lease be informed that, pursuant to the National Labor Relations Board Rules Regulations-Series 1, as amended, Article II, Section 9, you may obtain a ew of this action by filing a request therefor with the National Labor Relations ard in Washington, D. C., and by filing a copy of such request with me. Very truly yours, PHILIP G. PHILLIPS, N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 391-AAAU REGIONAL OFFICE NINTH REGION Week ending Oct. 1, 19— WEEKLY REPORT ON PENDING CASES Case No. 807. Name of company: Jackson County Coal Co. Action taken uring week; giving dates of letters written and received, conferences held, etc.: €30 Conference with Co. requesting they reemploy an employee who alleges e was discriminated against because of union activities. Co. refused stating . L. R. B. is without jurisdiction. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 391-AAAV X-C-807 SEPTEMBER 13, 1938. JACKSON CO. COAL COMPANY, Sand Gap, Kentucky. GENTLEMEN: A charge has been filed with this office by Sam B. Mink, alleging that you have violated Sections 8 (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act in that you have intimidated, coerced and discriminatorily discharged Mr. Mink and his son Venus Mink on May 20, 1938, because of their union activities. It is always our desire to adjust these cases amicably without the necessity of formal proceedings, and we would therefore appreciate it if you would get in touch with this office at your earliest convenience and give us your version of the facts in the case. Yours very truly, PHILIP G. PHILLIPS, N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 391-AAAW UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, NINTH REGION In the Matter of Jackson Co. Coal Co. Sand Gap, Ky. and Sam B. Mink, Sand Gap, Ky. IX 807. Date filed May 20th, 1938. CHARGE Pursuant to Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the undersigned hereby charges that has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8, subsections (1) and (3) of said Act, in that on the 20th day of May, 1938, I was discharged from the Jackson Co. Coal Co. Them claiming I was one and my son Venus Mink who built a fire in 6 Mine. Neither of us had anything to do with this. Though we did not, they fired us any way. They knew we both are union men. This was their only excuse for they found out who really did build the fire but they refused to take us back to work and that means they were rid of two more union men. I made them sign their signatures to the slip when they fired us. It was only because we were union men. They were getting rid of union men when possible. The undersigned further charges that said unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of said Act. Name and address of person or labor organization making the charge made by a labor organization, give also the name and official position of the pest acting for the organization.) SAM B. MINK, Sand Gap. K. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of August, 1938. At Gap, Ky. GEORGE C. JOHNSON, Notary Për My Commission Expires Feb. 10th, 1942. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 391-AAAX SEPTEMBER 6, 198 Mr. D. S. FOLAND, Brandt St. and B. & O. RR., Dayton, Ohio. DEAR MR. FOLAND: This will acknowledge your letter of the 6th. O have been closed with regard to the matter. Yours very truly, PHILIP G. PHILLIPS, Regional Dire N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 391-AAAY NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, THE KEYSTONE GRAVEL Co., Enquire Building, Cincinnati, Ohio. (Att'n. Mr. Philip G. Phillips.) GENTLEMEN: Your letter dated July 26, 1938, addressed to the Keysi“ Gravel Co., has been received and contents carefully noted. The individuals named therein are not employees of our company, neither ba they ever been employed as workers for us. However, for your information and as a matter of record, the six persons na as having filed charges etc., have been serving Edward Kammer, who is a contractor, and which business (as a contractor) has no connection with The Keystone Gravel Co. in any manner what-so-ever, except that Mr. Kammer chases a part of his requirements of aggregates from our company and in* connection is treated the same as any other customer, receiving the same an services which we extend to all others. On or about July 21, 1938, a number of Kammer's contract haulers were of th opinion that the unit (cubic yard) price for which they were hauling was not sa factory and as the writer understands it decided to pull off of the job, which the did. All of this occurred while the trucks in question were on our property a about to be loaded. We also wish to point out to you, that Mr. Kammer is also a stockholder » The Keystone Gravel Co. and is serving at the present time as President of but his contracting business is his own personal organization, while The Keyst Gravel Co. is an incorporated company with various stockholders interested. In the opinion of the writer, the whole difficulty insofar as The Keystoke Gravel Co. is concerned, arises from the inability of interested parties to separ Edward Kammer, as a contracting organization from The Keystone Grave C as an organization furnishing materials only. Permit us to attempt an illustration by asking a question: If on the morning of July 21, 1938, all of the same trouble would have deve se except that the trucks would have been on the property of another gravel p then would that gravel company be held responsible for the correction of the difficulty their customer was having with their customer's haulers. We trust that we have furnished enough information that will allow you properly dispose of this matter, also if we can be of further service to you, we be more than pleased to cooperate. Very truly yours, THE KEYSTONE GRAVEL COMPANY. