During January and February, 1938, petitions were passed around for the C. I. O., not during working hours. A speaker for the C. I. O. held a meetin during the noon hour in an inside downstairs store room. McManama's testimon does not indicate any action on the part of the company showing favoritism for either union, but rather did indicate that men who were willing to chisel on the agreement were retained while those who insisted on fulfillment of the contract were let o te Morrell was not at the plant during the agitation for the C. I. O. but before goi! back to work after his injury, he met Kuznetz who was the owner of the plan", Kuznetz asked Morrell if he was going to join the C. I. O. Morrell replied that te didn't know but that he might have to. Kuznetz told him, “No one is going to make you." After his return to work, Morrell was handed an application to join the C. I. 0. He doesn't remember by whom. After a few days he filled it out and turned .% over to Marsh, new C. Ì. O. business representative. R. R. Putarman, former employee, gave the following statement to Examiner Howard: He worked for respondent for three years as a machine man. He was a member of the A. F. of L. union and went out on strike in September, 1937. He was active in shop discussions and he quit on or about June 1, 1938, because he was asked to work for less than the wage scale called for in the contract and he had a better job in view. Examiner Howard asked Putarman if he had ever heard either Mi Kuznetz or Gelenstein, the foreman, show any preference for either of the labor organ.zations while he was working there. Putarman stated that he had not seen any preerence shown. In fact, he thought that the employer leaned a little bit toward the A. F. of L. but did not express this preference in any way that would influence the employees. The testimony given to Examiner Howard by Putarman, Morrell and MeManama, is that the company, irrespective of what union men belong to, contingously chiseled on the agreement and apparently discriminated against the men wha would not work for less than the scale established for their job. There is also evidence that the terms of the contract have not been lived up to since the C. I. ( came into the plant. However, it is Examiner Howard's opinion that unless further evidence could be obtained the case should be dismissed or withdrawn. On June 30th John Murray, representative of the Carpenters' Union, discussed the case at length in this office and at this time, Murray was advised that we intended to dismiss this case. Murray requested that we withhold this action un July 6th. Also on June 30th we wired the Board requesting that no action be taken on the R case until it received our report on the C case. Marray has mai brought in any additional evidence or information as he promised on June 30th. The case was assigned to Examiner Muir on July 22nd. On July 28 Examiner Mar attempted to get in touch with Murray of the A. F. of L. union. The union reported that Murray would be in Arizona for several days. Examiner talked with Walker, business representative of the union that filed the charge. He reports that he knows nothing about Murray's action in the case since June 30th, and has no further evidence. SIGNAL CORPS, UNITED STATES ARMY [Telegram] R. A. MUIR. Received at War Department Message Center, Room 3441, Munitions Building, Washington, D. C. NATHAN WITT, NLRB, Washington, D. C. LOS ANGELES, California, July 29, 1938. Retel California Woodturning Co. XXI dash C dash 733 dismissing case for lack of merit. TOWNE NYLANDER, Director. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 415-Y INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD >: National Labor Relations Board. om: 21st Region. bject: California Woodturning Co., XXI-C-733. I discussed the matter of appealing dismissal of this case with John Murray, ternational Representative of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners America and he advised me that the Union did not intend to appeal. TOWNE NYLANDER, Director. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 415-Z NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD For release afternoon papers, Saturday, March 25, 1939. CORRECTION In release please read "Inglewood" for "Ingleside." NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, For release afternoon papers, Saturday, March 25, 1939. The National Labor Relations Board in February 27, 1939, announced the suspension of Dr. Towne Nylander as Regional Director of the Twenty-First Region, at Los Angeles, pending an investigation of the accuracy of the reporting of an address made by Dr. Nylander at Ingleside, California, on February 6th. The newspaper account of the address quoted Dr. Nylander as expressing views which are in no sense those of the Board. An investigation was undertaken at the request of the Board by Professor James E. Brenner, Lieutenant Commander, U. S. Navy, (retired), Professor of Law, at Stanford University. His findings have been received and studied by the Board. In them the Board does not find cause to continue Dr. Nylander's suspension. It has therefore advised Dr. Nylander that his suspension has been lifted, and has requested him to re-assume his duties as Regional Director. A copy of Professor Brenner's findings in the matter and of Chairman Madden's letter transmitting them to Dr. Nylander are attached. Dr. TOWNE J. NYLANDER, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 2638 West