pear on the ballot it will also be necessary to dismiss the 8 (2) charges against that organization. Since this is true it should be made abundlear to the officials of the U. M. W. A. that their charges are being disand that the Board will not entertain a reinstatement of these charges future. Since this matter a is matter which is probably fundamental to M. W. A., the stipulation should be signed for the U. M. W. A. by some high in the ranks of the union. The signature of the presidents of the involved would be insufficient. The signature of at least the president of et 23 would be requisite. e stipulation for the withdrawal of the charges would of necessity be coned upon the compliance of the various companies with the stipulation. ir attention is also drawn to instructions which have already gone out Mrs. Stern's office to the Regional Director to the effect that any settlement ese cases would necessitate the abrogation of the P. M. W. contracts now in ence between that organization and the respective companies. M. F. H. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 461-B Nathan Witt, Secretary. n: Malcolm F. Halliday, Assistant General Counsel. ect: Kentucky Coal Case. OCTOBER 17, 1939. r. Donovan telephoned to say that the parties are ready to settle the C cases he reinstatement of the men involved under Section 8 (3) and by the payment atisfactory amounts covering back pay. Notices are to be posted by the pany and the Progressive Mine Workers agree to the cancelation of their tracts. The parties will agree to an entry of a Board order and consent Progressive Mine Workers will not agree to the cancelation of their tracts by the Board order. They will stipulate, however, to such cancellation. e parties, in addition, will agree to the holding of an election under a consent proceeding. ree. At the time of the telephone conversation no one of the parties had agreed to a petition for certification, but all of the parties were willing to agree that the ard act on its own motion. The above statement of facts were submitted to the Board today and the ard was agreeable to the disposition of the case in conformity with such statent. I indicated the Board's position to Mr. Donovan and have arranged to nish him help in drafting the necessary papers. MFH:PG. M. F. H. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 461-C IALCOLM F. HALLIDAY, [Postal Telegraph] Asst. General Counsel, N. L. R. B. MADISONVILLE, KY. 1939 Oct. 18. Re Flat Creek Coal Company, et al, Case No. XI-C-114: Petitions have been led by the United Mine Workers in all coal cases; they are being air mailed to ou today. Will you please have Board issue order directing investigation and earing and have all other necessary steps taken. A modified draft stipulation s being air mailed you today with accompanying letter of explanation. Sprecker Arrived 10 A. M. today. Director. ROBERT H. COWDRILL, Regional Attorney, National Labor Relations Board, Eleventh Region. (Stipulation and order In the Matter of Flat Creek Coal Co., Cases Nos. 11-C-114 and 11-R-241 was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 461-D," and is on file with the committee.) (Decision, Order, and Direction of Election In the Matter of Flat Creek Coal Co., Cases Nos. C-1403 and R-1603, was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit 461-E," and is on file with the committee.) (Amendment to Decision, Order, and Direction of Election in the above cases was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 461-F," and is on file with the committee.) (Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives in the above cases was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 461-G," and is on file with the Committee.) N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 462 GENERAL N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 462-A NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 11TH REGION Case No. XI-C-374. Date charge received: Week Ending April 22, 1939 CLOSED CASE REPORT Name of company: Royal Neighbors of America. Name of union: None. Ethel Snider. Re Sections of act involved: 8 (1) & (3). Number of workers involved 6. Detailed report as to action taken close case (if election, give results). ceived memo from Mrs. Stern to Director informing that the Board had considered the appeal from refusal to issue complaint and decided to sustain Director's position. We are, therefore, closing the file from our docket. ADJUSTED CASE REPORT 1. Was charge (or petition) adjusted by settlement agreement? x Was settlement agreement reduced to writing? X If so, ATTACH COPY. Did regional office participate in securing agreement between parties? x. 2. Was alleged company union disestablished? X Was company's recognition of or contract with such company union rescinded? X. 3. Numbers of workers reinstated after strike or lockout x, after discriminatory discharge x. Amount of pay, $ x Number of workers back pay X. X. X If so, was a X. 4. Did parties enter into collective bargaining negotiations? written collective bargaining agreement entered into? X If so, attach copy. If collective bargaining agreement not in writing, set forth main terms X. 5. Was notice posted? X If so, attach exact copy. How long posted? Does notice cover Section 7 of Act? X Section 8 (1) Section 8 (2) X Section 8 (3)? x Section 8 (5)? X. 6. Has company furnished proof of compliance? union furnished confirmation of compliance? X If so, attach copy. 7. Does adjustment completely dispose of all allegations in charge? not, give explanation: X If so, attach copy. Has X If (Decision and Order In the Matter of the New York Times Co., Case No. C-775, was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 462-B," and is on file with the committee.) N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 