remaining in the C. I. O. It appears from Mr. Green's testimony that this particular local may now have gone over to the A. F. L., but at the time the case began and was heard, it was a C. I. O. case. So far as the Board's files show, it is still a C. I. O. case.

It of course makes no difference to the Board whether a case is a C. I. O. or an A. F. L. case. Cases of both organizations have been delayed, it is true, and the Committee knows about the very serious problem of delay occasioned by the Board's tremendous volume of work.

BISHOP & COMPANY, C-1221, R-382

On page 284, Mr. Green referred to the Bishop & Company case. He stated that an election was held on December 28, 1937, which the A. F. L. won, that on March 18, 1938, the C. I. O. filed charges, thus preventing certification of the A. F. L., that on March 18, 1939, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, recommending dismissal of the complaint based on the C. I. O. charges, and that the Board did not certify the A. F. L. until January 12, 1940.

Mr. Green is seriously wrong on his last date. The Board certified the A. F. L. on June 10, 1939, not on January 12, 1940. That certification will be found at 13 N. L. R. B. 207. Aside from that error, his dates are substantially correct, but the Committee should have a more complete picture of the chronology of the case. The election was held on December 28, 1937. The A. F. L. won, 47 to 44. The C. I. O. filed objections to the election on January 7, 1938, alleging that the company had interfered with the free choice of the workers at the election. The Committee should note at this point that Mr. Green's statement seems to suggest that the C. I. O. charges filed on March 18, 1938, constituted the first protest following the election, leaving the implication that the Board took no action for 2 months after the election, waiting around for the C. I. O. to file charges. That is of course not true. After the objections to the election were filed on January 7, 1938, the Regional Office investigated them, and sent in a full report some time in February. The investigation revealed enough apparent merit in the charges to warrant a hearing. Formal charges of unfair labor practices were filed by the C. I. O. on March 18, and a complaint issued on April 25, 1938. Efforts at a settlement with the company, and a continuation of the hearing requested by the company, deferred the hearing until August 1938. There appears to have been some unusual delay in the preparation of the Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report. This was due in large part to serious illness in the family of the Trial Examiner. The Intermediate Report was issued on March 18, 1939, recommending dismissal of the complaint. The time for filing exceptions to the Intermediate Report was extended to April 27. On May 4, Assistant Secretary Stern wrote to the Regional Director to make sure that no exceptions had been filed in the Regional Office. There was some delay in getting word from the Regional Director, but promptly upon hearing from him, the Board proceeded to close out the complaint case and certify the A. F. L. The certification was issued on June 10, 1939, not on January 12, 1940, as Mr. Green stated.

AMERICAN FRANCE LINES, R-157

On page 284, Mr. Green referred to the American France Lincs case. He stated that the A. F. L. filed a petition in June 1937, that charges of unfair labor practices were filed by the C. I. O. in September 1937, and that an election was held in October 1937. He also stated that because of the charges of unfair labor practices, the Board decided not to count the ballots, that in November 1938 the Regional Director refused to issue a complaint on the charges, and that in June 1939 the Board dismissed the petition on the ground that the ballot of October 1937 was worthless in view of the time which had elapsed.

Mr. Green is seriously wrong on his last date. The Board dismissed the petition on January 16, 1939, not in June, 1939. Otherwise, his dates are substantially correct.

He also referred to the Board's action in the case as "vicious trickery," and said that he thought the C. I. O. charges had been "inspired." The characterization of the Board's action as "vicious trickery" is indeed reckless, and unless he is prepared to come forward with some proof that the filing of C. I. O. charges was inspired by the Regional Director, who was Mrs. Herrick, the Committee should disregard that accusation.

Mr. Green's own counsel, Mr. Padway, testified concerning this case at the Senate hearings on amendments to the Act (pp. 1137-8). It is interesting to note that Mr. Padway stated that he agreed completely with the Board's action in dis

missing the petition because of the lapse of time. The following is quoted from his testimony:

* That is all right, the destruction of those ballots. I don't think that they would indicate the bargaining agent as of that time." (1138, Senate hearings.)