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 391-AAAZ NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD : Mr. P. G. Phillips. ɔm: K. W. Filter. NOVEMBER 20, 1939. bject: Enro Shirt Company, Louisville, Kentucky, IX-C-1102. By previous appointment the writer met with the representatives of the Amalmated Clothing Workers at their headquarters on 1006 East Oak Street, Louisle, Kentucky, Wednesday morning, November 15. Those present were, ndra Slotkin, an organizer of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, and Harold bbons, and Ida Upton. An affidavit was taken from Mrs. Upton. An affidavit is taken from Mrs. Upton, setting forth the circumstances of her employment d discharge and alleging that she had been discriminated against because of her ion activities. That affidavit is attached hereto and is self-explanatory. Mrs. pton claimed that she had been discharged for a mistake in keeping her records id that there was no intent on her part whatever to gain any financial advantage om the company and that as a result of that mistake she could not have gotten ore than 34¢ in wages. On the following afternoon and by previous appointment, the writer conferred ith Sidney Rosenblume at the company's offices in Louisville. The writer also onferred with Herman Rosenblume and Bernard Rosenblume and Mr. Goldenoff. The writer also conferred with the company's time clerk. I do not have is name available. The company gave as its reason for discharging Mrs. Upton hat she had deliberately falsified her work cards for a period of at least six weeks. 'he cards, showing very obvious falsifications, which it is extremely difficult for he writer to believe, in any circumstances, had been accidental, were displayed o the writer and to my judgment clearly indicate that this woman had been on . campaign to defraud the company. Attached hereto is a tabulation prepared by the company's time clerk, indiating various dates on which Mrs. Upton had submitted duplications of work cards for the same lots, and in one instance, there is an indication that she subnitted a work card for a bundle which was not even in existence. The company furthermore displayed to the writer, two time cards which Mrs. Upton had submitted to the company and which indicate that she worked on two different days several hours less than she had actually put in. The company explained that such an act might very seriously result to its disadvantage, inasmuch as on the days on which such shortening of the hours appear, Mrs. Upton was working on so-called piece work. The company had two types of work, piece work and time work. On working on time work, the employee is paid at the average rate which that employee attains on piece work. Therefore, a shortening of the hours when working on piece work when the employee has actually worked longer hours and therefore put in a larger number of units, would result in a higher time work rate. The company produced affidavits of fellow employees of Mrs. Upton, who had observed various moves on her part by which these manipulations were made. The company agreed to submit copies of those affidavits to this office and for our files. The company furthermore stated that in June of this year Mrs. Upton requested a leave of absence during the slack season of the company so as to be able to do her housework. The company claims that in spite of this request for a leave of absence of which they had approved, she made application for unemployment compensation claiming that she had been laid off and through such representations received three checks from the Unemployment Compensation Commission, amounts of which total $30.00. They claim that this action on her part is still under investigation. As further evidence of Mrs. Upton's culpability, the company produced a signed confession that she had endeavored to secure money under false pretenses from the company and this was secured from her in the middle of October at the time when the discrepancies in Mrs. Upton's records first came to the attention of the company. The union makes its claim of discrimination on the ground that Mrs. Upton was very active in the union subsequent to the 21st of September, 1939, and that she was largely instrumental in quadrupling membership in the pajama departments of the plant. There was no evidence which they could produce, however, that the company was aware of this activity on the part of Mrs. Upton. The company, on the other hand, definitely and categorically denied that they any knowledge whatever that Mrs. Upton was even so much as a member union. The union furthermore claimed as an outstanding point in its favor th another employee and a co-worker of Mrs. Upton, who was discharged 2 same time as Mrs. Upton for the same thing, is now back at work. The compa on the other hand, stated that they took this woman back because she dispan a great deal of remorse over her action and they felt that she would not re any falsification of her record. On the other hand they pointed out tha: Upton had no explanation to make of her discrepancies, except that "It have been the devil in me." Furthermore, at the time that I was at the pany's office, Louis Hern, a junior Examiner, at that time with the Une ment Compensation Commission of Kentucky, was at the company's office tigating the claim of Mrs. Ida Upton that she had been unjustly discharged E stated that when he interviewed Mrs. Upton he asked her why she had a errors which she admitted to have made, she stated, "Well, up there we den paid so much and get by with everything that we possibly can." I am defin and thoroughly convinced this case has no merit whatever on the ground of crimination for union activities, and every justification in the world exists for “2 employer's discharging this employee. THE 8 (1) CHARGES The Union in its charge allege that the company was guilty of 8 (1) violata These violations they allege consisted of making speeches to the employees, were intimidatory and coercive in nature, on two different occasions, one in Aur of 1939 and the other, October 27, 1939. The writer interviewed Bertha CerKate Mitchell, members of the union, at the union's hall on Wednesday even November 15. Their recollection of what the exact words of the company *** were very vague, but they stated that the first speech occurred about Febr and was given by Herman Rosenblume at an assemblage of the entire staf employees of the plant. Following that time the union distributed a hand August 11, 1939, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked "B." Sh thereafter, on October 24, 1939, the union wrote letters to all of the colored work ers in the plant. That letter is attached hereto and sets forth that these co workers were invited to a meeting on Friday evening, October 27. On the morning of October 27, Sidney