conceivable construction of Section 2 (6). That the fresh water impounded by the dam and released will supply fresh water to downstream industry indicates at best an exceedingly remote connection with commerce which depends upon whether such industry is in commerce or ships its products in commerce. Such involves us in a concatenation of remote contingencies. It is therefore recommended that the charge in this case be dismissed. JTMcT:hp J. T. McT. Action Item: 7-27-39. Memo from Regional Attorney to Regional Director recommending charge be dismissed as it is believed the operations of the company do not effect interstate commerce. (Folder labelled "American Newspaper Guild" was received in evidence and marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 444". Its entire content, a published copy of "Guild Agreement" of Saturday, July 29, 1939, is on file with the committee) (Folder labelled "Grower-Shipper" was received in evidence and marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 445". Its entire content, Decision and Order In the Matter of Grower-Shipper Vegetable Association of Central California, cases Nos. C-178 to C-178n, C-178p to C-178ee, is on file with the committee.) (Folder labelled "Utah Copper (Kennecott)" was received in evidence and marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 446." Its entire content, Decision, Order and Direction of Election in the Matter of Utah Copper Co., et al., cases No. C-399 and R-273, is on file with the committee.) (Folder labelled, "Meadow Valley Lumber Co." was received in evidence and marked, "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 447." Its entire content, Decision and Order In the Matter of Meadow Valley Lumber Co., Case No. C-531, is on file with the committee.) (Folder labelled "Pacific Gas and Electric" was received in evidence and marked "N. L. R. B., Exhibit No. 448." The entire contents Decision, Order, and Second Direction of Election In the Matter of Pacific Gas and Electric Co., cases Nos. R-274 and C-1003, is on file with the committee.) (Folder labelled, "20th Regional Staff Encomia" was received in evidence and marked, "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 449," is on file with the committee. A list of the documents contained therein follows:) 20TH REGIONAL STAFF ENCOMIA BOARD SUPPLEMENT 1. Letter, 9/5/39, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, W. A. Kelly to Rosseter. 2. Letter, 4/28/39, Fresno Packing House Employees Union, Lon Bennett to Rosseter. 3. Letter, 11/18/38, Fresno Packing House Employees Union, Gladyce Emerian to Neal. 4. Letter, 4/16/38, Winery and Distillery Workers, Jas. J. Kerwin to Neal. 5. Letter, 9/11/37, Paint-Varnish and Lacquer Makers, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, Russel G. Johnson to Neal. 6. Letter, 8/24/38, International Woodworkers of America, O. M. Orton to Madden. 7. Letter, 8/5/38, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union Local 12, R. O. Whitley to Board. 8. Letter, 7/27/38, Lumber and Sawmill Worker's Union, Klamath Basin District Council, J. H. Womack and R. O. Whitley to Madden. 9. Letter, 1/26/40, Northern California District Council, Earlton C. Shannon to Rosseter. 10. Letter, 2/29/40, Fresno Packing House Employees Union, John Sweeney to Rosseter. 11. Letter, 4/20/39, Fresno Labor Council, W. T. O'Rear to Rosseter. 12. Letter, 4/3/39, International Association of Machinists, Garden City Lodge Number 504, E. B. Scott to Rosseter. 13. Letter, 3/1/39, International Association of Machinists, Fresno Area District Lodge No. 87, Edward F. Remus to Rosseter. 4. Letter, 3/15/38, International Association of Machinists, Walter Nash to Rosseter. 5. Letter, 8/13/37, American Federation of Labor, C. C. Nunnally to Rosseter. 6. Letter, 8/10/37, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen & Helpers of America, J. M. Casey to Rosseter. 7. Letter, 2/21/39, Ray Oil Burner Co., Nelson Hayward to Rosseter. 8. Letter, 11/29/39, Oil Workers International Union, James P. Kenny to Rosseter. 9. Letter, 5/11/39, International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, George Cole to McTernan. 0. Letter, 4/10/39, Amalgamated Association of Street Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America-Division 1173, J. M. Rodrigues to Madden. 1. Letter, 7/14/38, Lumber & Sawmill Workers Union, Local No. 2826, Charles McGuire to Rosseter. 2. Letter, 5/17/39, San Francisco Typographical Union No. 21, Fred E. Holderby to Board. 23. Letter, 9/29/39, Pacific Grape Products Co., James J. Kerwin to Rowell. 24. Letter, 9/29/39, James J. Kerwin to Congress. 25. Letter, 5/23/39, Walter T. Mills, Photographers & Allied Crafts Union of Northern California to Nolton. 26. Letter, 3/11/39, Office Employees Union, Ernest Norback to Rosseter. 27. Letter, Dried Fruit Packers Union No. 21944, P. T. O. to Rosseter. 28. Letter, 12/21/39, International Association of Machinists, C. T. Slinger to Rosseter. 29. Letter, 11/6/39, McCutchen, Olney, Mannon & Greene, Farnham P. Griffiths to Rosseter. 