The Board has applied the same principle in other cases. In fact, in the decision in this American France Lines case, 10 N. L. R. B. 1169, the Board cited a similar decision in the Bamberger-Reinthal Company case, 9 N. L. R. B. 1057, in which case the C. I. O. had a slight edge on the A. F. L. in the election. No certification was issued there because of A. F. L. objections to the election, on which hearings were held, and the Board finally dismissed the case because too much time had elapsed. Of course, no one knows how the ballot went in this American France Lines case, since the ballots were not counted.

As to the delay in investigating the charges, that same issue was raised at the Senate hearings in this same case. Mr. Fahy inserted in that record a memorandum from Mrs. Herrick on that question. The Committee will find it at page 2765 of the Senate hearings. Briefly, investigation of the charges was held up because of hearings before the Department of Commerce which would have an important bearing on the question of eligibility to vote. Both the C. I. O. union and the A. F. L. union were having internal difficulties at that time, which made the investigation unusually difficult.

One thing more should be said on the American France Lines case. This case about which Mr. Green complains did not involve merely the one company involved in his criticism. It involved about 50 separate companies and about 600 ships. The Board conducted elections involving 19,000 seamen shipping out of the port of New York. Despite very serious difficulties in voting all the men on these ships, the election went off with dispatch, and industrial peace was in a large measure accomplished by these elections. Mr. Green does not mention these facts, but picks out one company out of the 50. And as to that one company, there is nothing in the Board's action except an impartial application of the Board's policies to the case.

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY, C-790, R-1094

On page 284, Mr. Green refers to the Consumers Powers Company case. He complained of the delay in the case, and stated the following:

"It is obvious that these delays were deliberately indulged in by the Board to permit the C. I. O. to continue a campaign of vicious propaganda against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Crew foremen were first given the right to vote and then denied the right. The manipulation was intended to cause the C. I. O. to win, if possible."

The charge that the Board delayed and manipulated the case in order to enable the C. I. O. to win the election is completely untrue. As a matter of fact, the Board gave that case precedence and pushed it along as fast as it possibly could. The history of that case, in brief, follows:

On January 19, 1938, the I. B. E. W. filed a petition in the Detroit Regional Office, naming the United Electrical and Radio Workers (C. I. O.) and the Independent Employees Association as other labor organizations involved. On February 2, 1938, the C. I. O. union filed a charge alleging that the Independent union was a company-dominated organization. The Independent union also filed a petition. Efforts by the Regional Director to arrange a consent election were unsuccessful because of the presence of the Independent union and the charges filed by the C. I. O. as to it. In addition, there was at that time a serious question as to the Board's jurisdiction over the company, and a careful and detailed investigation of the commerce aspect of the case had to be made. The complaint was issued on May 5, 1938, after a full preparation of the case for trial. The hearing began promptly on May 12, 1938, and lasted until July 28, 1938. There was nothing that the Board could do about the length of the hearing, since the parties had to be afforded a full opportunity to present their evidence. In order to expedite the case as much as possible, the case was transferred to the Board without any intermediate report by the Trial Examiner, and proposed findings of fact were issued on September 2, 1938. In view of the size of the record in the case, the issuance of the proposed findings within that time represented extremely rapid action, very much less time than a case of that magnitude would normally require. The company and the Independent union filed exceptions to the proposed findings, and oral argument was had before the Board on October 6, 1938. The Board's final decision finding that the Independent union was company dominated and supported, was issued on November 8, 1938.

Meanwhile a hearing had been held in the representation case initiated by the A. F. L. petition. That hearing was held in the latter part of August 1938, and all the parties participated. On November 8, 1938, the same day on which the complaint case was decided, the Board issued a Direction of Election providing for an election within forty-five (45) days, with both the C. I. O. and the A. F. L. on the ballot.

On November 21, 1938, the Regional Director informed the Board that it would be advisable to provide for balloting by mail in the cases of a number of employees who worked in distant outposts throughout the State. On November 23, 1938, the Board issued an amendment to the decision providing for balloting by mail where necessary. At the same time it added fifteen (15) days to the period in which the election should be held.

On December 22, 1938, after an oral argument before the Board on December 12, the Board changed its decision as to the inclusion of certain "crew foremen," and extended the time for the election by ten (10) more days.

