April 29, 1939: Colonel Sawyer wrote to Mr. Morgan concerning this case and transmitting a carbon copy of the Board's letter to Mr. Cooper. A part of the second paragraph reads as follows: "Would you let us have your reaction a soon as possible as to whether or not you are willing to accept matters in them present status, in this case, as full compliance with the affirmative portions of the Board's order herein. (This would be relinquishing claim for back pay and dues checked off on behalf of the IMU.)" May 1, 1939: In a letter to your Mr. Morgan says in substance that the question of relinquishing refund of IMU does should be left entirely to the men affected at the Grapevine mine. May 4 of 5, 1939: Mr. Cooper signs two year contract with Mr. Morgan. Request for refund of IMU dues was not considered. May 22, 1939: Morgan and Suver call at this office and with reference to the Grapevine case, it was agreed that Morgan would put the matter up to his men and report to you the results within a week. May 31, 1939: You wrote to Mr. Morgan calling his attention to the fact that he had not yet reported to you as agreed in the conference of May 22, and also calling his attention to the fact that the Board had been advised that he (Morgan. had relinquished the financial provisions of the Grapevine decision. June 10, 1939: Mr. Gordon answered your letter to Morgan of May 31, stating that he and Earl Suver had attended a meeting of the Grapevine local on the night of June 8 with about 60 members present and explained the situation, after which the men voted unanimously they were not willing to forego the return of the dues that had been paid to the IMU. June 14, 1939: In a letter to Mr. Gordon you state in substance that Mr. Morgan did not place the entire story involving the proposed settlement before the membership of the local before they voted. June 16, 1939: Letter from Morgan in which he says: "You state that I promised you that I was willing to forego the financial provisions of the Board's order providing I could secure an immediate contract with the Grapevine Company. Let me say to begin with, no such promise was made to you or to the Grapevine Coal Company. July 10 to 12, 1939: I interviewed Mr. Cooper and Mr. Hayes as a result of which Mr. Cooper wrote a letter to you asserting that he signed the extension agreement with Morgan on Morgan's assurance that he would exert every effort to have the Board close the case without the refund of IMU dues; that Morgan returned on April 18, and reported that he had talked to you and that the case would be closed. JCC/af. J. C. CLARK. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 464-C To: Beatrice M. Stern, Assistant Secretary. This is in answer to your memorandum of June 23rd. JULY 15, 1939. Our further investigation reveals that the UMWA representatives, in discussing the question of reimbursement of back wages and the refunding of IMU dues, informed the company, prior to the signing of the contract, that it had no further need to worry about the enforcement of the financial provisions of the Order—or words to that effect. In order that the extent and substance of the investigation may be fully presented to you, I am attaching copies of Field Examiner Clark's reports: also, copy of a letter from the company explaining the implications made by the UMWA in conferences between the company and the union representative, Ed. Morgan. I trust the material submitted will permit the Board to decide whether or not the UMWA relinquished its demands for back pay and dues in conversations with both this office and company officials. I recommend that, under the circumstances, the case against the above company be closed. RHC:BCT encl ROBERT H. COWDRILL. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 464-D To: Robert H. Cowdrill. From: Beatrice M. Stern. Subject: Grapevine Coal Company, C-321. JULY 24, 1939. Despite the position of the UMW that they are now prepared to insist upon the payment of the refund directed by the Board's order, the Board considers that the company has complied with its order and is willing to take no further steps in the matter. BMS:IMK (Decision And Order In the Matter of Williams Coal Co., et al., Cases Nos. C-318 to C-322, inclusive, was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 464-E", and is on file with the committee.) N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 465 GUIDE LAMP N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 465-A To: Guide Lamp Corporation. DECEMBER 26, 1935. Subject: In the Matter of: Guide Lamp Corporation & Metal Polishers International Union, Local #52. GENTLEMEN: The Metal Polishers having requested my consent to withdraw its charges in the above matter, and as such consent to withdraw has been granted under date of December 26th, you are hereby notified that all proceedings in this matter have been discontinued. For your information I am sending a copy of the report on the conference held between representatives of the Metal Polishers International Union and the Guide Lamp. Corp. on the night of December 23, 1935. The original signed copy is in our office and when the company submits to the union committee memorandum of these negotiations, I will forward a copy of such memorandum for your files. It was on the basis of the information contained in the enclosed report, given to me by both Mr. Kelsay and Mr. Burke orally, that I consented to the withdrawal of the charges of unfair labor practices against the company and the subsequent dismissal of