Company, that on October 7th, 1939, the following letter was sent by the Oregon Worsted Company by registered mail, return receipt requested, to John W. Worthington, Ernest Stivers, Katherine Schiele, Theodora Winters Crow and Earl Riggs: "Please call upon us in person as we desire to offer you employment to your former position with this company." Pursuant thereto Earl Riggs was reinstated to employment in his former position in the Carding Department on October 9, 1939; John W. Worthington was reinstated to employment in his former position as Stock Clerk on October 10, 1939; Ernest Stivers was reinstated to employment in his former position in the Maintenance Department on October 10, 1939; and, Theodora Winters Crow was reinstated to employment in her former position in the Hand Yarn Department on October 10, 1939. Katherine Schiele has not yet communicated with the Company either in writing or in person although the return receipt has been received by the Company from the Post Office Department on the registered letter sent her, and she will be returned to her former position in the Hand Yarn Department when she calls upon the Company. The following letter was sent on October 7th, 1939, by registered mail, return receipt requested, to Fred Johnson, Esther Johnson, and George Fitzgerald: "We desire to offer you employment as soon as work becomes available and will thank you to notify us as to whether or not you desire employment." Requested return receipts showing delivery of the letter by the Post Office Department have been received by the Company. These persons will, when they communicate with the Company and as work becomes available, be offered employment. I am writing you this letter in accordance with your request that you be notified when we had complied with the terms of the Stipulations so that you in turn could notify the Board in order to mark these cases closed. If it is your intention to withhold final notification to the Board until all of the persons mentioned in the Stipulation, and not now actually working, to-wit: Katherine Schiele, Fred Johnson, Esther Johnson, and George Fitzgerald, as well as Anna Shiele and James Mulaney, are reemployed and actually on the job, may I suggest that it is not unlikely that some of these persons may never desire reemployment, and I should not like to have the final closing of the case held up indefinitely. It has occurred to me that the Company has done everything it has agreed to do and can do in this connection. May I hear from you. In closing allow me to express my personal appreciation for the intelligence and fairness you possessed and displayed in consummating this matter. Kindest regards. Very truly yours, AER:VR /s/ ABE EUGENE ROSENBERG. (Order Approving Stipulation In the matter of Oregon Worsted Co., Case No. C-65, was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 435-F," and is on file with the committee.) N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 435-G JANUARY 8, 1940. Re: In the Matter of Oregon Worsted Co. and United Textile Workers of America Local Union No. 2435, Cases Nos. C-65 and C-167. ABE EUGENE ROSENBERG, Esquire, Messrs. Coan & Rosenberg, 710-716 Pittock Block, Portland, Oregon. DEAR MR. ROSENBERG: I have your letter of December 6, 1939, addressed to Mr. Warner and requesting that the above-entitled cases be closed. The Board has been informed by its Regional Office that the Oregon Worsted Company has fully complied with the stipulation dated October 6, 1939 concerning the steps to be taken to comply with the decrees entered by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This letter will serve to inform you, therefore, that the Board considers the actions taken by the Oregon Worsted Company in compliance with the affirmative provisions of the Court's decree to onstitute a full and complete compliance of the Court's decree to constitute a full and complete compliance with these provisions, and that the Board is accordingly losing the above-entitled cases. Yours sincerely, cc: E. J. Eagen, Regional Director, 19th Region. NATHAN WITT, Secretary. Aaron Warner, Regional Director, 22nd Region. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 435-H REFERENCE Part 15, pp. 2856-59; Part 23, p. 4618, Hearings before Committee on Education and Labor, U. S. Senate, on Bills to Amend the National Labor Relations Act. (Decision In the Matter of Oregon Worsted Co., C-167, was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 435–I”, and is on file with the committee.) (Decision of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Oregon Worsted Co., was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 435-J", and is on file with the committee.) N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 436 SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REFERENCE In the Matter of William Randolph Hearst, Hearst Publications, Inc., Hearst Consolidated Publications, Inc., Hearst Corporation, American Newspapers, Inc., and King Features Syndicate, Inc. and American Newspaper Guild, Seattle Chapter. Case No. C-136. Decided January 13, 1937. 2 Ñ. L. R. B. 530. SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER DEPARTMENT OF HEARST PUBLICATIONS, INC. XIX-C-196, C-795 1. Charge filed on Sept. 10, 1937, by American Newspaper Guild, alleging violation of sections 8 (1) and 8 (3) of the Act, arising out of the discharge of two employees. 2. Case consolidated with XIX-R-76, Feb. 23, 1938. 3. Complaint issued Feb. 25, 1938. 4. Order designating Charles A. Wood Trial Examiner, Mar. 7, 1938. 5. Order extending date of answer-Mar. 4, 1938. 6. Order postponing hearing from Mar. 7, 1938 to Mar. 10, 1938, dated Mar. 5, 1938. 7. Respondent's motion to dismiss, Mar. 9, 1938. 8. Respondent's Answer Mar. 9, 1938. 9. Hearing Mar. 10, 1938. 10. Notice of hearing for oral argument, May 7, 1938. 11. Wire postponing hearing for oral argument, May 10, 1938. 12. Order transferring case to Board, August 5, 1938. 13. Order directing issuance of proposed findings of fact, etc. Sept. 12, 1938. 