he Matter of Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, Limited, and Industrial nion of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, Local No. 9. o. C-23 ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT Case charge having been filed in this case by the Industrial Union of Marine Shipbuilding Workers of America, Local No. 9, on November 5, 1935, and eafter a complaint having been issued, and this case having been transferred he Board pursuant to Article II, Section 35, of National Labor Relations rd Rules and Regulations Series 1, and the parties having thereafter reached agreement pursuant to which the aforesaid Industrial Union of Marine and pbuilding Workers of America, Local No. 9, has requested this Board that mission be granted to withdraw the charge herein and that the complaint ein be dismissed. NOW, THEREFORE, permission to withdraw the charge herein is hereby granted, 1 it is hereby ordered that the complaint herein be and hereby is dismissed hout prejudice to the Board's right to reinstate the complaint upon the petin of the aforesaid Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of erica, Local No. 9 for good cause shown, and to take such further proceedings it may deem warranted. By direction of the Board: BENEDICT WOLF, Secretary. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 417 BRUNSWIG DRUG CO. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 417-A NOVEMBER 5th, 1937. 'o: National Labor Relations Board. 'rom: 21st Region. ubject: Brunswig Drug Co., XXI R-206, 24 inv. Attached hereto please find a copy of a letter requesting withdrawal of the etition in this case. This petition was filed by the Brunswig Drug Employee's Association, a rather urriedly formed Association of employees of the respondent. Even though the letter does not state that the matter has been satisfactorily adjusted by the signing of an agreement with the International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, it should be noted that such is the case and the matter has been adjusted. We will send you a copy of the agreement when we secure it from the International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union. We are closing this case as of this date marking it "adjusted." Encl. copy of letter 11/3/37/ XXI-R-206. Dr. TOWNE NYLANDER, Director, National Labor Relations Board, TOWNE NYLANDER, Director. NOVEMBER 3rd, 1937. 745 Pacific Electric Building, Los Angeles, California. DEAR SIR: Would ask you that you kindly dismiss the petition filed by me on June 28th, 1937, against the Brunswig Drug Company. Very truly yours, BRUNSWIG DRUG EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, (Signed) R. C. CLARK. N. L. R. A. EXHIBIT No. 417-B NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Regional Office 21st Region Week Ending July 24, 1937 WEEKLY REPORT ON PENDING CASES Case No. XXI-R-206. Name of company: Brunswick Drug Co. Name of union: Employees Assn. Date petition received: June 28, 1937. Section of act involved. Action taken during week; giving dates of letter written and received, conferences held, etc. June 21/37. Letter received from Union attorney requesting we withhold taking any further action with respect to setting a date for an election in above case. Request is made without prejudice to Union right to re-open matter and proceed with a vote at a future time, and without prejudice to any of their rights in the premises. Present status of case: Matter held in abeyance at request of Union attorney. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 417-C NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Regional Office, 21st Region, Week Ending July 3, 1937 NEW CASES Case No. XXI-R-206. Name of Company Brunswig Drug Co. Date petition received 6/28/37. Workers involved 24. Type of business. Mfg. of drugs. Name of Union Employees Association Section and subsection of act alleged to have been violated (if complaint case) 9 (c) Issues involved: Representation Action taken during week 6/28/37 Petition filed. Letter to Board enclosing copy of petition and New Case Report; Letter to Union; Letter to Employer; Letter to International Longshoremen's Association; Letter to International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen and Helpers. Present status of case: Matter held in abeyance due to pressure of other cases. COMMERCE ASPECTS: 85 percent of the product imported. 80% of the finished product distributed locally and 20 percent sent to Arizona, Nevada, and the Hawaiian Islands. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 417-D To: Dr. Edwin A. Elliott. DECEMBER 21, 1936. From: Benedict Wolf. Subject: Shell Oil Company. Enclosed is a copy of a wire we have this day sent you. At the completion of the hearing, will you please see that a copy of the transcript is forwarded to us immediately. This will give our legal staff an opportunity to determine whether the question of representation is really sufficiently doubtful so that a representation hearing at that time might be desirable. If that is the situation the Board can hold the complaint case in abeyance while it proceeds with the regular election hearing. Enc/ Sincerely yours, N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 417-E Excerpt from the Intermediate Report UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TWENTY-FIRST REGION In the Matter of Producers Mines, Inc. and International Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers, Local No. 384. Case No. XXI-C-350 INTERMEDIATE REPORT Conclusions and Recommendations Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, the undersigned hereby determined and concludes that the record in this case does not sustain the charge that respondent has engaged in unfair labor practice as alleged in the complaint. WHEREFORE, the undersigned recommends that the complaint be dismissed. /s/ WALTER WILBUR, Trial Examiner. Dated: April 7, 1938. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 417-F INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION APRIL 19, 1938. To: National Labor Relations Board. Subject: Producers Mines, Inc., C–538. As the ten days for filing exception to the Intermediate Report have expired, we are closing the case as of this date marking it "transferred to Board." Enclosed please find all the exhibits and transcripts pertaining to this case, also case file. Mr. Wilbur had better proceed with his Intermediate Report in this case. We should not fail to meet the issue squarely now that has been created. bms:hlb. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 417-H Excerpt from the minutes of executive meeting of the Board. Northrup Corporation, Los Angeles, California; (3 cases): After considering the request of the U. A. W. A. and the International Association of Machinists for permission to withdraw their charges and also the request of the U. A. W. A. for permission to withdraw its petition, and after considering the fact that Mr. Pratt had granted similar motions made by the unions at the hearing and motions to dismiss the complaints issued in these cases, the Board decided to ratify Mr. Pratt's action in granting the unions' motions. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 417-I To: Mr. Towne J. Nylander. Subject: Northrop Corp., XXI-R-104. MAY 1, 1937. We have received your memorandum of April 29 regarding the above case. We are entirely at a loss to understand why you recommend a hearing in this case despite your statement that "it will be well to clarify the issues in order to eliminate the friction that is rapidly growing." The dispute at the Northrup Plant was recently settled on the basis of the U. A. W. representing a majority of the employees. The company is recognizing the U. A. W. according to the statement in your memorandum. Why should the Board hold an election at the present time if there is no controversy between the company and the petitioning union about representation? I might say that in all cases in which you expect the Board to authorize investigation and hearing the Board should be supplied with sufficient facts to enable it to make an intelligent determination about the case. A report containing such facts should deal with both commerce and merits. Sincerely yours, bw/f A/m. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 417-J NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, April 29, 1937. To: National Labor Relations Board. Attached hereto please find copy of petition in the above case. At the Present time the Northrop Corporation is recognizing the United Automobile Workers. The Aircraft Workers' Union also claim jurisdiction over the employees and claim that if the should weaken the Douglas election, they would automatically secure the right to present Northrup Corporation employees as Northrop is a subsidiary of Douglas. The Machinists Union also have members in this plant but from the best information that I can obtain their membership does not exceed 35 or 40 persons. We believe that the Board should order a hearing in this matter as it will be well to clarify the issues in order to eliminate the friction that is rapidly growing. If you instruct us to hold a hearing, we propose to hold the hearing immediately after the Douglas cases have been disposed of. National Labor Relations Board, 745 Pacific Electric Building, Los Angeles, California: MAY 6, 1937. Re Northrop please wire whether charge of failure to bargain collectively with proof of representation based on previous election would not be preferable to new election. BENEDICT WOLF, Secretary. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 417-L BENEDICT WOLF, Douglas Aircraft-Northrop Corp. MARCH 8, 1937. I enclose confirmation copy of the wire sent on Friday, March 5th, in reference to the above case. The opening of the hearing was delayed for possibly half an hour, while counsel for the Douglas and Northrop companies and the counsel for the Automobile Workers conferred with reference to a possible disposition of the case. No settlement could be agreed on in that short space of time and since no request for postponement had been made I called the hearing to order at 10:30 o'clock. The appearances for all parties except Northrop Employees Association were noted on the record. No one appeared for Northrop Employees Association. The attorney for the Machinists asked leave to intervene in all cases on behalf of the Pattern Makers Union. I directed him to prepare and file a motion for intervention to be served on all parties and presented at the afternoon session. The Secretary of the Los Angeles Central Labor Council asked leave to make a statement for the record on behalf of the American Federation of Labor and the Los Angeles Central Labor Council. I denied permission for this statement to be made on the ground that neither of the organizations mentioned were parties to the case but stated that if they desired to become parties they should file petitions to intervene which could be served on all the parties and upon the service and filing of such petitions I would then make a ruling on the request to intervene. No other motions were presented and the hearing proceeded. Seward, Attorney for the Board, presented Board's Exhibit No. 1 which was duly marked, offered and received in evidence. At that point it was suggested that in view of the fact that the quarters were so cramped (the hearing was being held in the Board's offices) that the taking of further testimony be deferred until we could meet in the afternoon at the hearing room of the Board of Public Works in the City Hall. I then adjourned the hearing to 1:30 o'clock at the Board of Public Works in the City Hall. Prior to the opening of the hearing in the afternoon Elliott, counsel for Douglas and Northrop; Rountree, counsel for the Machinists; Carter, counsel for the Automobile Workers; and Seward, counsel for the Board, conferred with me and stated that an agreement had been reached with reference to the three Northrop cases numbers XXI-C-113, XXI-C-110 and XXI-R-37. The agreement was, briefly, that the Northrop Corporation recognized the Automobile Workers as the bargaining agency for their present and future members; that bargaining conferences would start immediately with the Automobile Workers and with representatives of the Northrop Corporation; that the Automobile Workers would withdraw their complaint in case No. XXI-C-113; that the Machinists would withdraw their complaint in case No. XXI-C-110; and that the petition in case No. XXI-R-37 would be withdrawn. The reason for this agreement was largely the informal election which had been held among the employees of Northrop Corporation on Thursday, March 4th, under the direction of a committee consisting of a representative of the Management, a representative of the Automobile Workers, a representative of the Employees Association, a representative of the Machinists, and a representative appointed by the Mayor. This election resulted in an overwhelming vote in favor of the Automobile Workers. They received approximately 650 votes, the Employees Association some 300 votes and the Machinists less than 50 votes. The Regional Office of the National Labor Relations Board, of course, had nothing whatever to do with the election. In view of this situation and because of the agreement reached by the parties, I felt justified in dismissing the cases on the motion of Seward, after the formal announcement of the withdrawal of the two "c" cases and the "R" case had been made by the parties. There was no objection, by anyone, to this procedure. I was also informed by the parties that conferences with reference to a possible adjustment of the Douglas Aircraft Company matters were scheduled and that a postponement of the hearing for a week to permit these conferences to proceed might result in a complete disposition of all matters in issue. I was hesitant about granting the postponement; first because I was not sure but that it might be merely a stall on the part of the Management of Douglas Company and secondly because it would apparently leave me with nothing to do for a week, and since I had made the trip out here I was anxious to utilize my time fully Nylander then pointed out to |