N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 353-D INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Twelfth Region (Ediphone 9/19/39) To: The File. From: O. S. Hoebreckx. Subject: John Oster Mfg. Company, Case XII-C-370. 9/15/39. Field examiner conferred with Mr. L. W. Smith, attorney of the Company, at his offices in Racine, Wisconsin. The purpose of this conference was to request that the Company post a notice and request that this office be supplied with a written confirmation of the Company's promise previously made to place William Palinski on a preferential hiring list. Field examiner submitted a copy of the notice to Smith who stated that he could see no objection to the posting of such a notice. He also stated that he believed that the Company would be willing to confirm the understanding previously reached. Smith indicated that he would discuss these matters with Company officials and advise me later of their decision. 9/16/39. Mr. L. W. Smith, company attorney, telephoned the field examiner from Racine and advised field examiner that the Company had agreed to post the notice but suggested that the notice indicate that it was being posted at the request of the National Labor Relations Board. The Field Examiner agreed to this addition to the notice. Smith stated that the Company would also send a letter to this office stating that it would give preference to Palinski which he could do in either the Electrical or Polishing Departments. Smith stated that he would have these letters in the mail on Monday. OSH: VM. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 353-E JOHN OSTER MANUFACTURING CO., Racine, Wis., U. S. A., Sept. 19, 1939. Subject: Wm. Palinski. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Madison Bldg., Milwaukee, Wis. (Att'n: Mr. O. S. Hoebreckx, Field Examiner.) GENTLEMEN: This is to confirm the meeting held at our office March 7th, 1939 at 11:00 o'clock in the morning. At that meeting, O. E. Lackner, L. A. Kobal,. John Oster and yourself were present. The matter in reference to Palinski was discussed in all details and you agreed that, under the circumstances, everything is to your entire satisfaction with the one exception that you want us to put Palinski on a preferred list for one year from date of March 7, 1939 to March 7, 1940; that should the Company hire anyone in the Polishing Department or Electrical Department, Palinski shall have the first chance to refuse the position. To this, we agreed and confirm it herewith. Enclosing copy of notice as posted per your request. Very truly yours, JOHN OSTER MANUFACTURING CO. JOster: MMG Encl. NOTICE At the request of the National Labor Relations Board, our employees are advised that, under the terms of the National Labor Relations Act, all employees have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. The Company hereby states that it will not: (1) In any manner, interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in the exercise of the above rights; (2) Discharge or threaten to discharge any of its employees for joining or assisting Local 437, International Association of Machinists, (AFL), or any other labor organization; (3) Discriminate in any other manner against any of its employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment for jour z or assisting Local 437, International Association of Machinists (AFL), or any other labor organization of its employees; (4) Refuse to bargain with any labor organization selected by a majority of its employees. This notice will remain posted for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting. By JOHN OSTER MANUFACTURING Co. Dated: September 20, 1939. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 353-F Re: John Oster Mfg. Co., Case No. XII-C-370. 1546 College Avenue, Racine, Wisconsin. SEPTEMBER 25, 1939. DEAR MR. BAKSIC: Enclosed herewith is a copy of a notice which we are advised has been posted by the Company since September 20, 1939. Please have a member of your committee verify the posting of this notice and confirm such posting by letter to this office. In a letter dated September 19, 1939, over the signature of John Oster, the Company confirms an agreement previously reached with me on March 7, 1939, that Palinski would be placed on a preferential hiring list for the period of one year in both the Polishing and the Electrical Departments. As was indicated to you by Attorney Forer at the conference at this office on September 12, 1939, the above settlement disposes of the sustainable charges filed by you on April 21, 1939. You will recall that on that occasion you were advised that, because the Union, to date, had not submitted proof of their majority, the refusal-to-bargain charge cannot be sustained at this time. However, should you, in the future, be able to submit proof of your majority, and the Company then fails and refuses to bargain in good faith with your organization, we will then entertain new charges to that effect. We are therefore enclosing withdrawal forms herewith, which we request that you sign and return the original to this office. Very truly yours, OSH:VM Enclosures-3. Re: John Oster Manufacturing Co., Case No. XII-C-370. Regional Director, National Labor Relations Board, Twelfth Region, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. DEAR SIR: This is to request the withdrawal of the charge in the above matter, without prejudice. AMBROSE C. BAKSIC, Business Representative, 1546 Collect Ave., Racine, Wisconsin. In re: John Oster Manufacturing Co., Racine, Wisconsin. NOVEMBER 6, 1939. Madison Building, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, GENTLEMEN: For