and agrees collectively to bargain with that organization to the exclusion of any other labor organization. For Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers, Lodge 1740. For Federal Labor Union, No. 20531: For American Gas Machine Co.: Attest: /s/ CHET YOCUM. /s/ JACK BLADES. /s/ RUSSELL N. HANSON. Acting Regional Director, 18th Region National Labor Relations Board. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 374-Q JUNE 6, 1937. Re: American Gas Machine Company. State Capitol, St. Paul, Minn. DEAR GOVERNOR BENSON: I tried to get you on the telephone today, but the operator refused to give me your number. Had a similar experience for Mr. Rutchick. What I wanted to talk to you about was the very serious error in the last paragraph of the Minneapolis Journal story on yesterday's election at Albert Lea. I am sure it is unnecessary for me to tell you that this story was wholly unauthorized. Where the paper got it I don't know, but I am certainly going to find out. I cannot become accustomed to the way the papers here do business. In the East they never printed a story involving action by the Board without first calling to confirm it. The result of the balloting was as follows: 531 ballots cast: 274 for the A. F. of L., 204 for the C. I. O., and 35 challenged. This result has not been released by me since the 24 hour period during which the conduct of the election might be protested does not expire until 6 P. M. tonight. Of course, since the tellers of both sides certified to the fair and secret conduct of the balloting there is no reason to anticipate a protest, but I make it a practice to announce no results until after that period expires. I may say that the tellers conducted the balloting in a wonderfully fine manner, and if the two organizations at Albert Lea as wholes display the same spirit as did their representatives at the election, then the case should finally be settled in an amicable and progressive manner. I know how busy you are, but if you should care to telephone me on Monday to talk this over I should greatly appreciate it. Unfortunately I'm booked solid at the office all day, otherwise I should come over to see you. Sincerely yours, N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 374-R JUNE 6, 1937. AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF IRON, STEEL AND TIN Workers, c/o Independent Union of All Workers, Albert Lea, Minn. GENTLEMEN: Please be advised that this office did not issue, nor did it authorize, nor did it confirm any public statement nor any newspaper publicity with respect to the election conducted by me yesterday at Albert Lea. No newspaper consulted me before printing the stories which appeared in today's papers. Please be advised that the National Labor Relations Board has not declared the agreement made in settlement of the strike at the American Gas Machine Company to be "illegal" or violative of the National Labor Relations Act. The Board has not "voided" the election held on April 20 on the question of which national labor group the Independent Union of All Workers wished to affiliate with. The Board did not order the election held yesterday. In fact, the Board has taken no action of any kind whatever, in the American Gas Company case except in so far as it has in the normal course of business beez OTIMESAS agents. In the statement released to the papers by this office for parada in hard it was clearly stated that the June 5 election was being held at the te two unions and company concerned under an agreement for that pum H was negotiated and signed by them. The undersigned acted & sujem election at the direction of the three parties, not of the Board. If this letter does not clearly and positively answer any questing an arisen due to certain false newspaper reports, you are at liberty to a further. I am sure I need not say that this communication is not for pübleatin a confidential letter to your organization. However, I will ectra te ments made herein to anyone who might question me on them. Yours truly, Acting Regionai In Hon. ELMER BENSON, N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 374-S APRIL 2 1 Governor of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota. MY DEAR GOVERNOR BENSON: The Board very greatly regrets any Des embarrassment which you may have sustained or any difficulties which may been created by its action, or that of Mr. Clerk, in connection with the Lea situation. I want to assure you that we are very anxious to have the matter fully investigated. My telephone conversation with you gave me. tion which indicated a much closer connection on the part of Mr. Clark . agreement which terminated the strike than I had hitherto been aware € would appreciate it if you would send us any statements in the press made my Clark and also if you would present fully your views on what has taken : The actions of the Board were predicated on certain assumptions based in 2formation which we had received from Mr. Clark. The situation as we understand it was as follows: A strike of the American Gas Machine Company had been terminated by as agreement providing that all of the employees in that company plus all of the members of the Independent Union of All Workers wherever employed in Alben Lea, should vote to determine whether the Independent Union of All Woren should affiliate with the A. F. of L. or the C. I. O., the agreement providing further that the result of this vote was to determine who was to represent the employees for collective bargaining purposes in the American Gas Machine Company part We also understood from Clark that you had requested him to conduct the evertion and that he had agreed to do so. I did not know until I talked with v that Clark had participated in the meeting to arrive at an interpretation of the strike settlement acceptable to all parties. The next information which I personally received from Clark was that the A. F. of L. union on behalf of its membership in the American Gas Machine Company plant had petitioned him for an investigation and hearing under the formal procedure set forth in our Act to determine by what agency the employees in the company wished to be represented for collective bargaining purposes. The Board is bound to consider any question as to representation of any group of employees which is brought before it in this fashion. Under the Act the vote of the employees in the plant is the controlling factor in representation and there is no provision for any other type of vote. I suggested to Mr. Clark that in the election which you had arranged the ball