affiliated with the A. F. of L. (hereinafter referred to as the union), have this dar entered into this settlement agreement, the terms and conditions of which are as follows: The union has heretofore filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board (Case No. XI-C-566)_alleging that the company has committed certain unfair labor practices under Section 8 (1) (2) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. It is the purpose of this agreement to effectuate an adjustment of the issues so filed, and for said purpose it is agreed by and between the parties hereto. subject to the approval of the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board, as follows: 1. The company will not, in any manner, interfere with, restrain or coerce its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing to engage in concerted activity for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutural aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The company will not dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization of its employees and will not contribute financial or other support to any labor organization of its employees. 3. The company will post in conspicuous places in its plant notice prepared by the Eleventh Regional Office of the National Labor Relations Board, copy of which is attached hereto and marked "A", and will cause the same to remain posted for at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting. 4. The company will comply with the terms of this agreement immediately upon being advised that the said Regional Director has approved this settlement agreement, and will notify the Regional Director within ten (10) days thereafter, as to what steps have been taken to comply. The union further agrees that it will immediately request permission of the Regional Director to have the charge filed in Case No. XI-C-566 withdrawn without prejudice, upon the signing of this settlement agreement. Dated: January 4th, 1940. Dated: January 4th, 1940 (H. T. H.). REEVES PULLEY COMPANY, By: (S) G. C. REEVES, Pres. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LOCAL LODGE By: (S) H. T. HAMILTON, International Representative. (S) ROBERT H. COWDRILL, Regional Director. NOTICE Pursuant to an agreement for settlement of charges of violations of the National Labor Relations Act, and at the direction of Robert H. Cowdrill, Regional Director for the Eleventh Region of the National Labor Relations Board, the employees of the Reeves Pulley Company are hereby notified that: 1. The Reeves Pulley Company recognizes the right of its employees to selforganization, to form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities, for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The Reeves Pulley Company will not, in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in the exercise of the above rights. 3. It has come to the attention of the Management that certain employees, alleged to be supervisory employees, are said to have made statements to the effect that all employees must join the Transmission Workers and Machinists Union, in order to continue employment at the Reeves Pulley Company. It is further claimed that the alleged supervisory employees made other statements favoring the Transmission Workers and Machinists Union. 4. The Management at this time wishes to state, emphatically, that these employees do not represent the company, and if they made any statement to the effect that employees must join the Transmission Workers and Machinists Union in order to continue employment at the Reeves Pulley Company, they were not speaking for the company. 5. The Management of this company wishes to inform all employees that they ave a right to choose any union that they may desire. That, further, they have a right to vote for the Pattern Makers League of N. A., and Pattern Makers Association of Indianapolis and Vicinity, affiliated with the A. F. of L., the International Association of Machinists, Local Lodge #1466, affiliated with the A. F. of L., or the Transmission Workers and Machinists Union, in any election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board without fear of being discrimLated against because of their voting for the union of their choice. REEVES PULLEY COMPANY, (S) By. G. C. REEVES, Pres. Dated: Jan. 4, 1940. JANUARY 8, 1940. Re: Reeves Pulley Company Case No. XI-C-566. Regional Director, National Labor Relations Board, 539 Architects Building, Indianapolis, Indiana. DEAR SIR: We wish to report to you that we have fully complied with the terms of the Settlement Agreement signed by the Reeves Pulley Company and the International Association of Machinists, Local Lodge No. 1466, affiliated with the A. F. of L., on January 4, 1940, which Agreement was thereafter approved by you. We have complied in the following manner: 1. We have posted a copy of the Notice prepared by your office, in conspicuous places in our plant, and will cause the same to remain so posted for at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting, which was January 6, 1940. Attached hereto is a copy of the Notice as it was signed and posted. This report is made to you pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Very truly yours, REEVES PULLEY COMPANY, By (s) G. L. REEVES. Reference is made to recent correspondence in this case wherein it was brought to the Board's attention that the cases of certain complainants at a hearing were dismissed by the Board because their names were not included in the complaint. You informed us