nathan Witt, Secretary.

Twelfth Region

From: John G. Shott, Regional Director.
Subject: I. Komaroff, Field Examiner.

Examiner Komaroff is an able person with a persistent drive to get things done who does not neglect to carefully plan his work in investigation. He is thorough in the investigation of a case and his sense of responsibility to the employees involved as well as his sense of workmanship are apparent. The examiner is extremely sympathetic to the principles of collective bargaining and has a matured conception of the meaning of the organization of workers in modern economic life. He is well thought of by the employees with whom he works and seems for the most part able to take a critical view of the evidence in a case.

Of especial importance in an estimate of Examiner Komaroff has been his work in the mining and lumber industries in Northern Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. In this work he has not only been diligent in his work in the adjustment of cases but has displayed a high order of political ability in using persuasion and manoeuver in cooperation with local political leaders to open up the properties of the larger lumber operators to organizational efforts of the Unions. (The employees-lumberjacks-live on company property). Because of the lack of background of collective bargaining and inadequate resources of the unions, the efforts put forth by this office to protect organizational efforts have been exceptional and Examiner Komaroff has successfully conducted most of this work. In one case which he adjusted informally by stipulation (Castile Mining Company, XII-C-171) five miners were reinstated with a payment of back wages of #15,100. The settlement of this issue on such advantageous terms has been a notable stimulus to collective bargaining in the iron ranges of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

The examiner's record from March 15, 1938 to March 15, 1939 follows:

I consider this a highly successful record as I am confident that the greatest possible degree of compliance was secured in each case.

Another characteristic of Examiner Komaroff may be mentioned. In conferences with respondents, his determination to push his case to the best possible conclusion tends to give an impression that the examiner has grimly resolved to find the business man guilty and it appears that he has not learned that prospects