COMMENTS Here comment, if necessary, on any features of the case not heretofore covered memorandum. EFFORTS TO SECURE INFORMAL DETERMINATION Here state efforts to secure informal determination of questions, including fforts to secure agreement for check of cards against pay roll, consent election, or cceptance by employer of union's affidavit as to majority, and state reason for ailure of such efforts. Regional Director. The file in the above case and this memorandum have been reviewed by the Legal Division. I concur in the do not conrequest for authorization and order of investigation and hearing. ur ----- t is estimated that the hearing will take days. Regional Attorney. NOTE.-Where the regional attorney or Legal Division does not concur, a lissenting memorandum, giving detailed reason for the dissent, must be attached. Authorization for issuance of complaint and notice of hearing is hereby requested in the above case. The original charge was filed by (Name of Union, affiliated with the alleges unfair labor practices under Section 8 (1) and were filed on under Section 8 (1) and and --) on (date Amended charges If authorized, the complaint will be THE COMPANY AND ITS BUSINESS NOTE: In reporting the ordinary type of manufacturing case, this part of the memorandum should be made as brief as possible, emphasizing only the percentages of raw materials and finished goods going in and out of the state where the plant is located. State name and address of company; place of its incorporation; licensed to do business in (State) (if necessary); affiliation with other companies; any other necessary information as to corporate or business set-up; state nature of company's business. List raw materials used by company. In terms of percentage, dollar volume, or tonnage, state sources of shipments to plant involved (a) from state where plant located and (b) from other states and foreign countries, for past 6 months or 1 year. List company's products. In terms of percentage, tonnage, or dollar volume, state shipment of products to (a) state where plant located, and (b) to other states and foreign countries, for past 6 months or 1 year. State total number of company's employees; classification of such employees, as supervisory, sales, clerical, production and maintenance, and other subdivisions, giving number in each group. State any additional essential information concerning interstate features of company's business, as sales methods, advertising, and other facts concerning its organization and operations. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION(S) INVOLVED State name or names of labor organizations involved, its affiliation or affiliations, if any; and whether charge was filed by individual or by labor organization. LABOR RELATIONS HISTORY Give account of organization efforts among company's employees, strikes, if any, and other relevant material on efforts of employees to secure collective bargaining; note especially organization efforts among company's employees, and history of relations with company of particular labor organizations involved in case. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Interference, Restraint and Coercion. Under this heading summarize available evidence, if any, as to acts of intimidation, threats, espionage, antiunion statements and publications, and any other conduct by company or its officials, or any others acting in behalf of or in the interest of employer, in support of charges, if any, of interference, restraint, and coercion. State if documentary and corroborative evidence is available. State company's position. Company-Dominated Unions. Under this heading summarize available evidence, if any, in support of charge that company interfered with formation and administration of inside organization, or that company dominated it, or that company contributed financial or other support thereto. Summary should show, if possible, a chronological account of birth, growth development, and functioning of inside organization. State if documentary evidence is available. State company's position. Discrimination. Here state the total number of employees involved under this phase of the case. Summarize available evidence, if any, in support of charge of discrimination. Except where discrimination alleged is general, such as by means of lockout, summarize history of each person involved in charge. State if documentary or corroborative evidence is available. State company's position. Refusal to Bargain. Here summarize union's contention as to bargaining unit and available evidence in support of union's claim to majority. Be sure to specify dates of petitions, written authorizations, membership cards, or union membership records in support of claim to majority and comment on authenticity of such evidence. State available evidence, oral, documentary, or corroborative, in support of charge of refusal to bargain, specifying dates. State company's position. OTHER MATERIAL State if strike or threatened strike is involved in case. If necessary, make short