the complaint. Sincerely, ROBERT H. COWDRILL mc Dictated but not read Enc. 1 METAL POLISHERS INTERNATIONAL UNION Blymyer Building, Cincinnati, Ohio. Conference at the Guide Lamp Corp., in Anderson, Ind., between the committee of the Metal Polishers International Union, Local # 52, and the officials of the said corporation: This conference was held in the office of said company between the hours of seven p. m. and midnight on Monday, December 23, 1935. The company was represented by Mr. H. W. Anderson, Counsel for General Motors Corp., from Detroit, Mich., and Mr. Frank Burke, President and General Manager of the Guide Lamp Corp. The union was represented by Messrs. Ray Kelsay, Int'l Vice President, Orville Whitaker, Riley Etchison, Ray Dwiggins, Leonard Bair, and Roy Gaskins. It was agreed: That the committee or representatives of Local # 52 be recognized, and, shall take up all grievances and other questions that may arise for discussion and settlement, first with the foreman of the department and if unable to make settlement of it there, take it on up step by step to higher officials until it reaches Mr. Burke. If still unable to reach an agreement, it shall be taken on up to the General Motors offices in the city of Detroit. The question of the Employees Association setting up polls, electioneering, passing out ballots, petitions, or other literature, using the Bulletin Board, or carrying on any other activities during working hours is to be gone into thoroughly and settled to the satisfaction of our committee. The question of the Employees Association's connection with the Welfare Association and their receiving fifty per cent of the profits of this Association is to be gone into thoroughly and settled to the satisfaction of the committee. Regarding hours: It was explained by the management that it was the policy of the entire plant, as well as the other General Motors plants, that in order for employees to average, as nearly as possible, forty hours per week over a year period, they were working forty-eight hours per week in peak periods. Time and one-half will be paid for all time over forty-eight hours per week and for the following holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, and Sundays. On the question of wages the company stated that they could not give any blanket increase in wages inasmuch as some have worked only a few months and some have worked many years. It was agreed, however, that the committee should look into the wage question, and where any inequalities existed or, if in their opinions, any adjustments should be made they should take it up with the foreman and so on up the line as referred to in paragraph one. Seniority: It was agreed that if a man feels that he is discriminated against or laid off out of turn, that he should take it up with the committee who will in turn take it up with the Personnel Manager, and get the date of his employment and go over the case completely. If not settled satisfactorily, in this manner, they are to carry it on to higher officials of the company. The question of the employees' reporting for work and no work available, they will receive one hour's pay; in case he goes to work and is laid out for any cause, he shall be allowed one hour's pay for doing such work as assigned him. If he is required to remain on the job longer than an hour he will be paid for all time until notified to go home for that shift, by the foreman. The question of two men who are laid off last Fall and not placed back on work upon the resumption of business, was taken up and it was agreed that these men call at the employment office and make out application for reemployment. The sentiment of the officials of the company and the committee at this conference was to build up a sincere spirit of confidence and cooperation, whereby we could all work together in complete harmony for the best interest of all concerned. This cooperative spirit is to extend from the highest official of the company down to the lowest official. Mr. Burke stated that he would personally see to it that his Assistant Manager, Superintendents, and down the line, including his foremen, would receive instructions to cooperate to the fullest extent. He also agreed to give our committee a memorandum of these negotiations. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 465-C REGIONAL OFFICE, 11TH REGION Week Ending June 12, 1937 CASES CLOSED Case No. XI-C-32. Name of Company: Guide Lamp Corporation. Detailed report as to action to close case: June 11: Letter from union representative Hall requesting withdrawal of charges in this case. Letter to Hall consenting to withdrawal of charges and informing him case is closed. If intermediate report is issued or agreement entered into, main terms of report or agreement: Company agreed to reinstate complainant Warrum. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 465-D UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, ELEVENTH REGION In the Matter of Mr. Perry Warrum and Guide Lamp Corp. Case No. XI-C-32. CHARGE Pursuant to Section 10 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the undersigned hereby charges that Guide Lamp Corporation, Anderson, Indiana, has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8, subsections (1) and (3) of said Act, in that On different occasions since September, 1933, the company union agents have passed out application cards in the plant for the employees to sign and on each of these occasions Perry Warrum has refused to sign these application cards, explaining that he did not believe in a company union, and that his intentions were to join the union of the American Federation of Labor. Since his refusal to sign for the company union, the foremen of the boiler room have continually tried to get something on him, but as he has watched himself very carefully, they have failed to catch him in any way. Failing to catch him they took the attitude, as I see it, to get even with him by discharging his two sons, Virgil and Lee, who had worked for the company since 1930. Both boys had good records on the clearance cards. However, on January 9, 1933, he was discharged because of a breakdown in the coal conveyor, which he can prove, by witnesses, that he had nothing to do with this and other mishaps for which he has been charged with negligence. There were three other firemen working in the boiler room besides Perry Warrum, and all of them have had trouble with the coal conveyor breaking down. The other three firemen do not belong to the United Automobile Workers Union and therefore neither of them were discharged for anything that ever happened. Perry Warrum was discharged two months after we received our United Automobile Workers charter. Therefore, I feel that it is discrimination because of his union affiliations. The undersigned further charges that said unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of said Act. Name and address of person or labor organization making the charge. (If made by a labor organization, give all the name and official position of the person acting for the organization.) Local No. 146-International Union United Automobile Workers-Anderson, Indiana. /s/ ERNEST TAYLOR, Pres. 619 E. 9th St. Subscribed and sworn to before me (Madison County) this July 1st, 1936. [SEAL] VICTORIA HOLMES, Notary Public. My commission expires 1/9/39. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 466 GUIDE LAMP, 11-C-32 NOVEMBER 30, 1936. MEMORANDUM To: National Labor Relations Board. Subject: Two-months' Report on Pending Cases. Guide Lamp Corporation, Anderson, Indiana. No. Involved: 1 employee. Issues Involved: Discriminatory discharge of one employee for union activities. Action: This case involves the alleged discriminatory discharge of one Perry Warrum, who asserts that because of his refusal to join a company union and because of his known membership in the Automobile Workers Local, he was dismissed from the plant. Upon questioning company officials, it was reported that the company's reason for discharging Warrum was inefficiency. The report of our Field Examiner and the company's statements did not jibe and a further investigation by the company was requested and agreed to. After much delay a conference was held between Warrum, union witnesses, and company officials, and upon the basis of the conclusions reached, the company was requested to reinstate Warrum, which they refused to do. At this conference another employee, Kistler, was discovered, who had been discharged during the same week as Warrum, and on checking his story, it was found that Warrum and Kistler were the two remaining charter members of the Automobile Workers Local. With these facts on hand, Mr. Burke, the President of the company, was approached and advised that a complaint would be issued unless the matter was satisfactorily adjusted. In response to our request, Mr. Burke called at this office Nov. 28th and agreed to advise us by Dec. 8th if the company will reinstate Warrum, and it was understood that if by that date Warrum is not reemployed. a complaint will be forthcoming. To: Benedict Wolf. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 467 INDIANA BRASS N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 467-A From: Robert H. Cowdrill. Subject: "Collective Bargaining." There seems to be a difference of opinion as to the meaning of the phrase "to bargain collectively through represenatatives of their own choosing," as used in Section 7, and 8 (1) of the Act. It appears that some persons believe that the collective bargaining must be accomplished only by the means established in Section 8 (5). I do not consider that this version is correct, as it is too limited and would deny any but a representative of a majority group to enjoy the rights guaranteed them by Section 7. According to Section 8 (5), it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse to bargain with the representatives of the majority of his employees as the exclusive representatives of all employees, and the argument is that if the representatives do not represent the majority of the employees then the employer is not required to bargain and has not committed an unfair labor practice if he refused to so bargain. Section 7 makes no limitations, it says "through representatives of their own choosing.' A minority group may select a union or some other representative and desire, through their representative, to discuss with their employer certain working conditions, not necessarily wages or hours. Has this minority group the right to bargain? Assume that none of the other employees in the plant have chosen a representative, so that there is no majority representation involved, because if there were such representatives of a majority I know that there would be no question raised as to what would be the proper procedure. The question comes up in two of our cases and I may explain them so that you can answer me specifically. In the Terre Haute Malleable case, 200 employees struck and after a lapse of a few days 150 returned to work without the approval |