Page images
PDF
EPUB

Thereafter the Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, when he appeared, testified with reference to the introduction of the report of the Interstate Commerce Commission referred to by Mr. Murdock, and he also testified with reference to the policy and procedure of the small claims court.

I have had a review made of the statutes of the Interstate Commerce Commission and other independent agencies, showing that the statute vests the right of that Board and others, not this Board, to start cases on their own, and I would like to offer this in connection with the other testimony.

Acting Chairman HEALEY. You don't want to have this printed?

Mr. ToLand. I would like to have this printed, because what I refer to is part of the record. It is not very long.

Acting Chairman HEALEY. Very well.

(The document containing the review of statutes setting up the Interstate Commerce Commission and other independent agencies was received in evidence, inarked “Exhibit No. 1080,” and is printed in the appendix of this volume.)

Acting Chairman HEALEY. Mr. Madden, would you care to make a statement at this time?

Mr. MaddEN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Acting Chairman HEALEY. All right. You may resume the stand. STATEMENT OF J. WARREN MADDEN, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL

LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. MADDEN. In the proceedings of the committee of February 20, 1940—that was last Tuesday—at page

78, in particular--the testimony of Mr. Schram of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, upon questioning by Congressman Routzohn, in colloquy appears (reading):

Did you solicit-
This is a question by Congressman Routzohn-

Did you solicit this information in the first instance from the National Labor Relations Board, or was this purely gratutious on the part of the Board in seeking to give to you information regarding respondents?

The answer is:
No; the Board asked us for the information about our loans.
Mr. RoutzoHN. That is in the very first instance?
Mr. SCHRAM. That is right.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. You did not go to the Board but the Board came to you? Is that correct?

Mr. SCHRAM. That is correct.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. And do you recall just in what manner this was? Was that a conversation verbally?

Mr. SCHRAM. It started out as verbal conversation with I don't know just who the employees or the personnel of the Board—but the RFC-it was an attorney, the Assistant General Counsel, who was approached by one of their men and asked if an arrangement could not be made for an exchange of information, and our attorney reported back to us and we said if the Board would make, the National Labor Relations Board, would make a formal request we would give it consideration.

There are other questions and answers in the same testimony to the same effect.

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Schram is completely mistaken in this testimony, that in fact, as I testified formally before this

committee, the approach was made to the Board by the Assistant General Counsel of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, who telephoned our Assistant General Counsel, Mr. Thomas Emerson, and told him that the R. F. C. had this kind of arrangement with Wages and Hours and perhaps mentioned others like the Walsh-Healey Board, and asked if we would like to make the same type of arrangement.

That was the approach, and Mr. Emerson brought the matter to the attention of others of our staff and ultimately to the attention of the Board, and that resulted in conferences between our staff and their staff, and resulted in this arrangement. So that I am not willing to let the record stand as it is to the effect that we made that approach.

Acting Chairman HEALEY. Mr. Madden, Mr. Emerson is present, and he is going to testify, too?

Mr. MADDEN. Mr. Emerson is here and I want you to have Mr. Emerson take the stand to testify to this matter. I think the whole matter is largely immaterial. If we had made the approach I should not be ashamed of it, and I should be quite willing to say that we had, but it so happens that the fact is that we did not. That is the reason that I want to make that clear on the record.

If you would be good enough to let Mr. Emerson testify as to thatActing Chairman HEALEY (interposing). Are there any questions? There are no questions. You may step down.

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS I. EMERSON, ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, WASHINGTON, D. C.

(The witness was duly sworn and testified as follows:)

Acting Chairman HEALEY. Will you state your full name, Mr. Emerson?

Mr. EMERSON. Thomas I. Emerson-E-m-e-r-s-o-n. I am associate general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board.

Mr. Chairman, I participated in and was familiar with all the negotiations which led to this arrangement with the R. F. C. What happened was substantially this: In July or August, Mr. Charles M. Wright

Acting Chairman HEALEY (interposing). What year? July or August of what year?