Adams Gardens, Los Angeles, California. DEAR NYLANDER: As you know, the Board requested Professor James E. Brenner of Stanford University, to investigate the accuracy of an article in the Ingleside Daily News which reported an address made by yourself before the Ingleside Community Forum on last February 6. In addition to the inquiries made of yourself, Professor Brenner in the course of his investigation has interviewed many of those who listened to your address and has taken the testimony of the writer of the Daily News article, Mr. Roy Rosenberg. The Board has received Professor Brenner's findings. A copy of them is attached. The pur You will note that the findings go directly to the statements which disturbed the Board and which was the cause of its action in suspending you. ported statements were to the effect that, when a complaint is actually served, the 21st Regional Office does not have a scintilla of doubt as to the employer's guilt, and that the employer "hasn't got a chance." Professor Brenner finds that you did intend to convey the meaning of the first statement to your audience; he finds conflicting evidence as to your words anc meaning on the second point. As an overall finding, Professor Brenner presents a failure on your part to describe Board procedure in such a way as to convince listeners, unfamiliar with that procedure, that it affords an employer adequate opportunity to defend himself against allegations made against him in a complaint. The Board recognizes that it is the duty of a Regional Director not to issue a complaint in a case unless his investigation of the facts had led him to conclude that an unfair labor practice has been committed. It is assumed that your remark "When a complaint is actually served the 21st Regional Offices does not have a scintilla of doubt as to the employer's guilt" is an expression of confidence that you in your investigation have so sifted the facts that you are certain a complaint can be sustained. You may claim that cases in your Region are so carefully investigated and prepared that only those in which the unfair labor practices are certain of proof under testimony could reach the stage of a public hearing. However, the Board regrets that your discussion of procedure dealt only with those early stages of our cases entrusted to the Regional Director, and failed to deal with the later stages which are the responsibilities of the Trial Examiners and the Board. * * Your error in judgment according to our reading of Professor Brenner's report, arose from not "* laying a foundation by making a complete and accurate explanation of the National Labor Relations Board procedure." Such an explanation would have involved a clear demarcation between your duty in presenting the case and the totally different functions of the Trial Examiner who hears the testimony, of the Board itself which must review the testimony, and of the Circuit Court of Appeals which passes on the entire record. Your role in the first stage of this familiar and legally-approved procedure is so routine that you were perhaps blinded to the possible effects on listeners of a presentation which left them to believe that employers have no recourse after a complaint is once served upon them. Unless you have so informed them, your listeners could not know that complaints are in proper cases dismissed upon subsequent presentation of pertinent facts, that employers have opportunity to refute allegation in complaints by sworn testimony, that Trial Examiners can and do dismiss_complaints upon proper evidence, and that the Board itself in numerous cases has, upon its consideration of the transcript of evidence taken at the hearing, dismissed a part or all of a complaint issued by a Regional Director. In respect that your error in judgment caused an unfounded alarm in the minds of parties to Board proceedings and in member of the public, with reference to the fairness of Board proceedings, the Board finds reason for reproof in your Ingleside address as weighed in the findings of Professor Brenner. These findings also state the opinion of Professor Brenner that you "did not intend to convey the impression that the procedure of the National Labor Relations Board does not provide a full and impartial hearing for employers against whom formal complaints have been filed." The Board also accepts this finding and upon it concludes that there is no valid cause, in the facts themselves, for further disciplinary action against you. You are reminded, however that your suspension took place after the Board had waited for several days for a report from you concerning your remarks. Your suspension as Regional Director is hereby lifted and you may immediately re-assume your duties. Sincerely yours, J. WARREN MADDEN, Chairman. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS Board, Washington, D. C. For release afternoon papers Saturday, March 25, 1939. FINDINGS OF PROFESSOR JAMES E. BRENNER SUBMITTED TO NLRB AFTER INVESTIGATION OF ACCURACY WITH WHICH ADDRESS BY TOWNE J. NYLANDER WAS REPORTED The article in the Inglewood Daily News appears to be a case of reasonably accurate reporting, but it includes interpretations not intended by the lecturer. There is a square conflict as to whether Dr. Nylander used these exact words: "I'll tell you frankly when we go into a hearing the employer hasn't got a chance." th the exception of this controversial sentence, Mr. Rosenberg's statement at the hearing is substantially correct that: "The statements which appear e adjoining starred box are Dr. Nylander's words in every instance. The e is the running account, of the running story, is a review of what happened e meeting in an effort to hit the high spots and does not purport to be a atim account of what Dr. Nylander said." e content of the paragraphs in the body of the article is substantially correct, n some instances the interpretation which results from taking statements from context and joining them as consecutive statements was not that intended by Speaker. he title of the article, "National Labor Relations Board is for Workers and inst Employers, Claim" might be inferred from the remarks of Dr. Nylander nembers of the audience who were not familiar with the part of the National or Relations Board procedure, which was not explained by Dr. Nylander, but Nylander did not intend that such an inference should be drawn. 'r. Nylander made a qualified statement that he personally hoped the A. F. and C. I. O. would remain two distinct organizations. he captions "Communism Feared" and "Favors C. I. O." are the reporter's phrasing. Dr. Nylander did not always make clear to his audience when he was quoting ther person and when he was expressing his own views. Dr. Nylander did not intend to expressly state or imply that the Board is partial ts views concerning complaints filed against employers. Dr. Nylander did not intend to convey the impression that the procedure of the tional Labor Relations Board does not provide a full and impartial hearing for ployees against whom formal complaints have been filed. ff Dr. Nylander intended to restrict his statements regarding the procedure of › National Labor Relations Board to the procedure of the Twenty-first Region, > record shows that he did not make his intention clear to all of his audience. Nylander did intend that his audience should be impressed with the fact that en a complaint is actually served the Twenty-first Regional Office does not have scintilla of doubt as to the employer's guilt. The Inglewood audience was a receptive one and there is evidence which indites that Dr. Nylander became very enthusiastic about the subject matter of me of his remarks and made statements which could reasonably be interpreted more than one way. Dr. Nylander did fail to fully describe the procedure of the National Labor elations Board and the lack of that explanation or knowledge resulted in a umber of the members of the audience misinterpreting remarks made by him. Dr. Nylander, as Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board, hould have recognized the necessity for his laying a foundation by making a omplete and accurate explanation of the National Labor Relations Board proedure if he desired to make statements which might reasonably be misunderstood this precaution were not taken. (Signed) J. E. BRENNER, Regional Labor Board, Twenty-First Region, JANUARY 11, 1936. 205 Federal Building, Los Angeles, California: Retel Bethlehem We are advised respondent about commence injunction proceedings. Its attorneys enroute from New York. Telegraph all developments. Strongly advise against using evident suggested for reasons you state. Might be helpful for possible use injunction case if you can draft very complete affidavits establishing direct relation respondent to commerce. We can thus utilize time before opponents strike. N. L. R. B EXHIBIT No. 416-B WATTS. [Radiogram] SIGNAL CORPS, UNITED STATES ARMY Received at War Department Message Center, Room 3441, Munitions Building Washington, D. C. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, LOS ANGELES, CALIF., 1135A Apl 6. Washington, D. C. Bethlehem injunction denied grounds no irreparable damage. Judge Stephens rejects theory Board can be sued through subordinates. No opinion constitutionality or Bethlehem commerce status. Recommend Board take no inmediate action for reasons air mailed with copy of decision. NYLANDER. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 416-C MEMORANDUM MAY 8, 1936. To: National Labor Relations Board. Subject: Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, XXI-C-5. Attached hereto please find the original of letter signed by H. A. Farmer requesting that the charge of the Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers' of America, Local # 9 against the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation be withdrawn. Twenty-first Region, Federal Building, Los Angeles, California. DEAR SIR: In answer to your letter of the 23rd, and to my inquiry regarding our case against Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, I wish to make at this time a request of the withdrawal of the charge made by this Local against the East San Pedro Plant of the Ship Building Corporation. This is in accord to the motion passed at our regular meeting last night, May 6, 1936. The reason for the request is that we have reached a verbal agreement as to wages, hours, and conditions which is in effect until September 30, 1936. I hope that the above gives you all the information that is required, and if it does not, I will be glad to comply with any further information. Respectfully yours, N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 416-D H. A. FARMER, Secy. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD At a regular meeting of the National Labor Relations Board held at its office in the City of Washington, D. C., on the 13th day of May, 1936 Present: J. Warren Madden, Chairman, John M. Carmody, Edwin S. Smith. |