In case No. R-1375, involving the same plant of the respondent the Board, on August 22, 1939, amended its direction of election, so that the election is to be held "at such time as the Board may in the future direct. There is nothing further for us to do. M. F. H. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 371-AB PACKING HOUSE WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE 1900-1910 Engineering Building, 205 West Wacker Drive Re: Wilson & Co., Albert Lea, Minn. ROBERT J. WIENER, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, April 5th, 1940. Regional Director, National Labor Relations Board, New Post Office Building, Minneapolis, Minnesota. DEAR MR. WIENER: Our Mr. Henry Johnson, Assistant National Director, has made a trip to Albert Lea and advises me that the union does not desire to withdraw the petition for election, but on the contrary now requests the Board hold the election at an early date, preferably during the first ten days of May, 1940. Will you please advise me what action the Board will take in the matter. Very truly yours, /s/ JOHN J. BROWNLEE. John J. Brownlee. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 371-AC To the Wilson Employees Representative Committee, Albert Lea, Minn. Pursuant to an order of the National Labor Relations Board, affirmed in part by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, the Company hereby withdraws all recognition of The Wilson Employees Representative plan as a representative of its Albert Lea, Minnesota, employees in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment. This order is directed only against the Company and in no way interferes with an employee's right to organize, join, or not join any labor organization. In a similar case the same Circuit Court said: "This order of the National Labor Relations Board does not restrict but is intended to protect the right of the employees freely to join or not join any labor organization or to form or not to form hereafter a local organization of their own." 1 WILSON & Co., Inc., (Amendment to Direction of Election In the Matter of Wilson & Co., Case No. R-1375, was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 371-AD," and is on file with the committee.) (Decision and Direction of Election in above case was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 371-AE," and is on file with the committee.) (Supplemental Decision and Supplemental Direction of Election in above case was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 371-AF," and is on file with the committee.) (Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives in the above case was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 371-AG," and is on file with the committee.) (Notice of issuance of Second Amendment to Direction of Election in above case was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 371-AH," and is on file with the committee.) (Order denying Request that Petition for Rehearing, etc. Be Refiled and Reconsidered in above case was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 371-AI," and is on file with the committee.) (Decision and Order In the Matter of Wilson & Co., Case No. C-483, was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 371-AJ," and is on file with the committee.) N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 372 BLACK HILLS AMUSEMENT Co. Re: Black Hills Amusement Company, Case No. XVIII-C-370. Black Hills Amusement Company, Deadwood, South Dakota. APRIL 9, 1940. GENTLEMEN: In checking through my files in this matter, I find no record that you were notified as follows, and this letter is being sent as a check to make sure of proper notification in this matter: This is to advise you that issuance of a complaint in the above matter has beet refused. DEAR MR. DECOURCY: I was quite surprised with your letter of July 13, s.nee having spent almost an entire afternoon with Mr. Kemp, I had no reason to expect that I was then supposed to write a long, repetitive letter to you. I can see Lë reason why it was not entirely proper for me to discuss this matter with your client, nor why you could not rely on his report. When you were in here, I advised you that in the first place the company had never complied with the prior order of the Board. This may not appear of any importance to you, but it is very important to the Board. Surely Mr. Kemp has advised you that I told him the Board is still considering the desirability of enforcement proceedings in the prior case. In the second place, you have been advised that additional charges were filed subsequent to the Board order, which allege that the present organization is the same as that ordered disestablished by the Board. You were also advised that action on this charge would have to be completed before the Board would ace of your petition. The reason I have not interviewed the witnesses is thoroughly explained in my letter to you dated June 13, 1938. Also, as I advised Mr. Kemp, the entire matter is at present being considered by the Board. The tone of your letter implies that you are not receiving equal consideration. Apparently you overlook the fact that Local 20297 is subject to the identical delay as is your client. In fact, their request for enforcement action has been pending for many months longer than your petition. I suggest that at any time you wish information concerning this matter you stop in to see me. Very truly yours, RJW:lb ROBERT J. WIENER, Regional Director. