Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mrs. STERN. I made no such statement as he attributed to me. I didn't know anything about his family background and would not have mentioned it under any circumstances.

Mr. FAHY. There is also, at page 5361 of the record, an exhibit numbered 427, which consists of a telegram from you to Philip G. Phillips, regional director at Cincinnati, Ohio, concerning the Sorg Paper Company case. The telegram is dated June 21, 1938, and was an inquiry as to whether the C. I. Ö. desired to proceed with the election on the prior case. Do you recall that such a telegram was sent and signed in your name?

Mrs. STERN. Yes; I do.

Mr. FAHY. Please state to the committee the circumstances under which it was sent and the reasons why it was sent.

Mrs. STERN. In February of 1938 there had been a hearing on a petition filed by the United Paper Workers, affiliated with the C. I. O. In May of 1938 a charge was filed by that same union which alleged that the employer was dominating two associations, one known as the Superior Lawrence Employees Association, if I recall the name correctly, and the other as the Sorg Employees Association. The Board wanted to ascertain whether or not the petitioning union considered the unfair labor practices which it alleged as being of a nature which would prevent a free and untrammeled choice by the workers in an election, therefore the wire was sent out to find out whether or not the petitioner desired to proceed with the petition in view of the unfair labor practices which had allegedly intervened.

Mr. FAHY. Was that consistent with the Board's usual practice in such cases?

Mrs. STERN. Entirely consistent.

Mr. FAHY. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions?

Mr. ROUTZOHN. Are you a married lady?
Mrs. STERN. Yes; I am.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. And your husband's name?
Mrs. STERN. Max Stern.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. What official post, if any, does Mr. Stern hold with the United States Government?

Mrs. STERN. Mr. Stern, in June of 1938, became director of information of the Social Security Board.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. And he is still retaining that position?

Mrs. STERN. Yes; he is.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. What salary does he make?

Mrs. STERN. Seventy-five hundred.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. And may I ask your salary?
Mrs. STERN. Fifty-eight hundred.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. That is all.

Mr. FAHY. What was Mr. Stern's occupation before he accepted his present position?

Mrs. STERN. Mr. Stern was a member of the Scripps-Howard Newspaper Alliance staff in Washington, D. C., from 1933 on until 1938, when he decided to go to the Social Security Board.

Indicates page reference to verbatim transcript of committee proceedings, January 11,

1940.

Mr. FAHY. Do you recall who the editor of the Scripps-Howard papers in Washington was at that time?

Mrs. STERN. The editor of the Washington Daily News was Mr. Lowell Mellett at that time, and he was also, I believe, editor of the Scripps-Howard Newspaper Alliance.

Mr. TOLAND. I had proposed and planned to call Mrs. Stern as a witness on behalf of the committee. In view of the understanding with Mr. Fahy that he would present his witnesses, I shall not interfere with his time and will not cross-examine Mrs. Stern now on matters that I would like to but will do so in the future. The CHAIRMAN. You will recall her at a later time?

Mr. TOLAND. Yes, sir.

Mr. FAHY. Except for the fact that Mrs. Stern is preparing for a hearing, I believe, before the Appropriations Committee, or in view of that, I would prefer that it wait.

Mr. Halliday.

TESTIMONY OF MALCOLM F. HALLIDAY, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, IN CHARGE OF TRIAL SECTION, LITIGATION DIVISION, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, SILVER SPRING, MD.

(The witness was duly sworn and testified as follows:) Mr. FAHY. Will you please state your full name?

Mr. HALLIDAY. Malcolm F. Halliday.

Mr. FAHY. And your residence?

Mr. HALLIDAY. 8327 Draper Lane, Silver Spring, Md.

Mr. FAHY. What is your present position, Mr. Halliday?

Mr. HALLIDAY. Assistant general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board in charge of the trial section in the litigation division. Mr. FAHY. How long have you been a member of the staff of the Board?

Mr. HALLIDAY. Since the inception of the Board.