te of the employees in the Gas Machine Company should be segregated so that the question of their representation could be determined separately from the results of the total vote being taken. Mr. Clark informed me that this was impossible under the agreement. I agreed with Mr. Clark that it was necessary to proced to a formal investigation and hearing on the basis of the A. F. of L. petition, but I gave him no instructions as to telling the workers in the Gas Machine Company not to vote in the general election. I did tell him that he should make clear to you and others involved that since formal proceedings had been brought under the Act, the vote in the general election could not determine the representation for this particular Gas Machine Company plant. Mr. Clark felt that the election was going to prove an embarrassment to him because it would create misunderstanding as to official participation by the Board in this proceeding, whereas ts official concern was with the petition that had been presented I informed Mr. Clark that he could conduct the election or not at his own discretion. Later Mr. Clark made certain representations to the Chairman about the whole situation at a time when I was absent and the Chairman was unaware of my previous conversations on the subject. As a result of the series of misunderstandings that had arisen about the whole significance of the election, the Chairman informed Mr. Clark that he probably should withdraw from the election. We are not taking any further steps toward an election in the Gas Machine Company plant until we know all that there is to be found out about the recent matters which have so disturbed you. I assure you again that if the National Labor Relations Board cannot work in cooperation with a person of your ideals on the subject of labor relations, there is something rotten in the state of Denmark. I think that what has really happened is the product of unfortunate misunderstandings all around and must not be accepted as a criterion of our relationships in the future. Now that our Act is sustained as to manufacturing, we will be anxious to take up those situations in Minnesota in which the employer is refusing to abide by the terms of the statute. This should result in a diminution of industrial strikes in Minnesota and in increasingly wide-spread organization of industrial workers. DEAR MR. SMITH: I appreciate the very friendly and cooperative attitude manifest in your letter of April 22nd. I am very happy to give you a complete picture of the Albert Lea strike situation. As Mr. Clark has told you, the strike of the American Gas Machine Company employes was terminated on April 3rd through the signing of an agreement between the officials of the Company, the president of the Albert Lea local of the Independent Union of All Workers, and myself. I am enclosing herewith a copy of that agreement, which you will note states very plainly that all of the production employes of the American Gas Machine Company and all members of local union No. 2 shall participate in the election to be held under my supervision, for the purpose of determining whether the Independent Union of All Workers should affiliate, nationally, with the A. F. of L. or the C. I. O. On April 12th Mr. Clark called at the office to talk with me concerning the proposed election. After reading the agreement he believed it advisable to call in Mr. Russell Hanson, president of the American Gas Machine Company and his attorney, Mr. Knutsen (who drew the agreement of April 3rd), as well as representatives of Local Union No. 2, in order that we might clear up any misunderstandings that existed with reference to the provisions of the agreement. Consequently a conference was held in my office the next morning at which were present Mr. Clark, Mr. Hanson, Mr. Knutsen, Mr. Lauritsen, (President of Local No. 2,) three other representatives of the union, Mr. Sander Genis of Minneapolis, representing the C. I. O., Mr. Guy Alexander of Minneapolis, representing the A. F. of L., and two or three other people. Mr. Genis and Mr. Alexander had participated in all of the negotiations which were held on the night of April 2nd and the morning of April 3rd which preceded the signing of the agreement referred to. At this conference, which lasted for about three hours, Mr. Clark stated very frankly that he did not believe that the agreement was in the best form and he stated that under the Wagner Act the results of the election to be held in Albert Lea could not be binding upon the employes of the American Gas Machine Company with respect to the designation of either the C. I. O. or the A. F. of L. group as the sole bargaining agency, because of the fact that members of Local No. 2 who were not employed by the American Gas Machine Company were being permitted to vote. It was his opinion, however, that inasmuch as the Company had signed an agreement which permitted all of the members of Local No. 2 ta participate in the election for the purpose of determining with which national labor organization they would affiliate, that it was only fair to the union that the election should go through as agreed upon, at least for the purpose of determin that question. It was further understood that if the A. F. of L. group in the American Gas Machine Company should later petition for an election to determine which organization should act as the sole bargaining agency, that was a matter to be taken up entirely apart from the agreement signed on April 3r1 Mr. Clark stated that because of the nature of the agreement he did not beleve Board would permit him to act in an official capacity in conducting this election. but that he would gladly handle all the mechanics of such an election as my representative, if I so desired. I told him that such an arrangement was entirely agreeable, and election notices, one of which is enclosed for your information, so indicated the nature of Mr. Clark's participation. At the conclusion of the conference, all parties concerned were agreed that the election should be held in accordance with the terms of the April 3rd agreement and that the results of such vote should determine with which national laber organization the Independent Union of All Workers would affiliate. At no subsequent time prior to April 19th did Mr. Clark indicate in any way that he was not perfectly willing to conduct this election under my supervision. In fact he made all arrangements for the printing of the election notices and ballots, It was with considerable surprise that I noted in the daily press on April 191⁄2 his statement of withdrawal from any part in the election. I am enclosing herewith a copy of the story which apppeared in one of our local papers on that day I am also enclosing a copy of his letter to me under date of April 17th. The election of course was held as scheduled, without Mr Clark's assistance and was supervised by Mr. Frank Starkey, chairman of our State Industrial Commission, and two members of his staff. The results of the election were s follows: For C. I. O. affiliation.. For A. F. of L. affiliation__. 