14. Order revoking order directing issuance of proposed findings of fact, Sept. 15, 1938. 15. Order of Severance of consolidated cases, Oct. 18, 1938. 16. Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Proposed Order, Jan. 6, 1939. 17. Respondent's exceptions to proposed findings of fact, Conclusions of law, and Proposed Order, Jan. 23, 1939. Intervenor's exceptions to Proposed Finding, etc. Jan. 23, 1939. 18. Request for oral argument, Mar. 13, 1939. 19. Notice of hearing for oral argument, Mar. 20, 1939. 20. Request for additional time for oral argument, Mar. 22, 1939. 21. Order granting respondent one hour for oral argument, Mar. 25, 1939. 22. Hearing for purpose of Oral argument, April 14, 1939. 23. Board's Decision and Order, July 31, 1939, finding violations of Section 8, subsections (1) and (3) and ordering reinstatement with back pay. (Decision and Order In the Matter of William Randolph Hearst, et al., C-C-795, was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 436-B", and is on file with the committee.) President C. K. COLLIER N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 437 TRIAL EXAMINERS N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 437-A INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION Affiliated with Committee for Industrial Organization, District 1, Local 25 MARITIME OFFICE EMPLOYEES Mr. CHARLES W. HOPE, 5233 N. E. 15th Avenue PORTLAND, OREGON, January 28, 1938. Regional Director, National Labor Relations Board, Dexter-Horton Building, Seattle, Washington. DEAR SIR: Following the completion of our hearing held in Portland from January 10th to 14th, our Local and the members party to the complaint desire to express our thanks to yourself and your office for the representation given us. Mr. Madison Hill, the Trial Examiner, conducted the hearing in a fine and impartial manner. But we are particularly anxious to express our appreciation for the cooperation and interest taken by Mr. Thomas P. Graham, Jr., and Mr. Dan Baker. We feel that we were ably represented by these two men and that their presentation of our case was all that could be desired. We hope that the work that you and your associates in all sections of the country are doing may be continued and that the Board will receive the necessary legislative support to enable it to continue the good work. Very truly yours, MARITIME OFFICE EMPLOYEES, Case #XIX-C-228, Luckenbach SS Co. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 437-B TEXTILE WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE 7336 N. Philadelphia Ave., Portland, Oregon. Mr. SOLOMON Barkin, 44 East 23rd St., New York, N. Y. MARCH 3, 1938. DEAR BROTHER BARKIN: The hearing on the complaint of spinners, et als. against the Washougal Woolen Mills of Washougal, Washington, was brought to a close late in the afternoon of March 2nd at Vancouver, Washington. The case was hard fought on both sides and for which I make no complaint. However, I do complain about the way in which the Trial Examiner, Mr. Mason Hill conducted it. His demeanor throughout the hearing was, to say the least, most reprehensible in that he showed a decided leaning toward the Respondent and but very little regard for the rights of some 23 spinners who had been discharged on November 11, 1935. Of course he did not attempt to take it out of the complainants themselves while they were testifying but he did display a rked bias both by comment from time to time and toward Daniel Baker, orney for the Board. At no time during the hearing was there any reason such treatment. His rulings most often were made without due thought or consideration of the nciple of law involved and when objected to by Counsel for the Board and when ned down to the correctness of the Board attorney's stand in the matter he: Examiner-would come back with a wise crack or with some such remark as om now on I'm going to be technical too." Innumeral times his complaint uld be "you are taking altogether too much time with these witnesses and nember, I'm the one who has to read all this." Perhaps the testimony was in many instances over-long and perhaps unimporit matters were overstressed, even so, it was always the attorney for the Board o was the target for the gibe and usually came when he had finished or was out to finish his direct or cross examination as the case might be. Most cerinly the fault was not always that of the Board's attorney though the Examiner ade it look that way. Again "I'm used to Federal Court procedure" or "I have sponsibilities here and I'll exercise my prerogatives." On another occasion hen the District Attorney for the County of Clark, Washington, was put on the and for the complainants a question was asked of him and to which one of Reondent's attorneys made objection. Objection being sustained by the Examiner unsel for complainants proceeded to show the question a proper one, whereupon e Examiner with a considerable show of anger proceeded to address himself to he witness and said "I don't know as I'll even let him testify at all." On several occasions when Board's attorney had blocked a question, not releant, a way out was suggested by the Examiner. Along toward the end and as the ext to the last witness had all but finished his testimony the Examiner broke out ith "what I have been wondering about ever since early in the hearing is how ould Robert Bishop-an Exectuive of the mill and at that time on the stand have rought the lunch box belonging to Clarence Darling from the spinning room hen he Darling never got beyond the office that morning". That came very ear making liars of some six or seven spinners who had previously testified that hey had seen Robert Bishop come to the spinning room and take it away. Robert Bishop volunteered the information by saying that Darling had given the box to nother man as he Darling was going to the office that morning for a conference with the management. Now, I would like to believe that the Examiner was seeking the truth