Mr. FAHY. Will you please state, in outline, a little story of your experience, beginning with your age and coming down to the time that you became an employee of the Board?

Mr. HALLIDAY. I was born in Lewiston, Maine, on April 10, 1906. My early schooling was in Maine, though I finished grammar school in Florida. I attended five high schools in various sections of the country, graduating in San Antonio, Tex. I attended so many high schools because of the occupation of my father. He is an Army officer and traveled from post to post.

I attended Dartmouth, graduating in 1928, and thereafter attended New York University Law School, graduating in 1931. I immediately took the New York bar and was admitted to practice in New York, and became associated with the firm of Smyth Meleney in New York, which is a small firm of general practitioners. The firm handled anything and everything in the legal line, and I had an opportunity to join in such handling, including trial work.

On October 6, 1934, I came to Washington with the old National Labor Relations Board, under Public Resolution No. 44, as assistant to Mr. Watts, who was then handling the litigation of the old Board. Mr. FAHY. What year was that?

Mr. HALLIDAY. That was in 1934, October 6. While with the old Board I had an opportunity to work in the preparation of cases for the grand jury, in appellate cases from Board directions of elections; I further had an opportunity of handling hearings as the representative of the Board, and in such spare time as I had I analyzed records very much as the present review section does.

With the coming of the present National Labor Relations Board I was transferred to the staff of that Board and almost immediately went to Boston as regional attorney. Thereafter I returned to Washington to work on more general litigation, and for about 2 years devoted most of my time to injunction work, the preparation of pleadings, the preparation of briefs, and the presentation of arguments in the district courts and the circuit courts of appeals. have had experience in the presentation of arguments in the regular enforcement and review proceeding under the act. I head up the Mr. FAHY (interposing). You have argued cases yourself? Mr. HALLIDAY. I have argued cases, yes.

I also

I presently head up the trial section, which is one of two sections in the litigation division.

Mr. FAHY. Now, explain what the trial section is.

Mr. HALLIDAY. The trial section has as its primary function the supervision of the work of the attorneys in the field. We answer their questions, make suggestions to them, and we direct their assignments so that the trial work of the Board can be as properly handled as possible.

Mr. FAHY. Do you also have anything to do with the legal questions which arise through the secretary's office?

Mr. HALLIDAY. Yes; our advice is called for sometimes on merit problems, on enforcement problems, jurisdictional problems, bankruptcy problems, and the like. In addition, the trial section has the function of clearing cases for hearing. Under the present system of the Board, no case can be tried in the field without clearance through the trial section. This is done in order to make sure that the cases which go to trial are worthy cases, are prepared, and are as short as they possibly can be.

We also handle in the trial section a certain amount of miscellaneous litigation. In the event that the Board subpenas are not complied with, we handle the litigation to enforce those subpoenas in the district courts.

In the event that the pleas of the circuit court of appeals are not complied with, we handle the contempt procedure in order to effect compliance. We also have under our general supervision the settlement work within the Washington legal staff.

Mr. FAHY. Mr. Halliday, through what superior does your section, that is the trial section, head up in the legal organization of the Board?

Mr. HALLIDAY. I head up the trial section and am immediately responsible in turn to Mr. Robert B. Watts, associate general counsel of the Board, and perhaps more indirectly to Mr. Charles Fahy, the general counsel.

Mr. FAHY. That is an organization in the legal staff which is entirely separate and has no responsibility in connection with the review section?

Mr. HALLIDAY. That is correct, sir.

Mr. FAHY. Now, Mr. Halliday, at page 230Q1 of the record. Mr. James P. Miller testified with respect to the Goodyear Tire & Rub ber case. Who is Mr. Miller?

Mr. HALLIDAY. He was formerly regional director of the Board in Cleveland.

Mr. FAHY. Will you please state whether or not you made any arrangements for the handling of that case from Washington rather than under the regional office?