463 GENERAL INSULATING N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 463-A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 11TH REGION In the Matter of General Insulating Manufacturing Company and Quarry Workers International Union of North America, Branch No. 282, affiliated with the CIO. Case No. XI-C-636. Dec. 9, 1939 CHARGE Pursuant to Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the undersigned hereby charges that General Insulating Manufacturing Company, Alexandria, has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meanction 8, subsections (1) and - of said Act, in that Company, by its officers and agent, particularly its plant manager, Charles ardson, has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the of their rights as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. undersigned further charges that said unfair labor practices are unfair ractices affecting commerce within the meaning of said Act. e and address of person or labor organization making the charge. (If y a labor organization, give also the name and official position of the person or the organization.) 3/ QUARRY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LESTER WEYANDT, International Representative, Alexandria, Indiana. scribed and sworn to before me this 8th day of December, 1939. At IndianInd. /s/ JAMES T. DUNNS, Field Examiner. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 463-B JANUARY 6, 1940. General Insulating Manufacturing Co., Case No. XI-C-636. . LESTER WEYANDT, Int'l Rep., Quarry Workers Int'l Union of North America, Branch No. 282, Alexandria, Indiana. CAR SIR: Your charge against the above company charging a violation of on 8 (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, has been duly investigated. investigation reveals that the case is not sufficiently strong to warrant the issuof a complaint by this office. I must, therefore, refuse to issue a complaint is matter. ease be informed that, pursuant to the National Labor Relations Board s and Regulations-Series 2, Article II, Section 9, you may obtain a review is action by filing a request therefor with the National Labor Relations Board ashington, D. C., and by filing a copy of such request with me. This request he Board in Washington, and the copy thereof, to me, must be filed within (10) days of the date of this letter, and shall contain a complete statement ing forth the facts and reasons upon which the request is based. Very truly yours, CHC/LW. ROBERT H. COWDRILL, Regional Director. d. R. & R. c: NLRB-Washington, D. C. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 463-C NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, 11TH REGION Week Ending January 20, 1940 CLOSED CASE REPORT Case No. XI-C-636. Name of Company: General Insulating Manufacturing Ompany. Date charge received: Dec. 9, 1939. Date case closed: January 17, 1940. Name of union: Quarry Workers Int'l Union of N. A. Affiliation: CIO. rike: No. Sections of act involved: 8 (1). Number of workers involved: 214. Detailed report as to action taken to close case (if election, give results): Direcor refused to issue complaint on January 6th and as the Union has not appealed he case to the Board at Washington for review, we are closing it and removing Tom our active cases. ADJUSTED CASE REPORT 1. Was charge (or petition) adjusted by settlement agreement? Was settlement agreement reduced to writing? X If so, attach copy. Did regional office participate in securing agreement parties? X. 2. Was alleged company union disestablished? X Was company's recognition of or contract with such company union rescinded? X Safter strike or lockout X. X. X If so, was a 3. Number of workers reinstated{ after discriminatory discharge x. Amount of back pay, $ X Number of workers receiving back pay 4. Did parties enter into collective bargaining negotiations? written collective bargaining agreement entered into? x If so, attach copy. If collective bargaining agreement not in writing, set forth main terms. 5. Was notice posted? X If so, attach exact copy. How long posted? Does notice cover Section 7 of Act? X Section 8 (1)? X. Section 8 (2)? x Section 8 (3). X Section 8 (5)? X. 6. Has company furnished proof of compliance? X If so, attach copy. union furnished confirmation of compliance? X If so, attach copy. 7. Does adjustment completely dispose of all allegations in charge? give explanation: In Re: C 321. Mr. R. H. COWDRILL, N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 464 GRAPEVINE COAL CO. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 464-A X. X. Has X If not GRAPEVINE COAL COMPANY, Director 11th Region, National Labor Relations Board, Architects Building, Indianapolis, Indiana. DEAR MR. COWDRILL: Pursuant to inquiry of Mr. Clark relative to some facts regarding the above case, we respectfully submit the following: On April 1, 1939, our contract expired with the U. M. W. of A. Some time prior thereto the District President of the U. M. W. of A. submitted an extension agreement, which would permit us to operate pending the final settlement in the Appalachian Field. We were reluctant to sign the extension agreement because of the decision and order of the Labor Board, which order specified that we were to reimburse our employees for dues collected in favor of the I. M. U., which Union had been disestablished by order of the Labor Board. On April 10th there was a conference in the office of Mr. Cooper, at Hopkinsville, Kentucky, between Mr. Morgan and Mr. Suver, of the U. M. W. of A., and Mr. Cooper and Mr. Hayes of the Grapevine Coal Company, relative to the signing of the extension agreement. At that conference Mr. Cooper reiterated the position of the Coal Company, stating that it was futile to enter into contract as long