of the matter, but having seen him in action for parts of eight lays I have me doubts. From the 21st of February some 80 to 120 stooges of the company had been attending the hearing daily and on the night of March 1st around 150 turned out for a night session which ran until 10:00 P. M. All have been there at the behest of the mill management and of this I have no doubt. However, it had been made damned pleasant while they were there by the Trial Examiner. His wise cracks and barbes hurled at the Board's attorney have well repaid them for their 18 mile journey to Vancouver. There has been much levity on the part of these stooges, not boisterous to be sure, but audible to all attending and I am not excluding the Examiner. Not once did he ever lower an eyebrow to show disapproval. On the contrary he loved it. This case though over-long in coming to a hearing has decided merit; it has been ably handled by attorney for the Board; the testimony offered will bear out the complaint and in justice to the men affected they should be placed back on their old jobs and paid for time lost. That these men will be reinstated to their old jobs I feel quite certain, provided someone other than the Trial Examiner passes on the testimony. With this in mind and feeling as I do that the Trial Examiner will not approach the matter in the proper manner of fairness and justice to the workers I suggest and urge that you use your good office to the end that this matter may be withdrawn from the hands of the Trial Examiner and that the same go directly to the Board in Washington for adjudication. Sensing the importance of this case and feeling as keenly as I do about the Examiner, I contacted Mr. G. L. Patterson, Regional Attorney for this District and outlined to him my opposition to the Trial Examiner filing an intermediate report to the Board and asked that the matter be referred directly to the Board in Washington. On this we agree. From what I have seen of the Trial Examiner and his outer acts I feel that I have good cause to suspect his inner thoughts. Fraternally yours, 218054-41-vol. 24, pt. 2 -92 (s) W. L. ANDERSON. To: Mr. Nathan Witt. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 437-C Subject: Washougal Woolen Mills, Case No. XIX-C-115. MARCH 5, 1938. The trial of the above case was completed Wednesday, March 2, in Portland. This case is one which warrants as prompt a determination as is practicable. The labor dispute upon which this case is predicated occurred in November, 1935. The first charge filed by the labor union was disposed of without the issuance of a complaint; in fact, the answer of the respondent sets up the disposition of the first charge by the Regional Director as a defense to the complaint. The circumstances incident to this controversy in my opinion justify the Board in making an order transferring the case to the Board for determination in order to save the incidental delay of a trail examiner's intermediate report. The Washougal Woolen Mills Company is operated, owned and controlled by the Bishop family. This family's operations and general antagonism to labor organizations have been before the Board on former occasions; in fact, there is now a case pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals-The Oregon Worsted case—which is one of the many operations of this family. By reason of the fact that the employes involved in this case have been subjected to a delay in excess of two years, I feel that the Board would be warranted in transferring the case to itself. At the outset of the hearing a motion was made by counsel for the respondent to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that the charge was not filed by a labor organization, of which any of the affected employes were members. The trial examiner continued the case in order to communicate with the Board concerning this motion. The trial examiner was instructed to overrule the motion, which was accordingly done. During the course of the hearing, rsepondent made a motion in the nature of a plea in abatement and stated that the plea in abatement was predicated upon the same grounds as the motion to dismiss had been. plea in abatement was taken under advisement. The On the last day of the hearing I was in Portland. The Portland representative of the Textile Workers contacted me and urgently requested that this case be transferred to the Board in order to eliminate the possibility of any further delay. There are involved in this case two rather important considerations. First, the employer denies the existence of a labor dispute. During the hearing evidence was admitted over the objection of counsel for the Board to show that the dispute which arose in November of 1935 was one in which the employees were at fault. The merits or demerits of the contention of the union seemed to be immaterial since the Board is not empowered to indulge in compulsory arbitration. The respondent raises a further question which is to the effect that an agreement was made between the company and the union whereby the rights of the discharged employes were determined. The testimony introduced at the hearing is conflicting on this point. Whether the contention is sustained by evidence or not, under the provisions of the Act an agreement would not prejudice the rights of the affected employes to pursue their remedies. As a result of the activities of the employer in this case the union, of which the discharged employes were members, has been completely annihilated and destroyed. There is considerable evidence in the record to the effect that the positions held by the discharged employes were filled by strike breakers whom the employer refused to discharge in order to create openings for the employes involved in this case. Under the circumstances, I believe that the interests of justice would be subserved by the entry of an order by the Board transferring this case to itself in order to avoid further delay. Sincerely yours, GLP:ELS cc: Mr. George O. Pratt Mr. Robert B. Watts. |