some time charges of unfair labor practices have been pending in your office against the above firm. We believe that the charges of unfair labor practices have been met by compliance with requests of your office to post notice relative to self-organization of employees and collective bargaining under the National Labor Relations Act. A company letter of September 19, 1939 directed to you, regarding the subject of Wm. Palinski has been met by the understanding as set forth in said letter, that Palinski is on the preferred list for re-employment in the event there is work in the polishing or electrical departments. We are writing to you at this time to request that the charges of unfair labor practices against this firm be dismissed. In case a dismissal is governed by technical procedure of some sort, will you please advise. Very truly yours, LHS:BB BECK, SMITH & HEFT, N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 353-H Re: John Oster Manufacturing Co. Case No. XII-C-370. GENTLEMEN: This is to advise you that pursuant to the terms of the settlement, investigation of the charge in the above matter has been discontinued. Very truly yours, cc John Oster Manufacturing Co. Attn. Mr. J. Oster, Pres. Racine, Wisconsin. JOHN G. SHOTT, Regional Director. OSH:MB N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 354 PICKANDS-MATHER CO. (YOUNGSTOWN MINES CORP) N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 354-A Twelfth Region MAY 2, 1939. To: Beatrice M. Stern, Assistant Secretary. In compliance with your memorandum of March 6, 1939, I am enclosing a draft of the complaint in the above indicated matters. Previous memoranda from this office have thoroughly explained the relevant facts with respect to the alleged company-dominated unions in these cases, nonetheless, it is believed a brief recapitulation will aid you in your consideration of the enclosed complaint. As you will recall, these prior memoranda advised that the companies involved in these cases are closely connected with the Little Steel Combine. In 1933 the usual steel company Employee Representation Plan was introduced by the Youngstown Mines Corporation at its Anvil and Newport Mines, by the Odanah Iron Company at its Carey Mine, by the Sunday Lake Iron Company at its Sunday Lake Mine, and by the Plymouth Mining Company at its Plymouth Mine. At the time the Plan was inaugurated, each of these Companies was being operated by the Pickands, Mather & Company under an operating contract. The plan as introduced to the employees at these mines existed and functioned until April 1937 as a unified Representation Plan, embracing the four Companies and the five mines in joint and cooperative collective bargaining. The identical Plan was introduced to the employees of the Vermillion Mining Company at its Zenith Mine, Ely, Minnesota, in the spring of 1934. The Plan at the Zenith Mine followed the same general outline of the Employee Representation Plan at each of the other mines, but had no functional or historical connection with the Plan at these other mines, existing as a separate local. (The merits of the allegations against the Plymouth Mine were explained to you in a memorandum dated December 22, 1938, and the contemplated proceeding does not embrace the Plymouth Mine.) After its introduction, the Plan at each of these mines operated in its original form until the Supreme Court decisions on the Wagner Act in April 1937. Shortly after the validation of the N. L. R. A., the Plan as it existed at each of these mire was modified to eliminate any and all reference to the employer or to the employer s aid and assistance. After modification, the Plan at each of these mines continued as the collective bargaining agency until the S. W. O. C. filed chargeagainst each with the Regional Office. As a result of the Board's investigations with respect to the Plan at the Anvil Palms Mine, the Newport Mine, the Sunday Lake Mine and the Carey Mine, the Companies agreed to post a notice disests"lishing the alleged company unions. The Companies subsequently withdrew the offer of settlement on a very technical ground as explained in the memo to you on February 2, 1939, and to date no notices have been posted to the employees advising them of their rights. During the negotiations that led to this agreement between the Regional Office and the Companies, the independent unions at the Newport, Anvil Palms, and Carey Mines were abandoned by action of the employees. New independent unions have since that time been established by the employees at the Anvil and Newport Mines of the Youngstown Mine: Corporation. To date there is no collective bargaining agency at either the Carey Mine or the Sunday Lake Mine. (See Memoranda under dates of February 2, 1939, and March 3, 1939.) The Vermillion Mining case was filed in the Eighteenth Region and transferred to the Twelfth Region on February 17, 1939. As in the cases before the Twelfth Region, the alleged company dominated union was abandoned by action of the employees during the Board's investigation of the merits of the charges. By Order dated February 17, 1939, the Board consolidated these cases for purposes of hearing. Because the allegations of the Board in these matters as to each Company are not "distinct", i. e., unrelated and will not require utterly separate treatment, a single complaint has been drafted. The only question presented is the alleged violation of the act by one contractor, viz., Pickands, Mather & Company and the possible involvement of all or some of the owning companies which retain the Pickands, Mather & Company for operating purposes. The invasion of the right to