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 373-B JULY 27, 1938. Re: G. Sommers & Co., XVIII-R-114. MR. ROBERT J. WIENER, Regional Director, N. L. R. B., New Post Office Building, Minneapolis, Minnesota. DEAR MR. WIENER: Calling your attention to paragraph two of your letter of July 16, 1938, in response to same I wish to inform you that my client is not at al interested in any litigation or orders growing out of such litigation between the Hoard and G. Somme & Co. My client is not at all in privity as to that litigation. In your third paragraph you infer that my client's organization is one that was ordered disestablished by the Board and that you were still considering the advisability of taking action on that charge In response to that I wish to inform you once again that we more than welcome any proof of this charge. The delay of this matter has caused a weakening in our membership as some of the employees have come to believe that there is no purpose or results from a membership in our union, more so because of the fact that they have discovered that G. Sommers & Co. have signed a contract with Local 20297, who represents less than twenty-five per cent of the employees, for a period of one year and recognized them as the sole collective bargaining unit. This had ought to convince your honorable board of the fact that our union is not friendly but adverse to the employer. This union is organized for the sole purpose of representing the majority of employees of G. Sommers & Co., and want to be controlled by the employees and not by some "fly by night" so called business agents who are like parasites consuming the financial assets of the union to feather their own nests and who have no knowledge of the working conditions of the local employees and who arbitrarily representing a minority cause strikes, dissension and unemployment to strengthen their own financial remuneration without thought or consideration of the welfare of the local unit. What I want to know in behalf of my client is when we can have a hearing on our petition for certification and also a hearing on the charges filed by local 20297 that we are the same organization as that union disestablished by the Board. This is a reasonable request and that any fair judicial body would recognize same as one that is contemplated by the N. L. R. A. I realize that from an examination of the Act that no mention is made of the time when the Board should act on a petition for certification, but where no time is mentioned no longer than a reasonable time should elapse before action is taken by your department. Again may I repeat my client's request that a date be set for hearing on the petition and the eligibility of the membership of Independent Wholesale Workers Local #1. Respectfully, JCD/cd (S) JOHN C. DECOURCY. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 373-C AUGUST 1, 1938. Re: G. Sommers & Company, Case No. XVIII-R-114. MR. JOHN C. DECOURCY, Saint Paul Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota. DEAR MR. DECOURCY: This is an acknowledgement of your letter of July 27. In order that your position may be fully presented to the Board, I am submitting to the Board a verbatim copy of your letter. Very truly yours, RJW:lb ROBERT J. WIENER, Regional Director. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 373-D INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION AUGUST 2, 1938. To: Robert J. Wiener, Regional Director. From: Nathan Witt, Secretary. Subject: G. Sommers & Co., C-285, XVIII-R-114, XVIII-C-205, XVIII-C-206. The Board considered this entire matter yesterday, and decided that pending enforcement of its order in Case No. C-285, it would take no further action in the other cases for the time being. The Board is doing everything possible to avoid having more than one case involving the same company before it has enforced the first order issued against the company. You should not, of course, take steps to dispose of the three pending cases, but should merely retain them in their present status until the court acts on the Board's petition in Case No. C-285. (s) N. W. From: Robert J. Wiener, Regional Director. 1. May I tell the parties that the Board will take no further action in the other cases for the time being, pending enforcement of this order in Case No. C-255 2. Has the Board filed its petition for enforcement? If not, has it definitely decided to do so? May I advise the parties of the answer to this question? 