as the order of the Labor Board remained in effect, making it mandatory on the Company to reimburse the employees for dues collected, as stated above, in as much as the Company was in an insolvent condition and it was feared that if the creditors of the Company gained knowledge of the order of the National Labor Board relative to payment of dues, the creditors would perhaps close in and throw the Company into bankruptcy. Whereupon, Mr. Morgan agreed to personally visit the office of the Regional Director and use his best efforts to induce the Regional Director to withdraw the charges that remained in effect. With this understanding, the officials of the Grapevine Coal Company executed the extension agreement and with settlement in the Appalachian Field, subsequently entered into contract with the U. M. W. of A. and this contract is effective until April, 1941. Since resuming operations April 10, 1939, the Company's financial condition has not improved and it is still absolutely unable to make any payment whatever in the nature of back pay or dues to its employees. The Company was under the distinct impression that the case would be dismissed on Mr. Morgan's recommendation. Otherwise, the Company would not have signed the extension agreement. Respectfully yours, REC VP. GRAPEVINE COAL COMPANY, INC., /s/ R. E. COOPER, President. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 464-B bert H. Cowdrill, Regional Director, 11th Region. J. C. Clark, Field Examiner. : Grapevine Coal Co., C-321 (XI-C-145). JULY 15, 1939. y conversation with Mr. Cooper, president, and Mr. Hayes, general er of the above company, at Mr. Cooper's office, there developed several which Mr. Cooper does not mention in his letter to you dated July 11, that I to you July 13. Cooper stated that Mr. Morgan came to his office on April 18, and informed at he had talked with the Regional Director at Indianapolis, urging the or to close the Grapevine Coal Company case without the payment of lues, and that he understood that this would be done. Because of these ents on the part of Mr. Morgan, Mr. Cooper said that he considered the r closed when he received the letter from the Board dated April 27, 1939. vill recall that in this letter Mrs. Stern advised Mr. Cooper "that the Board ing to consider these steps as constituting compliance with the affirmative ns of the Board's order in this matter if this disposition of the case is agreeto the charging party." Inasmuch as Mr. Morgan had previously told Cooper that he would do everything in his power to have the case closed, Cooper stated that he considered the case was closed when he got the Board's ⚫ of April 27. sked Mr. Cooper if the matter came up for discussion when the permanent act was signed about May 4 or 5. Mr. Cooper stated that since it was his erstanding that the case was closed, the matter did not come up for discussion, added that if he had any intimation that the Board had not closed the case he Id not have signed the contract. nce I discussed this matter with you, I have examined the file and find that wrote a memorandum to Mr. Witt April 20, 1939, in which you stated, r. Morgan stated he is now even willing to relinquish the refund of IMU s." Your office memorandum of April 11, 1939, shows that Mr. Morgan ked with you over the phone that date and stated "we are in a jam on the pevine Coal Co.-the company won't renew our contract until we get an wer from the Board as to whether they are going to be liable for all of this ney." There were other telephone calls on April 10 and April 17, from Mr. organ at Madisonville. Mr. Cooper's secretary at Hopkinsville keeps a daily record of all visitors to r. Cooper's office, and it was through this record that Mr. Cooper was able to y positively that Mr. Morgan called on April 18, reporting that he had disssed the matter with you and that the case would be closed. There is nothing the file to show that Mr. Morgan said he would relinquish the refund of IMU es except the quotation above from your memorandum of April 20 to Mr. Witt. A brief resume follows with the idea of getting a complete picture of the sequence f events: April 4, 1939: In Mr. Cooper's office at Hopkinsville with Mr. Hayes also resent, I told Mr. Cooper that if Mr. Morgan of the United States Mine Workers greed in writing to relinquish claim for IMU dues that I was confident the Board would accept his compliance offer as satisfactory. Mr. Morgan had already signed a letter relinquishing claim for back wages. April 10, 1939: Mr. Morgan and Mr. Suver had a conference with Mr. Cooper and Mr. Hayes in Mr. Cooper's office at Hopkinsville. According to Cooper's statement, Morgan assured Mr. Cooper and Mr. Hayes that he would do everything in his power to induce the Board to close the case without refund of IMU dues, and thereupon Mr. Cooper signed the extension agreement. (This extension agreement was a document authorized by John L. Lewis to permit the mines in certain districts outside of the Appalachian region to continue in operation after the old contract expired April 1, 1939, subject to fifteen days notice and pending the signing of a new contract in the Appalachian region). April 11, 1939: Mr. Morgan phoned you from Madisonville and told you that he was willing to relinquish refund of IMU dues. (See office memorandum of April 11, 1939, in file). April 18, 1939: Mr. Morgan called on Mr. Cooper at Madisonville and informed him that he had talked to you at Indianapolis and assured Mr. Cooper that the case would be dismissed. April 27, 1939: Mrs. Stern wrote to Mr. Cooper advising that the Board was willing to consider the steps he had taken as constituting compliance with the affirmative portion of the Board's order, if this disposition of the case was agreeable to the U. M. W. |