620 I trust that this is the information you desire and I hope that it will be helpful to your Board in making a decision in the matter of an election to be conducted in the American Gas Machine Company plant. Sincerely yours, EAB:C enc. /s/ ELMER A. BENSON, Governor. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 375 MISCELLANEOUS N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 375-A To: All Regional Attorneys. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, We are very anxious to have a report from each Regional Attorney as to his experiences in 8 (5) cases where there has been no certification previous to the refusal to bargain, particularly with respect to how your proof as to majority is holding up, the manner in which you are proving majority representation, the manner in which the majorities are standing up subsequent to the refusal to bargain and prior to hearing of the Board, the number of instances in which respondent seeks to prove lack of majority, the manner in which respondent endeavors to make this proof, such as efforts to obtain access to union records, placing of individual employees on the stand to show resignation or withdrawal of membership, and the like. What do you think is the proper rule which the Board should adopt in connection with the issuance of subpoenas at the request of employers, sought for the purpose of showing lack of majority from union records at the time of the alleged refusal to bargain? What is your experience with respect to covercive tactics on the part of em ployers in 8 (5) cases, directed particularly toward destroying majority? What is your experience with regard to the care with which unions ascertain hether or not they have a majority before they demand collective bargaining on e basis of majority representation? CHARLES FAHY. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 375-B EPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIFTY-SEVENTH ANNUAL CONVENTION OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR Held at Denver, Colorado, October 4 to 15, 1937, Pages 236, 237 Delegate DUFFY, Operative Potters. President Green, may I ask if the Chairan of the National Labor Relations Board would permit me to ask him a question t this time? President GREEN. Chairman Madden advises me that he will be pleased to ave you submit a question, Delegate Duffy. Delegate DUFFY. Chairman Madden, is it true that the National Labor Relaions Board will in any case where a majority or 51 per cent of any workers' group, petitions your Board for an election-presumably to decide the organization of its hoice of such workers for collective bargaining your Board will recognize such a equest, even though it might involve the repudiation of a wage contract between he employer and an established labor organization? Chairman MADDEN. The answer is that it is not true. We have been very careful to respect existing contracts which have been validly entered into, and the only way in which there could be a change of the kind you suggest would be upon the expiration of the contracts. I am assuming, of course, that the contract which you speak of was a contract which was regularly and properly made at the time it was made, and that this 51 per cent that you speak of means a change of mind on the part of the employees after the contract was entered into. We have denied petitions in numerous cases because of the existence of valid contracts between the labor organization and an employer. President GREEN. The question as submitted by President Duffy of the Operative Potters' Union and the reply which Chairman Madden made thereto will appear in the proceedings of today's convention. Delegate DUFFY. President Green, I have a document here I would like to read at this time, which proves that this question is vital. I would suggest that Chairman Madden remain until I read this document, if he can. President GREEN. Proceed, he will remain a moment. Delegate DUFFY. This is a decision handed down by the National Labor Relations Board, Volume I, page 15, Report No. 43,512 is as follows: "The mere fact that the employer has entered into a contract with the labor organization or even with the individual employe, does not deprive the Board of power to order an election during the existence of such contract. Employees have the right to change their representatives for bargaining at any time and such change does not affect the validity of contracts previously made. If new representatives are chosen, they may continue the existing contract or proceed to bargain for changes thereunder, or they may follow the procedure for its termination." Am I out of order or bordering on presumption in asking the honorable Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board to state his reaction, his opinion, or anything that this might possibly develop in his mind, in order that these representatives of labor may thoroughly understand what to expect in the future in their efforts to sustain any duly entered into contract? President GREEN. The Chairman is very kind and says he will gladly respond. Chairman MADDEN. Unless I were to stop with you and read and discuss the whole of this decision, I could not enlighten you any further than to repeat what I said a few moments ago, which is this: That the Board has been scrupulously careful to respect contracts validly made between employers and labor organizations, and it has had petitions on numerous occasions to get the Board to go into a subject like that, and upset a contract. It has not done so and will not in the future. If that is any assurance to you, I am glad to give it to you. Delegate DUFFY. I very much appreciate the spirit of the Chairman in giving me this opportunity to ask these questions. This document is of vital interest, and I did not desire to go too far in imposing myself upon the delegates or the Chairman, but I am going to ask the privilege of having this entire document embodied in today's proceedings, as I think it will at least be quite interesting to the delegates to this convention. |