and concise statement of any other information bearing on case. Agreements. Here specify if the employer is under an agreement with any organization; give date, duration and expiration date of such agreement; attach copy of agreement, if it is at all possible to secure one. COMMENTS Here make short statement, commenting on strength of case, its importance, and any other pertinent comments on case. EFFORTS TO SECURE COMPLIANCE Here give short summary of compliance efforts in course of investigation. CALENDAR OF IMPORTANT EVENTS In chronological order, list the important events in the case. facts in the case and not action in the case by the regional office. This means the Regional Director. The file in the above case and this memorandum have been reviewed by the egal Division. I concur in the request for authorization of complaint do not concur nd hearing. It is estimated that the hearing will take days. Regional Attorney. NOTE: Where the regional attorney or Legal Division does not concur, a disenting memorandum, giving detailed reason for the dissent, must be attached. M-538-B NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, To: All Regional Directors. From: Alexander B. Hawes, Chief Administrative Examiner. Subject: M-538-A. CORRECTION IN FORM 3-"RE" CASES Our attention has been called to two errors in Form 3, attached to M-538-A. This is the form for the authorization memorandum in "RE" cases. Page one of that form, in the first paragraph, contains the statement: "The petition was filed by (name of union, affiliated with the -). This is an obvious error since the petition in "RE" cases is filed by the employer. Please substitute the following, within the parenthesis: "(name of employer)' In addition, on page three, under the heading "THE LABOR ORGANIZATION(S) INVOLVED," the first paragraph begins with the statement" "State whether petitioner is a labor organization.' This, too, is an obvious error since the petitioner in an 'RE" case is the employer. For the first paragraph under the heading "THE LABOR ORGANIZATION(S) INVOLVED," please substitute the following: "State whether petitioner is the employer involved. Give names of the claimants to exclusive recognition alleged in petition, and state whether each of them is a labor organization. Give names of any other labor organizations involved in case as disclosed by preliminary investigation.' (Initials signed) A. B. H. M-538-B NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, To: All Regional Directors, All Regional Attorneys. You have all received copies of the Revised Instruction with respect to authorization requests. Please try to avoid delay in submitting any authorization requests you have already prepared. It will not be necessary to revise the form of such reports to conform to the new instructions. Whether requests are prepared under the old or the new instructions they should of course, be submitted to the Chief Administrative Examiner, Alexander B. Hawes. All memoranda giving additional information in connection with authorization requests previously transmitted should also be addressed to him. (Initial signed) N. W. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 424-D To: Mr. Ralph T. Seward. JULY 26, 1937. This will acknowledge your memorandum of July 23 to the Board concerning your going with the New York State Labor Relations Board. It turns out that your leaving during the Douglas case has caused Nylander to request we send our best available attorney to take over the case. There is absolutely no one that we can send. All of our attorneys are engaged elsewhere. From the correspondence you have had with Mr. Madden and me you are entirely justified in accepting the position with the State Board, but I think you should have cleared with me on the time of your leaving before actually departing from Los Angeles. Apparently Nylander changed his mind after the talk you had with him as set forth in your memorandum of July 23. CHARLES FAHY. CF:few N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 424-E SIGNAL CORPS, UNITED STATES ARMY War Department Message Center Received at Room 3441, Munitions Building, Washington, D. C. 108 WVY CL 74 Lab 1 Ex Priority LOS ANGELES, CALIF., 1020 AM Aug 22 1938. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Washington, D. C. Re Samson Tire and Rubber Corpn Election for Union Four Hundred Twenty Stop Factory Council Two Hundred Fourteen Stop Challenged ballots none void ballots two total six hundred thirty six Stop Total eligible to vote personnel managers unofficial estimate eight hundred unions estimated seven hundred Stop No irregularities personnel manager present during entire voting acting as observer for factory council with consent of Stop He complimented election officials on their fairness and impartiality NEAL, 230P (Rubber Stamp:) Received, Aug 24 1936. National Labor Relations Board (Decision and certification of representatives In the Matter of Samson Tire and Rubber Corporation was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 