30. Letter, 1/19/40, Decoto and Hardin, J. Marcus Hardin to Rosseter. [N. L. R. B. Exhibits Nos. 415-429, and 442, 443, were received as supplement to Exhibit 1619, introduced into evidence in Volume 24, Part I, August 1, 1940] N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 415 DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT Co. (Decision and Order, In the Matter of Douglas Aircraft Company, Cases Nos. C-268 and C-269, (decided April 20, 1938), was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 415-A," and is on file with the committee.) (Decision and Order in the above case (decided December 7, 1938), was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 415-B," and is on file with the committee.) (Decision and Direction of Election In the Matter of the Douglas Aircraft Co., et al, Cases No. R-1427, was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 415-C, and is on file with the committee.) (Certification of Representatives in the above case was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 415-D," and is on file with the committee.) (Decision and Order In the Matter of Douglas Aircraft Co., Case No. C-557, was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 415-E," and is on file with the committee.) (Order Vacating Order and Substituting Modified Order in the above case was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 415-F," and is on file with the committee.) N.L.R.B. EXHIBIT NO. 415-G JUNE 5, 1939. To: Mr. ToWNE J. NYLANDER. DEAR DOC: Just to be on the safe side I took up with the Board your report of your "educational hearing" in the Johnston Pump Co. XXI-C-718. There is a good deal of interest and discussion about it, but the Board concluded that on the whole it was not the thing for us to continue to do. The possibilities of misinterpretation are felt to be too great to permit us to take any chances. You should not therefore hold any more of these educational hearings. gop/bbf To: William R. Walsh N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 415-H June 13, 1938. Subject: Shell Of Company of California, Case N). R-551; Hearing, November 22, 23 and December 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 22, and 23, 1937: Trial Examiner, Thomas H. Kennedy, Attorney for Board, David Soki Pursuant to your suggestion herewith is a memorandum with regard to the comments on the record in the above matter. To begin with, I call to your attention the fact that prior to the hearing in the above matter the Associate General Counsel informed us that in matters of this kind of jurisdictional disputes the Board's attorney should endeavor, insofar as possible, to confine himself to the introduction of ecmmerce facts; however, the situation in this case was such that with the agreement of the representative of the Oil Workers Union (CIO) and the fourteen intervening A. F. of L. craft unions, I was able to give each and all of them advice as to how to proceed. This amicable arrangement was made only after I brought to the attention of the parties that the record was becoming hopelessly confused. Prior to that time I conferred with approximately twenty representatives of the craft unions and the representative of the industrial union and endeavored, insofar as possible, to confine them to material issues. The comment on the record from the Board is that "The record is full of extraneous material and statements not worthy of credit." The record itself will show that I made every endeavor to exclude the immaterial matter: Transcript page 443 "Mr. SOKOL. Mr. Examiner, on behalf of the Board, I want it to appear quite plain on the record that the state of the record has been bevond our control. I really believe that as far as restricting the issues, the parties would have been much better off by having counsel. There is a lot of immaterial matter that has gone in, and endless discussion. This statement is made primarily more or less excusatory, not on my part or on the Trial Examiner's part, but an unfortunate state of events, that is all." The comment from the Board also states that the Board's attorney "might have pointed the way for all union representatives and framed issues for them without the appearance of over-participation or taking sides, thereby limiting and materially clarifying the record.” With respect to this, I hope that the person making the comment could visualize approximately twenty representatives of unions coming into a hearing, none of them represented by counsel and all claiming conflicting trade jurisdiction. The fact that the record itself is only 672 pages should indicate that the flow of oratory was stemmed insofar as possible. The fact of the matter is that each and everyone of the craft unions came in without any idea of what they intended to prove except that they demanded to be on the ballot with the Oil Workers Union. The record itself will how, and I did, prior to the hearing, inform them that they would have to prove a background of bargaining, numerical representation, and the particular employees that each craft claimed. The craft representative endeavored to do this, but it is self-evident that that was impossible. I endeavored to convince them of that fact but they persisted, and the record will show that there were some mighty explosions when I endeavored to interrogate each of their witnesses. The action taken by the Board's attorney in clarifying this situation does not show in the record inasmuch as his comments and advice were made off the record at frequent intervals. What results were obtained at all in clarifying the situation should be directly attributed to the Board's counsel. Thus when the crafts were making no progress at all in proving their case, Board's Counsel got the Oil Workers Union representative together with the craft representatives and resulted in the stipulation shown on the record, page 401 of the transcript: Mr. SOKOL. May this be off the record? (Remarks outside the record.) Trial Examiner KENNEDY. Will you state the stipulation, Mr. Phillips? Mr. PHILLIPS. Petitioner in this case will stipulate to the following: That Petitioner is agreeable to an election among Shell Oil Company employees embodying four units; that the employee in each of these units shall be given a ballot in which he will be allowed to vote on whether the Oil Workers International Union is to represent him in collective bargaining, or whether one of the