N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 410-D 20th Region—AL/rt NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BD., 1095 Market Street, San Francisco, California, Sept. 9, 1937. Petitions received today bearing signatures San Francisco warehouse employees signifying their affiliations with CIO Stop Believe this sufficient proof AFL sentiment practically absent among warehouse employees Stop CIO anxious have election by board to again prove to employers and public warehousemen have chosen CIO as bargaining agency Stop Traffic at San Francisco Bay region stopped because of teamsters refusal to move goods from docks account warehousemens refusal to join AFL Stop No dispute exists between warehouse employers and CIO employees as employers recognizing CIO agreements Stop Teamsters apparently unwilling submit election account AFL demanding jurisdiction Stop Since commerce interfered with can board hold immediate hearing Stop Account traffic tieup urge immediate hearing if possible Stop Wire reply ROSSETER, San Francisco. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 410-E Memo September 9, 1937. San Francisco Warehouses, XX-R-151. Almon Roth, Waterfront Employers Association, met with the director, at her request, for discussion of the petition filed by IL&WU. Mr. Roth stated that, while his group had remained neutral in this controversy, he felt that an election by this Board was the only solution of the problem. The Director then asked if his group would be willing to make a public statement to this effect. He replied that he would confer with his associates tomorrow morning and give the director his answer later in the day. amr/wg A. M. R. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 410-F MEMO FOR FILE, SEPTEMBER 10, 1937 Mr. Joseph Casey and Mr. J. P. McLaughlin, representatives of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen and Helpers, met with the Director, as requested, for a discussion of the possibilities of a consent election on the petition filed by the International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union. The position of the Teamsters is that while none of the workers in the warehouses in San Francisco Bay Area belong to their union or any A. F. of L. union, they claim jurisdiction over them and have issued a fiat that until they do join their union they will prevent any commerce moving on the San Francisco waterfront. Also, they have never made any claims upon the employers as representatives of these workers. Inasmuch as they frankly admit they do not have any membership among these workers, the fact remains undisputed that the I. L. W. U. is the workers' sole representative. While the Teamster representatives, Mr. J. P. McLaughlin and Mr. Joseph Casey, entered the office in a very belligerent mood at the time of our conference, after a discussion of one and a half hours, we parted very good friends. The Director proved to them that the Board is taking no sides in this issue, but strongly recommended an election for the reason that the peace and commerce of this community is about to be destroyed, and that the split in the labor movement will be eventually to the advantage of employers. The reply to this comment was, "All employers are not unreasonable." The Teamsters will relinquish any claim to maritime warehouse employees, at the same time insisting that I. L. W. U. relinquish their present membership and assume jurisdiction of employees in inland warehouses. They intend to enforce this fiat by stopping all movement of commerce at this port. The I. L. W. U. state that all warehouses, with one exception, in the Bay Area are "inland" warehouses and their organization has always had jurisdiction over them since there has been any union affiliation by these workers. The Director called to their attention that there is a law which gives the workers the right to join an organization of their own choosing, to which Mr. McLaughlin replied, "The A. F. of L. law is the only law." Later: Mr. Goldblatt of the I. L. W. U. the Teamsters' attitude. The Director gave AMR/rt with the Director to ascertain the above information. A. M. R. (Order In the Matter of San Francisco Warehouses, Case No. 20-R-151, was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 410-G," and is on file with the committee.) N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 411 SAYLOR'S (MISS) CHOCOLATES N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 411-A To: Mr. CHARLES FAHY, General Counsel. Subject: Representation Cases. SEPTEMBER 8, 1937. In the Confidential Instruction Book issued to Board agents, the following, among other things, appears on page 15: "In hearings under section 9 (c), the proceeding is not on a complaint of the Board, it is merely a proceeding to develop all pertinent facts with respect to representation, and the Board should remain impartial as between rival claimants. Therefore, the regional attorney's primary responsibility will be that of presenting the evidence tending to sustain the Board's constitutional and statutory jurisdiction. Primary responsibility or presenting the substantive facts as to who represents the employees will rest upon the party filing the petition and upon any other labor organizations involved. The regional attorney, however, should, when necessary, assist the trial examiner in the development of such facts." Prior to and since the validation of the Act, I have engaged in various practices with reference to the above instructions. I have handled the entire presentation of the case, I have presented jurisdictional facts and assisted the organizations involved to develop facts, and I have refrained entirely from participating in development of the representation facts if I was of the opinion that the attorney or representative for the union or unions involved were satisfactorily developing those facts. It seems to me very important that the regional attorneys receive very definite instructions regarding their demeanor in 9 (c) cases. Of course I realize that the proof of jurisdiction rests entirely upon the regional attorney. However, the extent to which the regional attorney may participate in the representation phase of the case bothers me considerably, particularly in a dispute between an A. F. of L. and a C. I. O. union or an independent union represented by counsel. I am very anxious to hear from you regarding this important matter, and I feel sure that all regional attorneys are likewise as interested. Yours very truly, RHK:AE s/ ROBERT H. KLEEB, Regional Attorney. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 411-B SEPTEMBER 13, 1937. To: Robert H. Kleeb. From: Charles Fahy. Subject: Representation cases. In reply to your memorandum of September 8th, the Regional Attorneys have the following obligations in representation cases: 1. They should take the responsibility with the Regional Director of being certain that the formal proceedings and formal papers are in order, including notice to proper parties. As you know, the different labor organizations which may claim rights in the representation cases should all be formally notified; 2. Before hearing, the Regional Attorney should confer with the representatives the labor organizations involved and explain to them the nature of the proeding and the responsibility of the representatives, or counsel for the labor ganizations, in the conduct of the hearing. They should be advised that the oard itself is neutral in so far as the presentation of conflicting claims as to unit concerned, and that the obligation is upon the labor organizations themselves › produce the testimony desired by each; 13. Upon the hearing, the Regional Attorney should prove the facts upon which ne jurisdiction of the Board is claimed and should see that the formal papers are ade part of the record, and that the proper appearances are entered; 4. The Regional Attorney should then leave to the different labor organizations he calling of the witnesses and the presentation of their positions with respect to he appropriate unit, and any other conflicting matters between the organizations; 5. It is necessary in these cases that the records show a question or controversy oncerning representation, or else the petition will be dismissed. If the attorneys or the labor organizations have not produced evidence which shows such conroversy, and from the Regional Attorney's knowledge of the case he believes hat such controversy does in fact exist, he may supplement the record to the extent ecessary to disclose the true situation with respect to the question affecting repesentation. 6. The representatives or counsel for the Unions should be instructed as to the nethod of proving a majority. See Mr. Witt's memorandum of June 22, 1937, copy attached. This should be read, however, in connection with my memocandum of September 11th, copy attached. I am enclosing a copy of a memorandum from Robert H. Kleeb, Regional Attorney at Pittsburgh, to me of April 21st on the subject of representation cases, together with a copy of my reply. CHARLES FAHY. APRIL 23, 1938. To: Robert H. Kleeb. From: Charles Fahy. Subject: Representation cases. I have your memorandum of the 21st on the above subject. I do not think that there is a conflict in the memorandum of September 13th and the criticism of the Review Section in the Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines Case No. R-422. Even if there is a conflict, the Regional Attorney should not consider himself precluded from developing essential facts to aid the Board in the determination of the appropriate unit. One of the essential facts is the nature of the work done by employees, and when the representatives of the union omit to develop these facts, the attorney for the Board should do so. This does not seem to me to be taking sides with respect to the unit, which of course is to be avoided, but is simply the development of the factual situation regarding the nature of the work of the employees. CHARLES FAHY. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, April 21, 1938. To: Charles Fahy, General Counsel. In a memorandum of September 13, 1937, which you sent to me, in which you discussed the obligations of a Regional Attorney in representation cases, you stated, inter alia, that: "They (the labor organizations) should be advised that the Board itself is neutral in so far as the presentation of conflicting claims as to the unit is concerned, and that the obligation is upon the labor organizations themselves to produce the testimony desired by each. "3. Upon the hearing the Regional Attorney should prove the facts upon which the jurisdiction of the Board is claimed, and should see that the formal papers are made part of the record and that the proper applications are entered. "4. The Regional Attorney should then leave to the different labor organizations the presentation of their positions with respect to the appropriate unit and any other conflicting matters between the organizations." In a recent criticism by the review section in the case of the Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Case No. R-422, the review section states: "Little evidence was introduced to show accurately just what is the work of the 30 or 40 employees excluded from the proposed unit, in order to ind:cate, perhaps, some justification for their exclusion. The regional attorney might well have provided some assistance on this point." It seems to me that there is some conflict between this statement and the statement in your memorandum of September 13, 1937. The question of the unit is one in dispute between the contending parties. If the Attorney for the Board attempts to bring out on the record any evidence justifying exclusion or inclusion of any particular class of employees, it might be interpreted as taking sides with one of the parties. This is especially true where the parties are represented by counsel. This represents an important problem in all "R" cases, and I am sure it would be helpful to the Board Attorneys trying "R" cases if we could have an opinion from you on this point. Very truly yours, (Signed) ROBERT H. KLEEB. (Folder labelled "Standard Oil" was received in evidence and marked "N.L.R.B. Exhibit No. 412." The only document contained therein, Decision and Order In the Matter of Standard Oil Company of California, is on file with the committee.) (Folder labelled "Swayne & Hoyt" was received in evidence and marked, "N.L.R.B. Exhibit No. 413". The only document contained therein, Decision and Order In the