Where a case is closed by dismissal, the employer should be notified only after 4-week period for an appeal has elapsed and the case actually closed. Where e complainant appeals to the Board, and the refusal to issue complaint has been stained by the Board, the employer will be notified from Washington. 2. "R" Cases.-The employer should not be notified of withdrawal or dismissal petitions in "R" cases until the Board's order authorizing withdrawal or disssal has been received in the Regional office. Attachments Forms A, B, C, D, E, and F. N. W. Form A NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Date. e Case No. DEAR SIR: Your charge against (Company) charging a violation of Section 8 ), and () of the National Labor Relations Act, has been duly investigated. ur investigation reveals that the case is not sufficiently strong to warrant the suance of a complaint by this office. I must, therefore, refuse to issue a comaint in this matter. Please be informed that, pursuant to the National Labor Relations Board Rules d Regulations--Series 1, as amended, Article II, Section 9, you may obtain a view of this action by filing a request therefor with the National Labor Relations oard in Washington, D. C., and by filing a copy of such request with me. Yours very truly, (This form replaces all previous forms.) Regional Director. Please use this form in all "C" cases in which issuance of complaint is refused. acting by on The petition in this case was filed by (labor organization), acting by (person or official who signed petition) on (date). Amended petition (s) were filed by date. The request for withdrawal of the petition was made by (labor organization), acting by name of person or official who made request), on (date). The request was made (in writing) (in personal visit) (by telephone). The reasons given for the withdrawal are (state reasons given by union representative). OR The Board should consider dismissal of the petition for the following reasons (state reasons, including history of case, if necessary). A Board order authorizing (withdrawal) (dismissal) of the petition is recom mended. Regional Director. NOTE--Use above form where a Board order authorizing withdrawal or dismissal is recommended. Where the Regional Director does not recommend authorization of withdrawal, the reasons therefor should be stated following the union's reasons, with a full report outlining the history of the case and describing the situation. This paragraph to be used in cases where Order authorizing withdrawal is sought. Copies of written requests should be attached. Το Form NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Date. Regional Director Re: Name of Case: Case No. XXIII-C-777. DEAR SIR: This is to request the withdrawal of the charge in the above mat without prejudice. DEAR SIR: This is to request the withdrawal of the petition in the above ter without prejudice, subject to the approval of the National Labor Reista Board. National Labor Relations Board approval order, dated received. 19--- - Regional Director. Form E Re Case No. (Date DEAR SIR: This is to advise you that (pursuant to the terms of the settleme investigation of the charge in the above matter has been discontinued) (purs & to the terms of the settlement, the charge in the above matter has been withdrs without prejudice) (the charge in the above matter has been withdrawn with prejudice by the charging party) (issuance of a complaint in the above mate has been refused. Further action in the above matter is not contemplated ** this office at this time. Regional Director. "C" cases.--Letter to be used in notifying employer of closing of case. T clause in parenthesis applicable to case. Do not send this letter until case is actually closed. Re Case No. Form F (Date) DEAR SIR: This is to advise you that (pursuant to the terms of the settlemen' the question of representation raised by the petition in the above matter has be adjusted) (the petition in the above matter has, with the approval of the Boar been withdrawn without prejudice by the petitioner) (the petition in the sh matter has been, by order of the Board, dismissed.) Further action in the sb * matter is not contemplated by this office at this time. Regional Director. "R" Cases.-Letter to be used in notifying employer of closing of case. Us clause in parenthesis applicable to case. Do not send this letter until case is actually closed. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 376-C To: All Regional Directors. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Subject: Revision of instructions for procedure in closing of cases. The issuance of the revised memorandum on settlement of cases after issuance of complaint (M-689 and M-690), and the various memoranda issued since memorandum M-543 was issued on June 6, 1938, in revision of the instructions contained therein, necessitate the issuance of the attached Revised Procedure for Closing of Cases before Hearing, which becomes effective immediately, and replaces previous instructions on this subject. The revised instructions emboay all of the revisions of M-543 as contained in memoranda M-567, M-572, M-646, M-654, M-683, and M-688; and they also contain some new material. For your convenience, the changes in M-543 are noted, as follows: 1.) B. 1. a.