Mr. EMERSON. July or August 1939. Mr. Charles M. Wright, the assistant general counsel of the R. F. C., called me on the telephone at my office.

He told me the R. F. C. had an arrangement with the Wage and Hours Division by which they would withhold loans from companies who the Wage and Hours Division believed were violating the Wage and Hour Act. He inquired whether the Board would be interested in making a similar arrangement. I said I thought they would. I then took up the matter with Mr. Witt. There was a further discussion with the Board itself. In any event, there was a conference held at lunch one day with Mr. Wright, Mr. Fahy, Mr. Witt, and myself, and as the result of that conference Mr. Witt prepared the letter of August 7, which is already in evidence, stating the understanding between the Board and the R. F. C._So that th:|i first approach was made to us by Mr. Wright of the R. F. C.

Acting Chairman HEALEY. Any questions of this witness?
Mr, TOLAND. No, sir.

Acting Chairman HEALEY. All right, Mr. Emerson, you may stej down.

Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Gi

TESTIMONY OF GERALD L. GILL, MEMBER OF LOCAL 876 OF THE

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AND EMPLOYEE OF CONSUMERS POWER CO., GRAND RAPIDS, MICH. .

(The witness was duly sworn and testified as follows:)

Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Gill, will you give the reporter your full name, please?

Mr. GILL. Gerald L. Gill—G-i-1-1.
Mr. TOLAND. Where do you reside, Mr. Gill!
Mr. Gill. Grand Rapids, Mich.
Mr. TOLAND. What is your present business or occupation ?

Mr. Gill. I am a service man, or rather a "trouble man," in Grand Rapids.

Mr. TOLAND. With what company?
Mr. Gill. With the Consumers Power Co.
Acting Chairman HEALEY. What position do you occupy?

Mr. GILL. I am a “trouble man." We handle trouble, any trouble that arises on the property.

Mr. TOLAND. Are you a member of any labor organization?
Mr. GILL. Yes, sir.
Mr. TOLAND. What is the organization ?
Mr. Gill. Local 876 of the I. B. E. W.

Mr. ToLind. And is that affiliated with any national labor organization?

Mr. Gill. Yes, sir; the American Federation of Labor.

Mr. TOLAND. Has your organization at any time had any case before or with the National Labor Relations Board ?

Mr. GILL. Have they? Yes.

Mr. TOLAND. How long have you been an employee of the power company?

Mr. GILL. Since June 26, 1926.

Mr. TOLAND. And how long have you been a member of the I. B.
E. W., which is the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers?

Mr. GILL. About November 1934.
Mr. TOLAND. Do you hold any office in that organization?
Mr. GILL. Yes, sir.
Mr. TOLAND. What is the office?
Mr. GILL. I am chairman of the state board.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, will you tell the committee what connection your organization has had, if any, in any matter with the National Labor Relations Board?

Mr. Gill. Yes, sir. We have, I think, about January 1938, petitioned the N. L. R. B. for an election on the property of the

Consumers Power Co. to determine who should be the bargaining agent for the employees of this property.

Mr. TOLAND. At that time were there any other unions of employees at the plants of the company?

? Nr. GILL. Yes; there was—two. Mr. TOLAND. Will you tell the committee the names of the unions ? Mr. Gill. The C. I. O. had a union, I think it was the E. W. A.

Mr. ToLAND. Do you know of your own knowledge the first time that there were any organizational activities!

Acting Chairman HEALEY. Mr. Toland, he said there were two others. All I heard was the C. I. O.

Mr. TOLAND. I am coming to that—the independent.
Will you tell the name of the other?

Mr. Gill. It was an independent union which was later thrown out by the Board. I think it was the Employees' Protective-I won't say; it was called an independent union.

Acting Chairman HEALEY. All right.

Mr. ToLAND. Wasn't the name of it the Independent Power Employees' Association ?

Mr. GILL. Yes, sir; I believe it was.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, do you know of your own knowledge when it was, the first time, that there were any organizational activities by the C. I. O. or by the independent unions, or both, at the plants of the Consumers' Co. in Michigan?