The election was held from January 10 to January 13, 1939. Neither union received a majority of the votes cast, although together they received a heavy majority of the votes cast. In accordance with the usual practice in such cases, the Board directed a run-off election with the union receiving the lesser number of votes being dropped from the ballot. In this case the A. F. L. was the union eliminated from the ballot. In several cases this same policy has resulted in the C. I. O. being eliminated from the run-off ballot, with the A. F. L. being the only union on such ballot. The Committee is referred to Mr. Padway's testimony before the Senate Committee, in which he conceded that this run-off procedure is just as fair to the A. F. L. as to the C. I. O. (762, Senate hearings).

As the Committee knows, the run-off election has not been held, because of extended court proceedings instituted by the A. F. L. union and recently decided by the Supreme Court.

Mr. Green has read into the record a statement by Governor Murphy in April 1938, in which Governor Murphy stated that the Washington office of the Board has promised to give prompt attention to the case, that an election would be held immediately after the C. I. O. charges had been disposed of, and that all this should be done within sixty (60) days. It is clear from the above facts why the election was not held within that period. The hearing on the C. I. O. charges was gotten under way promptly, but the hearing turned out to be a long one. In brief, the case was delayed because the Board followed the constitutional requirement that the parties be afforded a full and fair hearing.

Mr. Green also made critical reference to the fact that the Board changed its decision as to the inclusion of certain "crew foremen". That criticism was also made by Mr. Padway before the Senate Committee, and the Committee is referred to Mr. Fahy's answer on that point which appears on pages 2375 and 2376 of the Senate hearings.

ELECTRIC VACUUM CLEANER CO., C-266, R-353

On pages 283 and 284, Mr. Green referred to the Electric Vacuum Cleaner Company case. He stated that the case began on April 22, 1937, that the Board issued its original decision in July 1938, that the Board vacated its order on April 11, 1939, issued proposed findings on June 21, 1939, and a final decision on December 22, 1939.

Those dates are substantially correct. It should be added that on March 16, 1939, the Board notified the parties, including the A. F. L., that it was going to vacate its earlier decision on or shortly after April 6, 1939. The parties were granted the right to come forward with objections to this procedure and to apply for oral argument on the question, but none availed themselves of that opportunity. Mr. Green says that the Board's action in vacating the order "borders on trickery". The facts just mentioned refute that characterization.

After the proposed findings and proposed order were issued in June 1939, there was oral argument before the Board on September 14, 1939. This was requested by both the respondent and the A. F. L., and, all parties appeared and argued.

Mr. Green stated that the Board dismissed the petition in the case and invited a new petition to determine the unit. He then said to the Committee: "Can you imagine such a procedure?" In the connection, it is important to note that the A. F. L. itself had asked permission to reopen the record for more evidence on the appropriate units. The hearing had been held a long time ago, and the Board felt that the best way to handle it and to give the A. F. L. the opportunity to produce new evidence, was to dismiss the petition and let one

of the unions file a new petition if that was desired. The Board could not have decided upon the unit at that time without disregarding the A. F. L. request for a chance to put in new evidence. There is no basis for Mr. Green's criticism on that point.

Mr. Green stated that in its first decision in the Electric Vacuum case the Board "upheld the C. I. O. contention that the appropriate unit should be comprised of all the production and maintenance employees rather than the A. F. L. contention that the crafts involved be constituted into separate units." It should be pointed out that the C. I. O. was not alone in contending that the plant was the appropriate unit, since that was also the position of the company; that the five A. F. L. unions had joined in a single contract covering the plant; and that the A. F. L. did not raise any objection to the plant-wide unit until after the original decision of the Board was issued. Afterward the A. F. L. moved for reconsideration and an opportunity to introduce further evidence on the unit question. As stated above, the Board ruled that no election would be held until the A. F. L. had been given an opportunity to submit its evidence. At no time, therefore, has the Board rejected the present A. F. L. contention as to the appropriate unit.

Mr. Green stated that "After two years and nine months [after the hearing] we are not much further than when the case was first started, except that this Board, through its maladministration of the Act, has inflicted a severe blow, almost a destructive blow, upon our American Federation of Labor unions. There's discrimination of the most reprehensible character!" This comment seems wholly unfounded. The closed-shop contract between the A. F. L. and the company which the Board held should not be enforced was entered into in 1937. When the case was argued before the Board in September 1939, counsel for the company as well as counsel for the A. F. L. stated that the closed shop was still being enforced. It is fair to assume from Mr. Green's testimony that even today the contract is in full force. In other words Mr. Green is in the position of claiming that the Board's delay in disposing of the case has resulted in discrimination against the A. F. L. even though the very delay has permitted the A. F. L. to continue to receive the benefits of a contract which the Board has found was illegally entered into.