that there would be no obstacle to having the complaints file a new charge against the Company at this ti ne, limiting, however, full restitution in these cases because of the long period of time which has elapsed. Subsequently we forwarded to the representative of these complainants blank charge forms which we asked to have completed and filed in this office. In his reply to our offer he informed us that the complainants were not available at the time and requested that we complete the forms from our own records in the case and take whatever action might be required. It appears to me that if the complainants themselves, or their representative, are not sufficiently interested in the case to at least sign a few forms which we have asked for that this office should not proceed any further in the matter. Furthermore, as you well know, it took almost a year following the Supreme Court decisions to work out an adjustment of the issues involved in the old case. During that year much publicity was given to the matter in this small town of Salem, Indiana, and, as I understand from our field examiners who handled the adjustment, everyone in town knew what was going on. If these prospective complainants were at all interested in having the Board adjust their particular claims the matter should have been presented to their representative at that time. This case is similar to the issues raised in our Container Corporation Case No. XI-C-245, which was reviewed by the Board and rejected following my refusal to issue a complaint thereon. I do not believe, in this instant case, that we can expect the Company to do more than offer reinstatement to these men and certainly we cannot anticipate that the Company would give favorable consideration to any reimbursement claims at this late stage. Will you send me your comments on the above? RHC/em R. H. C. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 481 SWIFT & COMPANY NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, To: Mr. George O. Pratt, Chief Trial Examiner. DEAR MR. PRATT: In addition to my regular letter relative to the procedure and conduct of counsel during the Swift & Company hearing at Evansville, Indiana, I submit this confidential report covering the activity which prompted my long distance call on Saturday, November 30. I enclose copy of the report of Herbert Shenkin, Board's attorney, which, in substance, states the facts. The attorney for the intervening company union frequently attempted to bring in immaterial and irrelevant matter, which was properly objected to by Mr. Shenkin and sustained by the undersigned. The bulletin itself (a copy of which is enclosed) containing the alleged contemptuous remarks, was read into the record before any objections could be made and, once read, respondent's attorney immediately demanded that action be taken, leaving the Board's attorney and CIO attorney with only one alternative, that being to agree in the request. As this was near the noon recess, I adjourned with the statement that I would consider the charges and announce any contemplated action after the noon recess. Subsequently we phoned Washington and thereafter acted pursuant to instructions from Mr. Fahy. The newspapers played up the charges and statements of respondent's counsel but the following day Mr. McLean appeared and offered an apology, and the subsequent press stories cleared up the situation, as I accepted the apology and announced that I would recommend to the Board that the matter be closed. Although the incident was embarrassing to Board's counsel and myself at the time, it was finally adjusted and no harm done. Board's attorney, Shenkin, in his report mentions the charges against Field Examiner Watson and that I would report directly on this phase of the case. The respondent's and intervenor's attorneys both made numerous attempts to bring in evidence that the field examiner in his investigation was prejudiced and that his conduct was arrogant and unbecoming a government officer. I ruled out any evidence of this nature as improper and did this because I believed it to be immaterial and irrelevant to the issues in the complaint and also out of an esprit de corps feeling for any member of the staff. I do suggest, however, that some investigation be made of the activities of Examiner Watson, as it did appear that his conduct while in Evansville was harmful to the Board if the alleged charges are true. It also appeared that the Swift & Company case could have been mediated and settled to the satisfaction of all parties concerned before the hearing if Watson had personally conducted himself in a more gentlemanly manner. I do not know Field Examiner Watson and my information is based on hearsay, but I do know that there was considerable bad feeling following his visits in Evansville and that this feeling did not exist as to any field examiner other than Watson. Sincerely yours, HW:INM Enclosures: HERBERT WENZEL, Trial Examiner. 1. Report of Herbert Shenkin to Mr. Fahy. 2. Shop Bulletin of November 12. 