424-F", and is on file with the committee.) (Decision and order In the Matter of North Whittier Heights Citrus Association was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 424-G", and is on file with the committee.) (Decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case of North Whittier Heights Citrus Association v. National Labor Relations Board was received in evidence, and marked "N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 424-H", and is on file with the committee.) N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 425 A NUMBER OF A. F. OF L. CASES References to hearings before Congressional committees on bills to amend the National Labor Relations Act (1939). See Telegram April 28, 1939, Nylander to Rosenberg. Bishop & Co. XXI-C-643.-Senate Committee on Education and Labor, Pages 2768, 2815, 1310, 1136. Douglas Aircraft Inc. XXI-C-183 and XXI-C-220.-Senate Committee on Education and Labor, Pages 4631, 3311, 4428, 4358; House Committee on Labor, Pages 328-331. Upland Citrus Assn. XXI-C-360.-Senate Committee on Education and Labor, Pages 3575, 4591, 4598, 3628. Johns Manville XXI-C-651.-Senate Committee on Education and Labor, Pages 1310, 2815, 1135-36, 2768. Taylor Milling Corp. XXI-C-997.-Senate Committee on Education and Labor, Pages 1036-13, 2813-14. DEAR PHIL: Nat Witt has asked me to give you an account of the above cases. On May 27, 1937, Local 270, Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers Union filed in our Los Angeles office a petition for certification of representatives (XXI-R-167) for all of the employees of the Metropolitan Water District engaged in general heavy construction work in constructing an aqueduct from the Colorado River to Los Angeles. The petition states that the approximate number of employees was 1200, engaged on the San Jacinto, Division No. 5, (Force Account Project) of the Water District. The petitioner claimed to represent 98 per cent of these 1200 employees. The charge (XXI-C-278) alleges discrimination against about 65 employees on the project by reason of their membership and activities on behalf of the union. A careful investigation on the Board's jurisdiction in the case was made in the field, and the legal questions were carefully examined in this office. The Board concluded that because of the nature of the employment of the workers on the project and their possible status as employees of a state or a political subdivision thereof, and because of the nature of the project itself that no question affecting commerce had arisen; the petition and the charge were accordingly dismissed by Regional Director Nylander on September 1, 1937. Following the usual procedure, the union was informed in writing on that date that the interstate commerce features of the case were not sufficiently strong to warrant the issuance of a complaint and the authorization of a petition, and was advised that pursuant to Article 2, Section 8 of the Rules and Regulations, a review of the Regional Director's action would be obtained by filing a request therefor with the Board in Washington. Although no such petition for review has been filed by the union, it has engaged in considerable correspondence since that date with the President of the United States and other officials in an effort to secure aid against the Water District's conduct in the course of the strike which the union called on August 14. The union charges that more than 200 armed guards and deputies were employed by the Water District to break the strike and that tear gas bombs were used against the strikers. In the course of the investigation, Nylander made every effort to secure an adjustment of the dispute and to get the Water District to agree to a consent election, waiving the jurisdictional phases of the case for that purpose. However, the Water District, according to the file in the case, constantly maintained the position that it was not subject to the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act and would therefore not agree to a consent election. The files also indicate that although the Water District claimed that the union had demanded a closed shop, Nylander testified before a State Assembly Committee on Capital and Labor which investigated the dispute that the proposed agreement submitted to the District by the union neither requested nor demanded a closed shop. Nylander's statement to the Committee as it appears in the file of the case also includes: "The district arbitrarily refused to recognize the union as sole bargaining agency and arbitrarily refused to hold an election to determine whether the men wanted the union to bargain for them. If the district had not followed these arbitrary practices, this unfortunate strike situation would not have arisen." I trust that this will give you a picture of the case as it appears in our closed case files. I shall be very glad to furnish you with any further information which you may request. With all good wishes and greetings, I am Yours sincerely, FGK;hr FRED G. KRIVONOS, Special Examiner. |