Mr. Gill. The first knowledge I had of it was very shortly before their first strike, in—I believe it was March '37.

Mr. TOLAND. A strike of all the employees or a strike called by what union, if any?

Mr. GILL. The C. I. O. and the E. W. A., which was part of the C. I. O., called this strike at Bay City, Flint, and Pontiac, to the best of my knowledge, with perhaps two or three hundred employees out.

Mr. TOLAND. Do you know how long was the period of the strike?

Mr. Gill. I think the first one dragged along a couple of weeks, but I won't say definitely.

Mr. TOLAND. Do you know how many strikes that there have been at the Consumers' Power Co. plants in the State of Michigan?

Mr. GILL. Well, I think there were about three.

Mr. TOLAND. Can you tell the committee when the strikes approximately took place?

Mr. Gill. Well, the first one, approximately, was in March, or the first of '37, and then about a year later they had another one, and then in September 1939 they had a strike again, which was more or less of a failure.

Mr. TOLAND. Were any of the strikes at the plant of the Consumers Power called by the American Federation of Labor union or the independent union, so far as you know?

Mr. Gill. No, sir; they were not.

Mr. TOLAND. The strikes were called by the C. I. O. affiliated union?

Mr. GILL. Yes, sir.

Mr. TOLAND. Was there any time, during any of these strikes, that the power was completely shut off?

a

Mr. Gall. Yes, sir. The first strike especially.

Mr. TOLAND. Do you know how long it lasted before the power was resumed!

Mr. Gill. I don't know. I believe it was something like 7 hours.

Mr. TOLAND. Seven hours! Now, will you tell the committee, briefly, when it was that your organization filed a petition, and what, if anything, thereafter happened so far as the board was concerned with the petition that was filed by your union?

Mr. GILL. About January 19, 1938, we filed it at that time because we wanted to give the board some time to have their election, which was going to take place in a month or so, but we got very little action. At least the election was not ordered until a year later. I am not familiar with all the delays, but it was about 1 year later that this election was finally held.

Mr. TOLAND. And what happened? Do you know what happened as a result of the election?

Mr. Gill. Yes, sir. In the election no one gained a majority. The C. I. O., I believe, gained 1,162 votes; the American Federation of Labor, 1,074, and the "neither" received 506. There were blank ballots, challenged ballots, and voided ballots that totaled 64.

Mr. TOLAND. Did the board, as a result of that election, order what was known as a run-off election?

Mr. GILL. Yes, sir; the board ordered the run-off election in 3 months.

Mr. TOLAND. Within 3 months ?
Mr. GILL. Yes, sir.
Mr. TOLAND. Was that run-off election ever held?
Mr. GILL. No, sir; it was not.

Mr. TOLAND. Do you know why? Can you tell the committee what happened that resulted in the run-off election not being held ?

Mr. Gill. Yes, sir. The American Federation of Labor felt that our members had received only ninety-some votes less than the C. I. O., who had not gained a majority, and had every right to be on that ballot. They were not allowed on the ballot. The election was supposed to be C. I. O. or Neither, and we felt that our votes, which were nearly as strong as the C. I. O., should have some right to voice what kind of union and what type of bargaining agent was going to be set up on the property. I believe it was Local 876, but anyway our organization applied for an injunction in the sixth court of appeals at Cincinnati and received same.

Mr. MURDOCK. I didn't get the last part of your answer there.

Acting Chairman HEALEY. As to the reason why the run-off election was not held.

Mr. Gill. The reason the run-off election wasn't held was that we asked for an injunction from the sixth court of appeals at Cincinnati, and received it.

Mr. MURDOCK. Received the injunction.

Mr. TOLAND. And thereafter isn't it a fact that the Board filed a petition in the Supreme Court of the United States and asked the Court to grant a writ of certiorari and the case that originated with the filing

a of your petition in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals went to the Supreme Court of the United States and was recently decided by the Supreme Court of the United States? Isn't that true?

Mr. GILL. Yes, sir.

« PreviousContinue »