Aside from the delay, Mr. Green appears to take the position that the Board showed bias in finding that there was illegal assistance to the A. F. L. by the company. The facts were briefly as follows:

In 1936 the company and the A. F. L. unions not only entered into a written contract but also made an oral side agreement that new employees would be required to join the A. F. L. within two weeks after they began to work for the company. The Board held that this was not a completely closed-shop contract and did not require old employees to join the A. F. L. At the oral argument before the Board last September, Mr. Padway, general counsel for the A. F. L., conceded that this was a correct construction of the oral agree ment. In March 1937, while the written and oral agreements still had approximately three months to run, the C. I. O. began organizing, and the A. F. L. unions solicited the company to bring pressure on the old employees to join the A. F. L. and threatened to call a strike unless the company did so. The company then called old employees into the superintendent's office and warned them that they would be discharged unless they joined the A. F. L. Most of the employees chose to yield to this demand. One refused and was at once discharged. A spontaneous strike among the men in his department followed. The next day the strike was settled by an agreement to reinstate this employec and to cease discrimination. Shortly afterwards the A. F. L. threatened to strike unless the plant was closed in order to prevent the spread of the C. I. O. organization. Again the company complied. After a 2-week shutdown, the company opened its plant again but pursuant to a plan worked out with the A. F. L. published a false notice to the effect that a completely closedshop contract had been made in 1936 and that therefore only members of the A. F. L. would be given work. And, in fact, only A. F. L. men were taken back. After going along until May under these false colors and requiring every employee to join the A. F. L., the company and the A. F. L. unions entered into a new written contract providing for a completely closed shop. This contract continues by its terms from year to year unless terminated by notice on an annual date. The Committee is referred to the recent decision of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the Serrick case, sustaining a

similar order of the Board setting aside a closed-shop contract illegally entered into. That decision is already in the record.

Mr. Green also stated that the second decision "deprived the A. F. L. unions of [the] exclusive bargaining right." He is in error. The decision simply provides that the A. F. L. unions shall not enter into a closed-shop agreement until they have been certified as the free choice of the employees. The decision also provides that if another union is later certified by the Board as the choice of the employees, the company shall cease to deal with the A. F. L. J. WARREN MADDEN, Chairman.

EXHIBIT NO. 1017

MARCH 8, 1939.

Mr. BENNET F. SCHAUFFLER,
National Labor Relations Board,

Bankers Securities Building, Philadelphia, Pa.

DEAR BEN: I need a little help from you with regard to a project being started by a group of people in New York in opposition to the drive to amend the National Labor Relations Act. We intend to set up committees in as many cities as possible throughout the country to conduct meetings, radio forums, and similar activities as part of a campaign of education which will convince the country at large, and thus the Congress in Washington, that there is no need at the present time to amend the Act and that the amendments which have been proposed are undesirable. These committees will be made up of liberal leaders in various communities with, we hope, some representatives of the A. F. of L. and the C. I. O. unions.

I would like to get from you suggestions as to people in your region who could act as chairmen of such committees and undertake to form them as well as names of additional people who could serve on such committees.

At the same time I would like your comments on the following names with an indication of whether they are material either for chairmen of committees or members of committees. They are:

*

I know that you realize the need for immediate action and that you will give this request your prompt attention.

* *

* *

has been

DEAR DICK: Although seriously snowed under for the moment by the Hershey and the Union Premier elections, with other important exactions on time, I have found a few moments to trace up most of the people you mention and to add some other names to your list. I have not been able to check on the two Wilmington people and do not wish to delay a reply until I am able to do that. All others you named are without exception good people. for some time on a special assignment of some kind at and has been very active in promoting a better knowledge of our functioning and supplying people with information in that field. He is more than willing, fairly intelligent and has a thoroughly unimpressive personality. I have an impression that he is connected with the Society of Friends or that he has been a protestant minister of some kind.

*

instance,