N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 426-B Metropolitan Water District of Southern California A number of charges have been brought to our office during the winter by the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers concerning the Metropolitan Water District that is building the Los Angeles Aqueduct. This Aqueduct will eventually tap water sheds in Nevada and Arizona. What percent of the water will come from these states I do not know. I have informed the Union that our jurisdiction on commerce grounds was highly questionable unless a substantial percent of the water flowed across the California boundary. I have informed them furthermore, that in my opinion the Metropolitan Water District was a political subdivision and therefore was not an employer under the Act. Their attorneys questioned my opinion on the latter point and have urged me to submit the question to you. In view of the number of complaints and the brazenness of the Water District authorities in their anti union activities, I think it would be worth while to see if we have any color of jurisdiction. I am therefore enclosing herewith a copy of the Metropolitan Water District Act as amended up to 1933, under which the Metropolitan Water District was organized, and would like your advice on the following questions: (A) Is the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California a political subdivision of the State of California within the meaning of Section 2 of subsection (2) of the Act? (B) If it is not a political subdivision, approximately what percentage of the water flowing through the Aqueduct would have to come from points outside of California to bring the project under the Board's jurisdiction? Encl. Metropolitan Water District Act. RALPH T. SEWARD, Attorney. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 426-C [COPY] MONO CRATERS TUNNEL, SUBWAY AND AQUEDUCT WORKERS' UNION DR. TOWNE NYLANDER, Box F, BISHOP, CAL., WEST PORTAL, June 4, 1937. Director, National Labor Relations Board. DEAR SIR: Due to several disputes which have arisen lately on the Mono Basin Project, we are requesting you to send a representative of your department here as soon as possible to hold an election, to determine as to who will represent the workers of this project. These disputes are not of serious nature at present, but can develope into a big issue if it is not nipped in the bud, immediately. Sincerely yours, (8) HAROLD HAJARIAN, Harold Hajarian, Financial Secretary. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 426-D Mr. HAROLD HAJARIAN, [Copy] JUNE 11, 1937. Financial-Secretary, Mono Craters Tunnel, Subway & Aqueduct West Portal. DEAR SIR: We have your letter of June 4th and believe that in the course of the next two or three weeks we will be able to give you a definite answer relative to our jurisdiction which we cannot give today. A matter has arisen in connection with the Benning Local of your Union involving the Metropolitan Water District. We are working on this question and believe that the outcome will enable us to advise you whether or not the Mono Basin Project comes under the ntrol of a political subdivision or not. If the L. A. Water & Power Department classed as a political subdivision, we are entirely without jurisdiction. If, owever, we are able to find some interstate commerce aspects in the case, we ay be able to proceed and render you some assistance. Very truly yours, TN: LG. TOWNE NYLANDER, Director. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 426-E FEBRUARY 1, 1937. Mono Basin strike-Los Angeles Municipal Water & Power. 21st Region, Los Angeles. Charles Powers and a committee from the Mine, Mill & Smeltermen, called oday and wished to file charges. On January 25, 1937, when a committee of five men presented a wage demand o Barney Hughes, foreman, Shaft # 2, Mono Basin tunnel (which is 50 miles North of Bishop) they were immediately discharged and forty others were discharged the same day. Special armed guards escorted the discharged employees out of the camp. The entire project involving 800 men is now shut down. However, the union s keeping the tunnel open leaving a sufficient number of men on the job to man he pumps and the electrical equipment. Neither Seward nor I can see the slightest toe-hold for assuming jurisdiction and consequently have not taken a charge although we are working through Mr. Adolph Hoch, Commissioner of Public Works, who is the labor contact man for Mayor Shaw, and we hope that Mayor Shaw will be inspired by the nearness of his election campaign to take some action in this matter. That is very doubtful, however, as Mayor Shaw does not care to be drawn into the middle of a C. I. O. and A. F. L. fight, which this will soon be as the Carpenters claim jurisdiction over some of the employees. Mono Basin is in the territory of the 20th Region but the case of operations is in Los Angeles with all of the offices here. The tunnel involved is designed to carry water from the upper Mono Basin to the lower basin and there to be pumped into the Los Angeles aqueduct for distribution to households, industries, and farms in Los Angeles. TN: V copy TOWNE NYLANDER, Director. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 426-F [Copy] SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TUNNEL, SUBWAY AND AQUEDUCT UNION JANUARY 13тн, 1937. Dr. TOWNE NYLANDER, Federal Building, Los Angeles, Cal. DEAR SIR: I will take this opportunity to thank you for your assistance in helping us to stop discriminations and intimidations against union members of this organization. The Metropolitan Water District has adjusted the case of Mr. J. B. Eustice by putting him back to work on his old job with pay for lost time and have agreed to discontinue all such foul play in the future. With thanks and best wishes from this body. Sincerely, H. F. PATTON, Secretary Treasurer. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 426-G NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, MEMORANDUM To: National Labor Relations Board. Attached hereto please find charge filed by the International Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers. The union was scheduled to strike on January 8th but this has been averted and after a meeting with the Board of the Metropolitan Water District, the union agreed to hold off until January 18th, at which time the Board will give their decision on the reinstatement of the discharged employee, E. B. Eustice, allegedly for union activity. In view of the probability of settlement, we are not now taking time, to ascertain jurisdiction, but, will, if necessary, advise you in detail. Subject: Shock Furniture Mfg. Co., et al., XXI-R-448, XXI-R-449, XXI-R-450, XXI-R-452, XXI-R-453, XXI-R-454, XXI-R-455, XXI-R-457, XXI-R458, XXI-R-459, XXI-R-460, XXI-R-462, XXI-R-463, XXI-R-461, XXI-R-465, XXI-R- 67, XXI-R-468, XXI-R-469, XXI-R-470, XXI-R 472. On February 7th, 1938, Mr. A. L. Wirin, together with Mr. Walter Westfall, formerly business representative of the International Upholsterers' Union, Local 154, A. F. of L., and Mr. Ernest Marsh, formerly business representative of Furniture Workers' Union, Local 1561, advised me that on February 10th a meeting would be held by production employees, both carpenters and upholsterers, of twenty-five Los Angeles furniture manufacturing plants for the purpose of voting on whether or not they would withdraw from the A. F. of L. and join the C. I. O. The meeting was held and there were approximately 200 out of the total membership of 600 present and a vote was cast affiliating with the C. I. O. On February 11th Mr. Westfall and Mr. Marsh, who are now business representatives of the United Furniture Workers of America, Local 576, C. I. O., filed petitions. meeting was called for February 16th. A The complicating factor in these cases is that in the majority of the firms involved there is a closed shop contract entered into between the manufacturer, A. F. of L. Local 1561, the Los Angeles District Council of Carpenters, and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. The excitement hasn't started as yet but we expect that as soon as the International Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners find themselves able to supply union members for the employers, they will insist that the employers abide by the terms of the closed shop contract and discharge all employees who have joined the C. I. O. on the ground that such action constitutes dual membership, which I understand is prohibited by the International. I will keep you advised of developments. T. N. Director. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 427-B INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD o: National Labor Relations Board. rom: 21st Region. FEBRUARY 18, 1938. ubject: Schock Furniture Mfg. Co., et al., XXI-R-448, XXI-R-449, XXI-R450, XXI-R-451, XXI-R-452, XXI-R-453, XXI-R-454, XXI-R-455, XXIR-456, XXI-R-457, XXI-R-458, XXI-R-459, XXI-R-460, XXI-R-461, XXI-R-462, XXI-R-463, XXI-R-464, XXI-R-465, XXI-R-466, XXI-R467, XXI-R-468, XXI-R-469, XXI-R-470, XXI-R-471, XXI-R-472. Contrary to our expectations, to date there has been no open warfare between he furniture workers belonging to the A. F. of L. and to the C. I. O. as a result of he move of a number of the employees in the furniture factories on February 9th o leave the A. F. of L. and join the C. I. O. On the afternoon of February 16th, a group of A. F. of L. officials attempted to ake possession of the Carpenters' Hall but were repulsed by a larger group of ). I. O. sympathizers. Captain Hynes and his Red Squad restored order, leaving he A. F. of L. in charge of the business office and the C. I. O. in charge of the hall. There were no casualties, just a few sore fists and sorer heads. We had a conference on the afternoon of February 16th with the employers and he representatives of the two groups present in an attempt to iron out the difficulties through a consent election. After considerable discussion, the matter was adjourned to February 21st. We are doing our utmost to prevent open strife and still keep from getting out on a limb so one side or the other can throw stones at us. We will keep you advised. TOWNE NYLANDER, Director. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 427-C MARCH 1, 1938. Mr. TowNE J. NYLANDER, Nathan Witt. Schock Furniture Mfg. Co., The Board yesterday considered your memorandum of February 21. While it is unnecessary to require more than some showing of representation from the petitioner in the normal case, the Board feels that when a petition is filed in the face of an existing contract, you are warranted in requiring from the petitioner stronger proof of representation. While this does not mean that there has to be a showing of at least a majority, it means that there should be a very substantial showing of actual membership lists or cards. In your contacts with Mr. Wirin you may guide yourself accordingly. NW:db:im. (Order Permitting Withdrawal of Petition In the Matter of Mason Manufacturing Co., Case No. 21-R-449, was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 427-D", and is on file with the committee.) N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 427-E MAY 9, 1938. TOWNE J. NYLANDER, XXI-R-449 You have been authorized to issue a complaint herein. When do you expect to set the case down for hearing. I should think that in view of the superior court proceeding mentioned by you the issuance of complaint would be salutary even though the hearing would have to be scheduled far in advance. I note also that the petition case is one of the furniture group upon which you reported in full on April 1. My impression was that all those employers were supposed to have been covered by a contract which was a part of an industry-wide agreement. Will you clear up my doubt on this point? bus:gh N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 427-F INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD To: National Labor Relations Board. From: 21st Region. Subject: Mason Manufacturing Company, XXI-C-655. Al Wirin, who has been acting as attorney for several of the C. I. O. unions, is insisting that he be allowed to take an active part in the Mason Manufacturing Company case, XXI-C-655. It is my opinion and my decision that attorneys for unions should not participate actively in cases. By that I mean that they should not be allowed to direct either examination or cross-examination of witnesses, but that they should be permitted to sit at the counsel table and cooperate with the attorneys for the Board. Wirin is undoubtedly going to bring pressure on the C. I. O. group in Washington relative to this matter, and I would like to have a statement from you as to whether or not the Board will support my contention that union attorneys should not be allowed to actively participate in "C" cases. Incidentally, Wirin is a damn nuisance. Why didn't you keep him in Washington when you had him? Re Mason Manufacturing Company if question arises as to participation of Union attorney you are instructed to permit participation of Union attorney to the extent that he may supplement direct and cross examination of Board's counsel but he should not be permitted to duplicate questioning or reiterate or engage in repetitious examination either direct or cross. Union counsel should be permitted to cross examine witnesses called by Board unless circumstances such that Board counsel was permitted cross-examination. Union Attorney may call witnesses on material points not covered by Board upon showing materiality. Advise Nylander these directions. NATL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 427-H INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION AUGUST 3, 1938. To National Labor Relations Board. |