craft units, the Boilermakers, the Electricians, the Blacksmiths, and the Machinists, shall be his agency for collective bargaining." The difficulty in the above matter as far as the crafts were concerned was that the payroll classification of the company showed that an employee doing work in one craft jurisdiction on one day might be engaged in doing work in other craft jurisdictions on the same day. As a matter of fact, the crafts, among themselves, fell into the situation of rejecting on the record certain classifications which fell within their traditional jurisdiction. The Board's decision pointed this out. When it came to the question as to which employees each craft claimed, the Board's attorney had to confer with each craft and endeavor to clarify its contentions. As a matter of fact, however, the record will show that at the outset of the hearing few, if any, of the intervening craft unions had any membership whatsoever. The craft unions at first refused to divulge any information along this line to the Board's counsel. It was only after insistence by the Board's attorney that it was necessary to disclose the numerical strength that this was done. The entire situation which confronted the Trial Examiner and the Board's attorney is very definitely demonstrated by the fact that toward the end of the hearing the craft unions, other than the four which were stipulated as being entitled to a place on the ballot, came in with a semi-industrial unit which, as pointed out by the Board's decision, did not conform to any previous bargaining arrangement and appeared to be purely fortuitous, but it was after lengthy conference with Board's counsel in which the extreme difficulties of showing the craft claims were pointed out that the Metal Trades Counsel came in and took over all craft claims other than the four mentioned and the plumbers. The transcript, page 521, will show that the other ten intervening craft unions finally saw the light and the difficulty of this position. To recapitulate, I would like to point out that at the very outset fourteen intervening craft unions came in with approximately twenty representatives, without an attorney among them, in a belligerent frame of mind, without any documentary evidence of any representation among the Shell employees claimed and determined to put in everything, hearsay or otherwise, so that they could get a place on the ballot. I think that the record will show that harmony was at last achieved and that the craft unions were given every opportunity by reason of the advice of the Board's counsel in frequent off the record comments and advice and numerous conferences held after and before regular hearing hours. More particularly, in view of the Associate General Counsel's previous advice that Board's counsel should endeavor insofar as possible to stay out of jurisdictional disputes and merely put in the Board's jurisdictional matter that this be clarified for our future information and the extent of our participation defined. DS:rel:mld. DAVID SOKOL. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 415-I NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, September 17, 1937. To: National Labor Relations Board. Subject: Hollywood-Maxwell Company, XXI-C-371, 80 inv. Attached hereto please find copy of a letter from the International Ladies Garment Workers Union requesting withdrawal of their charge as the matter has been satisfactorily adjusted. We are closing case this date marking it "adjusted." Encl. copy of letter 9/13/37. TOWNE NYLANDER, Director. SEPTEMBER 3, 1937. Region, National Labor Relations Board, Cric Bldg., Los Angeles, California. permit us to withdraw our charge against the Hollywood- NATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION LOCAL #236. NYLANDER, N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 415-J [Telegram] WASHINGTON, D. C., August 27, 1937. Labor Relations Board, 21st Region, Pacific Electric Building, Los Angeles, California. have been advised it is necessary for the Board to review report on merits merce before authorizing issuance complaint. Please comply with ins Hollywood case and Holman. Impossible schedule hearings until Sunt authorized. B. M. STERN, National Labor Relations Board. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 415-K SIGNAL CORPS, UNITED STATES ARMY WAR DEPARTMENT MESSAGE CENTER RECEIVED at Room 3441, Munitions Building, Washington, D. C. N. L. R. B., Washn., D. C. Los Angeles, Calif. 1127A Aug. 26, 1937. Re Hollywood Maxwell case Twenty one see three seventy one Stop Serike over violations of Act Stop First case for ILGW. After conference with Walsh urge you authorize me issue complain without first receiving Board approval in order save time Stop Please wire reply as wish hear case. On September second Stop Walsh will handle should not take more than three days Stop If Board approves wish to schedule Holman XXI see three forty on September six using same trial examiner as Hollywood Maxwell case. Nylander, 445P. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 415-L MAY 14, 1938. To: Towne J. Nylander, Regional Director. Subject: Ace Foundry, Ltd., XXI-R-384. Enclosed herewith you will find two copies of Order Dismissing Petition in the above case, one of which please serve on the union. I note the "Intermediate Report" dated May 6, 1938, filed by Walsh as "Trial Examiner." I am at a loss to understand the procedure you employed here. The "Intermediate Report" states that you, acting pursuant to Rules and Regulations, designated Walsh as Trial Examiner. This also stated that you as Regional Director "instituted an investigation." I would appreciate an explanation from you as to why you adopted this procedure. nw; jcb enclosure. |