Rosenblume made a speech to the co workers by themselves, in which this letter was discussed and the allegat therein. At 4 o'clock that day another meeting was held of all of the white d ployees of the company in which the handbill which had been circulated by the union, which has been mentioned herein, as "B" and also the letter ment above, were discussed with the employees. These speeches were discussed some length with Sidney Rosenblume and he was requested to produce copes these addresses, since had stated that he had reduced them to writing before ing made them and that he had secured the advice of counsel in relation to th contents. He did not so produce these speeches and the writer was definite the opinion that the matter contained therein was coercive, that the intent of 172 company in giving these addresses was to discourage membership in the and that the action of the company in addressing the colored employees of company on the very morning of the day there was to be a meeting of these employees, certainly reveal what the intent of the company was. The writer has started to administer a lecture to the company in relation ther and Sidney Rosenblume stated that the speeches which he had made in th stance cover practically the same ground they covered in their speeches whic had made to the employees, and copies of which had been examined by M Phillips and had received his approval. Merely to check into the truth of the allegations, the writer requested that the company submit copies of these species to this office and they agreed to do so. They have not yet been received. The Union also complain that on an unnamed date three weeks ago, a preacher held a prayer meeting during the lunch hour and at the company's plant in nection with a "back to God movement" which now is quite widespread in L ville. They stated that the company had regularly conceded to various mus the right to come in and address the employees for several years. The only obje tion the union had to this particular minister was, in his opening prayer he pray that "employees be delivered from the unrest now existing in the company that they be delivered from strikes, strife and unions." This matter was ca to the company's attention and they disavowed any knowledge of the fact that the preacher had even been in the plant. (the three Rosenblumes) Mr. Golde admitted knowledge of the fact that this man had asked him for permission address the employees and that he had granted it as he had always done in past, but disavowed knowledge of any anti-union statements, or prayers which I been made by this man. Goldenkoff agreed to investigate the matter and to warn any further ministers it they must, under no circumstances, inject any statements relating to labor ations in prayers or their addresses. The writer believes that the acts of intimidation should be carefully investited, but that the 8 (3) charge of the union was entirely without merit. WF: mr Encls. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 391-AAAAA o: Mr. Philip G. Phillips, Regional Director. rom: William S. Gordon, Attorney. JUNE 15, 1939. ubject: E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. IX-C-612-IX-R-271. REPORT ON CONFERENCE WITH BATTLE AND SPILMAN I had a most interesting and friendly conference with respondent's attorneys oday. They showed every effort to cooperate and expedite the proceedings. I mentioned a stipulation on commerce. They told me to draft one and leave he spaces for figures blank for respondent's manager to fill in. Accordingly I rafted one and I submit a copy herewith for your consideration. I am to call hem at noon to arrange a conference to go over it. I will telephone you at 11:30 omorrow and get your OK before submitting to them this draft. Please note hat respondent's Answer admits paragraph 2 of the complaint. While we were talking the question of the names of the parties was brought up. They said that they had been a little confused and called my attention to the ipper half of page 22 of their answer on the matter of the name of the Union and to the first page of the Reply to the petition on the matter of the name of the respondent. They stated definitely that they would raise no question on these discrepancies and suggested that they could be disposed of by stipulation. Accordingly I drafted a second stipulation which I enclose. Before submitting it to them I will ask for your OK by telephone tomorrow. I want to call your attention to the following points in the draft stipulation: A. The correct corporate name of respondent is as was given to me by respondent today. B. There is possibly a technical error in the first words of paragraph II of the stipulation. District 50 as a whole is not affiliated with the W. Va. Industrial Union Council; it is affiliated, however, both through the common affiliation of each to the C. Í. O. and through the affiliation of the Du Pont local of District 50 to the W. Va. Industrial Council. You notice that on page 22 of the answer respondent alleges that it is informed and believes that District 50 and the Industrial Council are affiliated. C. Note the word "charges", the first word of the fourth line of paragraph II. I thought I had better make this general pending your decision as to whether the original and first amended charges should be filed. As it now stands it can if neces sary refer only to the amended charge of May 1939. D. The last sentence on page 2 of the stipulation conforms to respondent's use of the letters "C. I. O." in its answer. It also takes care of the fact that the charge of February 16, 1938, was filed by the "Committee for Industrial Organization". QUERY E. Signatures: Note the signature of the Union. Easton informed me today that District 50 is sending an attorney from New York to represent it. I presume that for the purpose of the "C" case he will represent the W. Va. Industrial Union Council. Do you see any reason why he should not sign as attorney for both in the manner in which I have drawn it? I asked the attorneys for respondent whether they had definitely decided to try the case without further attempt to adjust amicably. They replied that they had not definitely decided anything but that their idea of amicable settlement would probably not correspond with ours; they mentioned an election. I did not |