3. May I advise the parties that the Board is doing everything possible to avoid having more than one case involving the same company before it has enforced the first order issued against the company? I will not communicate with any of the parties before receiving your answer to these questions. Thanking you in advance. Sincerely, RJW:vhs N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 373-F SEPT. 8, 1938. In re: G. Sommers & Co., Case No. XVIII-R-114. Commerce Bldg., St. Paul, Minn. DEAR MR. DECOURCY: This is in answer to your letter of Sept. 6th. As long ago as April 22nd, when Mr. Kemp first approached me concerning this matter. I told Mr. Kemp that it was my personal opinion that the Board probably would not act on any new cases filed with respect to this company until after compliar ce had been had in the previous case. At every subsequent meeting, if I am not mistaken, I expressed the same view. I have also repeatedly advised you and Mr. Kemp that the Board cannot, in any event, act on your petition in Case No. XVIII-R-114 until after a disposition of the charges in case No. XVIII-C-206, in which the A. F. of L. union alleges the new organization to be a continuation of the old one. As you have acknowledged in your recent letter, I have kept the Board fully informed of your position in the matter, as well as of the position of the A. F. of L. union. It is my conviction that the Board will act on all the pending charges, and also your petition, just as soon as the previous case has been disposed of,-by compliance, court review, or otherwise. With respect to your repetition of a request for a hearing, this would presumably take place after a disposition of the matter as indicated above. In anv event, as I have previously advised you on several occasions, it is the Board itsef which orders hearings, and not the regional offices. W/w Very truly yours, Cc: Vincent Kemp N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 373-G ROBERT J. WIENER, Regional Director. NATIONAL FEDERATED INDEPENDENT UNION National Headquarters, 301 Lemcke Building, Indianapolis, Indiana REGIONAL DIRECTOR, SEPTEMBER 11, 1938. National Labor Relations Board, Minneapolis, Minn. DEAR SIR: Several months ago the teamsters, chauffers, stablemen and helpers union affiliated with the A. F. of L. filed charges with your Regional board against the G. Sommers Company involving the National Federated Independent Union. Please advise if you are going to compel our organization to again take our case to the United States Congress in order to obtain a hearing such as we were compelled to do in a previous matter. It occurs to me that if your board was very desirous of conducting a hearing that you have had ample time in which to conduct your investigation. Please advise when we may expect a hearing in the matter in which the National Federated Independent Union is involved. Yours truly, FSG: jmk (s) FRED S. GALLOWAY, National President N. F. 1. U. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 373-H DEC. 3RD, 1938. In Re: G. Sommers & Co., XVIII-R-114, XVIII-C-205. Mr. JOHN C. DECOURCY, Attorney, Commerce Bldg., St. Paul, Minn. DEAR MR. DECOURCY: This acknowledges your letter of November 30th requesting withdrawal of your Petition in case XVIII-R-114. You will recall that on May 28th, 1938, you filed a Charge against the company alleging a refusal to bargain collectively. Your letter is silent as to whether you wish to withdraw the charge as well as the petition. Will you be good enough to advise as to whether you also wish to withdraw the charge? Very truly yours, ROBT. J. WIENER, Regional Director. W/w Cc: Vincent Kemp N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 373-I JANUARY 25, 1939. In the matter of: G. Sommers and Company, and Warehouse Employees' Regional Director, National Labor Relations Board, Post Office Building, Minneapolis, Minn. DEAR SIR: A supplementary labor agreement has been signed by G. Sommers and Company, and Warehouse Employees' Union 20297 of St. Paul, covering the clerical workers. For your information, we are attaching a copy of the new agreement. A copy of the order of the National Labor Relations Board, 5-NLRB-992, 1003, has been posted on bulletin boards in the five buildings of the Company. For some months past the company's policy has been in compliance with the order and with the National Labor Relations Act. To the best of our knowledge, Wholesale Employees' Association of St. Paul No. 1 no longer exists, nor is any successor now in existence. A new general manager, never before employed by G. Sommers and Company, took office on August 8th, 1938. This action has resulted in a revision of the labor relations policy of the Company, and, at the present writing, everything is harmonious between the Company and Warehouse Union 20297. Because of present relations both the Company and the Union desire that this matter be finally closed. In view of the above, we jointly petition the Board to close case No. C-285 on the basis of compliance. The grounds for this petition are the facts given in this letter. Very truly yours, Secretary, Warehouse Employees Union, 20297 of St. Paul. (Decision and order In the Matter of G. Sommers & Co., Case No. C-2 83, was received in evidence marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 373-J," and is on file with the committee.) |