Matter of Swayne & Hoyt, Ltd., is on file with the committee.) N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 414 N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 414-A Re: XX-C-599 United Concrete & Pipe Co. SHASTA TUNNEL & CONSTRUCTION WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 260, JULY 28, 1939. Attention: John Morgan, Int'l Rep., Box 48, Central Valley, Calif. GENTLEMEN: Your charge against United Concrete and Pipe Company, charging violation of Section 8 (1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, has been duly investigated. Our investigation reveals that the case is not sufficiently strong to warrant the issuance of a complaint by this office. I must, thereof, refuse to issue a complaint in this matter. Pursuant to the National Labor Relations Board Rules and RegulationsSeries 2, as amended, Article II, Section 9, you may obtain a review of this action by filing a request therefor with the National Labor Relations Board in Washington, D. C., and by filing a copy of such request with me. This request shall contain a complete statement setting forth the facts and reasons upon which the request is based. 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. Very truly yours, (8) ALICE M. ROSSETER, ce to National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C. MM Action Item: 7-28 Letter of dismissal sent union. Hold file until Aug. 7 for appeal. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 414-B Alice M. Rosseter, Regional Director. n: John T. McTernan, Regional Attorney. ject: Re United Concrete and Pipe Company, XX-C-599. JULY 27, 1939. nder the facts presented in the draft of Request for authorization in the above I am unable to conclude that the unfair labor practices affect commerce in the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. here is no showing-nor indeed does there seem to be any contention that operations of the employer were "in commerce" with the language of Section ), as construed in N. L. R. B. v. Associated Press, 301 US 103, and N. L. R. B. Vashington, Virginia and Maryland Coach Company, 300 US, so that his unfair or practices would have been committed "in commerce." Likewise there is showing and no contention that the operations of the employer, here olved, are such that a cessation thereof would necessarily result in a stoppage the movement of his products under the doctrine of N. L. R. B. v. Jones & ughlin Steel Corp., 301 US 138; cf. also NLRB v. Freuhof Trailer Company, US 49, N. R. L. B. v. Santa Cruz Fruit Packing Company, 303 US 453. There no facts to show and no contention is made that the employer in this case ps any products to points outside the State of California. The theory under which it is sought to base the Board's jurisdiction, if any, that the employer's operations, while themselves entirely intrastate, are so imately connected with commerce, through the operations of others who are 1 commerce" or who ship products in commerce, that a cessation thereof would ve a direct effect upon commerce. (Cf. Consolidated Edison v. N. L. R. B., 5 US 197). The facts set forth in the Request show no such intimate connec n. The employer here is engaged on a project to relocate the tracks of the Southern cific Company, an interstate carrier by rail, which tracks in this instance are art of the main route to the Pacific Northwest. The relocation is necessitated 7 the creation of the Shasta Dam, an integral part of the Central Valley Project, hich will be used to impound the waters of the Sacramento River to such an tent as to flood the present right of way of the Southern Pacific. By the terms id conditions under which the Shasta Dam is being erected the impounding the water cannot occur until provisions for relocating this railroad have been ompleted. The Central Valley Project will be used to improve navigation on he Sacramento River, generate electrical energy, irrigate agricultural lands, rovide fresh water for industrial purposes along the lower Sacramento River. It will thus be seen that no stoppage of operations by the employer will burden r obstruct, or in any way affect the operations of the Southern Pacific Company. stoppage of this employer's operations can affect only the progress of Shasta Dam nd the completion of the Central Valley Project. The sole question then is whether a stoppage of this employer's operations would in stopping completion of the Dam directly affect commerce. of It seems clear that the effect of any such stoppage would have at best an indirect and remote effect upon commerce. Stoppage of the relocation project would prevent final completion of the dam, which is not planned in any event for a period years. The dam not being completed, it would be impossible to operate the Central Valley Project for the purposes stated above. Assuming that the purposes for which the project is planned to be used are commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6), the remoteness of effect thereon seems self-evident. But conceding, arguendo, that the effect of stoppage of this employer's operations upon such "commerce" would be direct, there are no facts submitted showing that the purposes of the Central Valley Project, when in operation some few years hence, are commerce as defined in the statute. The Project will be used to improve navigation in the Sacramento River above the City of Sacramento. There is no showing of the extent of the commerce involved in such navigation, however, or that any of it is interstate in nature. The Project also will be used to generate electric energy by means of a hydro electric plant at Shasta Dam. But there is no showing of the actual or intended (some few years hence) use of such energy. Particularly there is no showing that such energy will be essential to operations of enterprises which are in commerce or which ship products in commerce (Cf. Consolidated Edison, supra), or that such energy will be transmitted across state lines. Further it is not clear that, if the relocation project delayed final completion of the dam and impounding of the water, such would prevent generation of electrical energy. The project will be used further to supply water for irrigation purposes. There is no showing that such activities are commerce under any |