self-organization is similar in each case, if not in fact, identical. But, more important, because of the community of interest so far as labor policy is concerned of each of the respondents, is the consideration that it will be more simple under one complaint to declare the remedy necessary in one order than in several unrelated orders. However, for purposes of clarity, the allegations with respect to each company have been separately treated and, in recapitulation, treated in a unified manner. The same is likewise true of the allegations referring to the unions. The allegations have been set out in this fashion having in view the contemplated remedy in these matters. Such & draft will permit the Board to enter an order against each individually or a single order against all. There is one question that complicates the picture so far as joinder is coLcerned. The Vermillion Mining Company, located At Ely, Minnesota, is some three hundred plus miles distant from the other respondents. The Plan of the Employees Representation at the Anvil, Newport, Carey and Sunday Lake Mines was established and functioned in a unified manner until its disestablishment. The Employees Representation Plan at the Vermillion Mine had no connection with nor cooperative action with the Plan at the other mines. Hi torically, they have nothing in common except, of course, the similarity of action and the fact that the Pickands, Mather & Company is the employer. The Company has already advised this office that it will object to the consolidation of the Vermillion Mining Company with the other Companies in this proceeding. On March 31, 1939, Donald D. Harries, the Companies' Duluth Representative, called this office to request a conference for the discussion of a proposed settlement the Companies wished to present for our consideration. At a conference at this office on April 25, the Companies submitted its offer. The Companies' proposed settlement of the cases on the basis of the posting of the enclosed notice and strongly urged upon me the merits of such a settlement because of the disappearance of the alleged company dominated unions at each of the mines involved Because of my opinion that the settlement proposed did not meet the issues, the Companies were advised that this office would not recommend acceptance of the offer to the Board. In fact, because of the doubtful merits of the proposal made by the Companies, the matter was not discussed with the Unions involved. I am, however, calling the offer to your attention because of advices received during the conference from Thomas Veach of the firm, Jones, Day, Cockley and ReavIS, Cleveland, Ohio, the Companies' legal representative. According to Mr. Veach, in the Ideal Electric Manufacturing case, Cleveland, Ohio, the Board, after a hearing and intermediate report recommending disestablishment of an alleged company-dominated union which, in the meantime had dissolved itself, approved a settlement agreement in complete disposition of all the matters between the company and the Board by the posting of the attached notice. The Companies also advised that in the event the attached notice was not acceptable, they held themselves open to suggestion on the basis of amendments to the notice, but further advised that they were unwilling to stipulate to either a Board or a Court Order. Encl. JOHN G. SHOTT. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 354-B INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION [Copy] MAY 9, 1939. To: Beatrice M. Stern, Assistant Secretary. Subject: Pickands, Mather & Co., et al., XII-C-235, XII-C-297, XII-C-298, CHECK OF DRAFT COMPLAINT It appears to me that the balance of probabilities concerning good administrative handling is in favor of a single complaint. However, the complicated nature of the ownership and operation of the properties involved forecasts possible complications in proof and possible future problems of procedure. Therefore, the single complaint should be drawn to make any future amendment or future severance as simple as possible. My first suggestion, accordingly, is that the complaint contain a greater number of numbered paragraphs. This may act, also, to make the answers of the respondents more responsive. For example, the five paragraphs now under the number "1" should become paragraphs 1 to 5, respectively. The allegations now in paragraph 2 should be revised into four separately numbered paragraphs, 6 to 9, respectively, each alleging that one of the mine-owning respondents and the respondent Pickands, in the particular State or States involved, cause, etc. This suggestion conforms to the practice already adopted of alleging in separate paragraphs that certain facts alleged as company domination (a) are violations of 8 (1) and 8 (2), (b) tend to burden commerce, (c) are unfair within the meaning of specified sectionsfor example, see paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Paragraphs 5, 11, 17, 23, and 29 allege the 8 (2) violations with a degree of specificity which should forestall any demand for a bill of particulars. Perhaps lettering the subdivisions rather than numbering them would make for greater ease in reference and in possible amendment. Apart from the points covered by these suggestions, I approve the complaint. M. F. H. DAS/igf (Charge, Notice of Hearing and Complaint In the Matter of Odanah Iron Company and Pickands, Mather & Co., was received in evidence, marked "N.L. R. B. Exhibit 354-C", and is on file with the committee.) (Decision and Order in above case received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 354-D", and is on file with the committee.) |