3. Shop Bulletin of November 19, containing addenda with retractions. telegram of Arthur McLoan with apology to the National Labor rd. › Bulletin of November 19, 1937. SPECIAL NOTICE Shop Bulletin of November 12, 1937, appeared an item about the ny hearing before a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations irpose of which article has been misunderstood. We hereby apologize bert Wenzel, the Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Herbert Shenken, attorney for the Labor Board, Mr. Louis Roberts, Swift and Company, Mr. Moris J. Levin, attorney, for United PackWorkers #323 and Mr. Paul Schmidt, attorney for the intervenor, for that article which might seem to reflect on them. The hearing has cted with dignity and fairness to all parties, and we did not intend or in any way influence the hearing or any person directly or indirectly with it. only purpose was to suggest to members at the plant of Servel, officers . and M. W. of A. and particularly members of our Union who will ed if the National Labor Relations Board has a hearing on our charges rvel, Inc., to be in the courtroom and get acquainted with the procewed in such hearings, since the Swift and Co. case is the first tried in : did not mean to suggest that the hearing was a "show or spectacle," expression used was a poor_one. We apologize for it. We only mean is upon workers at Servel, Inc., their vital interest in learning how the Act operates to protect workers in their rights. 2. was not our intention or purpose to judge the evidence presented, and are charged with having done so, we retract our statements and apologize rties concerned for them. We are circulating this statement among all persons who received the issue mber 12, and state here that this and all the other Bulletins are intended have been distributed only to workers at Servel, Inc. SHOP BULLETIN UNITED ELECTRICAL RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA #4 e following is an excerpt from the above:) Nov. 12, 1937. y we suggest to the Union members at Servel who have given testimony to National Labor Relations Board, the necessity of attending the hearing of Swift case. This case is extremely interesting and proves conclusively the loyer's domination of labor. ith the small amount of excellent evidence given in behalf of the Union I. O.) and the crude methods used by the attorney for Swift & Co. to belittle workers on the witness stand, we urge all workers who do not work between hours of 10:00 A. M. & 5:30 P. M. to come to the Federal Bldg. in Evanse. This hearing is better than any show you could hope to attend. f the C. I. O. Union can win out in this hearing (and we are positive it will) h the small amount of excellent evidence presented we can safely say that organization, the U. E. R. & M. W. of A., which has sent 12 lbs. of evidence l win in a walk. Our evidence is extremely damaging and proves conclusively at Servel, Inc., has violated nearly every phase of the Wagner Act. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 482 TRANS-AMERICAN FREIGHT LINES To: Mr. Robert H. Cowdrill. From: Benedict Wolf. Subject: Trans-American Freight Lines, Inc. SEPTEMBER 14, 1936. I received your memorandum of September 11 enclosing a memorandum account of this case. Despite your sorrow that one of your best interstate commerce cases was adjusted, I assure you we are quite pleased with the results. We are always glad to have cases adjusted as satisfactorily as this one was. bw/f Sincerely yours, Case No. XI-C-157. Name of Company: Trio Coal Company. Date charge received: June 21, 1937. Date case closed: Oct. 21, 1939. Name of Union: United Mine Workers of America, District #23. Affiliation: CIO. Sections of act involved: 8 (1), (2), (3), & (5). Strike: No. Number of workers involved: 125. Detailed report as to action taken to close case (if election, give results): 10/17-Union requests withdrawal of charge. 10/21-Director grants request and closes file. (Memorandum dated January 13, 1940, from G. Thomas Watson to Robert H. Cowdrill was received in evidence marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 484," and is on file with the committee.) N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 485 WAYNE WORKS, INC. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 485-A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, ELEVENTH REGION In the matter of Wayne Works, and United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 430, affiliated with the CIO, and Wayne Works Employees Association. Case No. XI-C-451 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Wayne Works (hereinafter referred to as the Company) of Richmond, Indiana, and the United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 430, affiliated with the CIO (hereinafter referred to as the Union), and the Wayne Works Employees Association (hereinafter referred to as Association), have this day entered into this Settlement Agreement, the terms and conditions of which are as follows: The Union has heretofore filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board (Case No. XI-C-451) alleging that the company has committed certain unfair labor practices, and are guilty of the violation of Section 8 (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. It is the purpose of this Agreement to effectuate an adjustment of the issues raised by said charges so filed. For said purpose it is agreed by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Director of the Eleventh Region of the National Labor Relations Board, as follows: 1. The company will not interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, to engage in concerted activity for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act; 2. The Company will not dominate or interfere with the administration of the Wayne Works Employees Association or the formation or administration of any other labor organization of its employees or contribute support to the Wayne Works Employees Association or to any other labor organization of its employees. |