--New form letter to charging party advising of refusal to issue complaint must not specify reason for refusal as on jurisdiction or on merits, but merely stating that case is "not sufficiently strong to warrant issuance of 'complaint.' (This embodies and replaces instructions in M-543, M-646, and M-654.) 2.) B. 1. a. New form letter on refusal to issue complaint does not specify that "case or file is closed." (This embodies instruction in M-567.) 3.) B. 1. a.--Period of 4 weeks to be allowed for filing of request for review and before closing case; but no specification of this period to be made in form letter to charging party. (This embodies instructions in M-683 and M-688.) 4.) B. 1. a.-Copy of form letter refusing to issue complaint to be sent to Washington immediately on transmittal to charging party. (This embodies instructions in M-572.) 5.) B. 2.-New provision for form requesting authorization of withdrawal or dismissal of petition. 6.) D. New provision for notifying employer of closing of cases by withdrawal or dismissal of charges or petitions. Provisions as to time such notices should be sent; form letters to be used attached. 7.) Form A.--New form of dismissal letter. 8.) Form B.- -New form of memorandum to Board requesting authorization for withdrawal or dismissal of petition. 9.) Forms C. and D.-New forms for requesting withdrawal of charge or petition. 10.) Forms E. and F.---New forms for notifying employer of closing the case. N. W. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 376-D NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, To: All Regional Directors. Subject: Amendment of Instructions in M-793 on Closing of Cases, Change in "Dismissal" letter, Change in Letter to Respondent. The Board has reconsidered some of the instructions in the memorandum of February 2, 1939, M-793, "Revised Procedure for Closing of Cases Before Hearing," and has concluded that the following changes shall be come effective immediately: 1. "Dismissal" Letter.-The Board desires that the letter advising the charging part of refusal to issue a complaint shall state the time allowed for filing a request for review of the Regional Director's decision, which shall hereafter be 10 days. Hereafter, you will please add to the form "Dismissal" Letter attached to M-793 (Form A), the following paragraph: "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." In addition, Article II, Section 9 of the new Rules and Regulations-Series 2, makes a new provision that the request for review by the Board "shall contain a complete statement setting forth the facts and reasons upon which the complaint is based." Hereafter, as advised in my memorandum on the new Rules and Regulations, M-905, you will also please add to the form letter, the following language: "This request shall contain a complete statement setting forth the facts and reasons upon which the complaint is based." 2. Letter to Respondent.-The Board desires that the letter to the respondert advising of the termination of the case should omit the last sentence in the form attached to M-793 (Form F). In other words, the letter to the respondent shoud follow the form set forth in Form F, but should exclude the last sentence whe now reads, “Further action in the above matter is not contemplated by this office at this time." N. W. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 377 C. A. LUND CO. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 377-A OCTOBER 28, 1940. Re: C. A. Lund Company and Northland Ski Manufacturing Company, Cases Director, Eighteenth Region, National Labor Relations Board, 401 New Post Office Bldg., Minneapolis, Minnesota. DEAR MR. WIENER: This is to advise you that Christian A. Lund, doing business as C. A. Lund Company and Northland Ski Manufacturing Compaty has complied fully with the Board's order in Cases Nos. C-233 and C-234, dated December 22, 1939, in that he has offered to Leo J. Kasel, Harold Cernohaus, William Chandler, Calvin Andrist, Grover Hoffman, Frank Schabert, Marvia Sommers, Tom Sura, La Vern Cator, Raymond Hakseth, C. V. Markey, Raymond Stevens, Otto Poppenfuhs, Peter Becker, and Vincent Holzmer reemployment. positions corresponding to positions formerly held by said persons at the Hastings, Minnesota plant, insofar as such positions were and are available or could be made available by dismissing all persons hired for the first time since April 14, 1937. The company has placed Lorrin Hall, for whom a position was not so available, on a preferential list for a period of one year, to be first offered employment as a position corresponding to that formerly held by him may become available either at the plant of Christian A. Lund, doing business as C. A. Lund Company at Hastings, Minnesota, or in the plant of the Northland Ski Manufacturing Company at St. Paul, Minnesota. s/ A. C. LUND For/ CHRISTIAN A. LUND. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 377-B OCTOBER 22, 1938. To: Charles Fahy. From: Laurence A. Knapp. Subject: N. L. R. B. v. C. A. Lund, and Northland Ski Company (C. C. A. ). The briefs of both respondents have now been received. In neither brief is any claim made that the Board did not consider the Northland company's exceptions, which were found only after the case had been decided and the petition to enforce and record filed. The Northland brief, as well as its answer to the petition to enforce, does contend that since the exceptions have not been filed in court, the court, not having the entire record, should dismiss for lack of jurisdic tion. As to the missing exhibits, neither brief says anything on that score, but the stipulation made as to their contents prior to the Board's decision provides that the originals, if found, should be made part of the record. Van Arkel has advised me that the respondents have declined to settle and that he has closed the case out in that respect, so that we are squarely faced with the problem whether to certify the exceptions and exhibits, or to seek to withdraw the case to the end of vacating the order, having further proceedings and making a new order. When we discussed the matter briefly yesterday, I was unaware that the stipulation was such that the exhibits, if found, should be made part of the record. We thought then that they had been completely supplanted by the stipulation. Whether the respondents will ever make an effective move to determine whether or not the Board considered the exceptions, and to claim prejudice thereby, I think is speculative. On the other hand, the inadequacy of their briefs may be accounted for by some such intended future move if the exceptions are filed. After examination of the six exceptions taken by the Northland which differ from those of Lund which the Board considered, none are now important. Three relate to minor subsidiary findings or statements included in the intermediate report and repeated in substance in the decision. The fourth relates to a finding in the intermediate report not made by the Board. The remaining two are exceptions to the Trial Examiner's findings, respectively, that the Union represented a majority of Northland's employees and that Northland refused to bargain. Northland has taken similar exception to the corresponding findings of the Board in its pleadings in the Circuit Court of Appeals but in its brief argues against the Section 8 (5) finding solely upon the ground that the unit consisting of both respondents is unjustifiable. Under all the circumstances, I would favor going ahead with the case, promptly filing the exhibits and exceptions, and following with our brief as quickly as possible. A question of policy is, however, involved, although it is not a large one under the existing situation. Note that Emerson has expressed some general views on the copy of Libbin's memo of Octover 7, which I sent him. LAK:SL L. A. K. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 377-C OCTOBER 26, 1938. Re: No. 420, Orig., National Labor Relations Board v. C. A. Lund, et al. DEAR MR. KосH: On September 9 I forwarded to you the record in the above matter. Prior to the Board's decision the original exhibits were lost and counsel entered into a stipulation with reference to their contents, providing in part as follows "If the originals of such missing exhibits are hereafter found, they shall, notwithstanding this stipulation, be a part of the record, and in the event of any difference between the copies hereto attached and the substance as herein stated, the original exhibits shall control" (p. 986). The exhibits have since been found and are being certified for filing. I am also certifying herewith the requisite copies of the exceptions of respondent Northland etc. to the Trial Examiner's report, which, as Mr. Stringer has pointed out, were inadvertently omitted from the record as originally filed. You will note that these exceptions are numbered as pages 1160-A to 1160-H inclusive and should be inserted in the record. Yours sincerely, JEL:SL ROBERT B. WATTS, Associate General Counsel. cc: E. S. Stringer, Esquire; Messrs. O'Brien, Horn & Stringer, E-1314 First National Bank Building, St. Paul, Minnesota. (Decision And Order In the Matter of C. A. Lund Co. et al., Cases Nos. C-233 and R-204, was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 377-D", and is on file with the committee.) (Order In the Matter of C. A. Lund Co., et al., Cases Nos. C-233 and C-234 was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 377-E", and is on file with the committee.) (Decision of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Christian A. Lund, et al., was received in evidence, marked “N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 377-F", and is on file with the committee.) 218054-41-vol. 24, pt. 2-75 |