Mr. HALLIDAY. I did make the arrangements by letter, dated, I believe, December 29, 1938.

Mr. FAHY. Is this that letter?

Mr. HALLIDAY. That is.

Mr. FAHY. I offer that and ask that it be spread on the record. (The letter from Malcolm F. Halliday to Harry L. Lodish, dated December 29, 1938, was received in evidence and marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 219" and follows:)

N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 219

INTEROFFICE COMMUNICATION, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, December 29, 1938.

TO: HARRY L. LODISH, attorney, eighth region.
From: MALCOLM F. HALLIDAY, principal attorney.
Subject: Temporary assignments.

Realizing that you are shorthanded we are making arrangements for the proper handling of the Goodyear case, and also for the proper functioning of your office pending the handling of that case. The arrangements are being made with the plan in mind that the work on the Goodyear case can commence on January 9. The men assigned to the Goodyear case can meet in your office on January 9 to plan the case and to commence its investigation and preparation. Will you, therefore, immediately transfer Max W. Johnstone to the Goodyear case and place him in charge of that case. If Mr. Johnstone is scheduled to try any other cases, immediately relieve him from those cases, adjourning them if necessary. Harry Casselman, an attorney in the Detroit office, will be directed to report to your office on January 9 to assist Mr. Johnstone in the preparation and presentation of the Goodyear case. A field examiner will be assigned exclusively to the case and will be ready to function not later than January 9. Harold S. Roberts, of the economics division, will likewise report to you on January 9 to aid in the investigation and preparation of the case. We will also have Garnett L. Patterson, of this office, arrange to go to Cleveland, for not more than a day or so, to give you such help as he can. You might suggest the time at which it will be appropriate for him to go. Bernard R. Bralove, an attorney in the Philadelphia office, will be directed to report to you on January 9 to aid you in the handling of your other cases until Mr. Johnstone is released from the Goodyear case.

Between now and January 9 Mr. Roberts will be attempting to gather such information as he can here in Washington. So, as I wrote you yesterday, you should submit any suggestions that you can for his guidance.

M. F. H.

Mr. FAHY. Does that memorandum accurately state the reasons why that arrangement was made for that case to be handled from Washington?

Mr. HALLIDAY. It does.

Mr. FAHY. At page 230R1 of the record, Mr. Miller testified concerning a meeting in your office on April 4, 1939, at which there was

1 Indicates page reference to verbatim transcript of committee proceedings, December 16, 1939.

discussed the question of turning over to representatives of the steel workers organizing committee certain affidavits relating to the Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company case. Do you recall such a conference? Mr. HALLIDAY. I do recall such a conference.

Mr. FAHY. You were present?

Mr. HALLIDAY. I was.

Mr. FAHY. Who else was present?

Mr. HALLIDAY. Mr. Lee Pressman, who is the general counsel of the C. I. O., Mr. Anthony Wayne Smith, who was the assistant general counsel of the C. I. Ŏ., and Mr. James P. Miller, formerly regional director of the Board in Cleveland.

Mr. FAHY. How would you state the occasion for the conference and what it involved?

Mr. HALLIDAY. The Board asked me to―

Mr. FAHY (interposing). No. What was the subject matter of the conference?

Mr. HALLIDAY. Whether or not certain affidavits or copies of certain affidavits should be turned over to the attorneys representing the C. I. O.

Mr. FAHY. Now, what reasons did the attorneys representing the C. I. O. give you for their request that copies of those affidavits be turned over to them?

Mr. HALLIDAY. They stated that the affidavits had been prepared in the office of the regional director of the S. W. O. C. at Cleveland, that they had been prepared with the cooperation of the union, that a number of other affidavits had also been prepared at that time, and they had retained copies, but that they had neglected to retain copies of these affidavits. It was said that these affidavits were confidential. They argued they were the attorneys for the men who had signed the affidavits and certainly, if they were confidential, the confidential ruling didn't apply to the attorneys.

They also stated that they were interested in a possible settlement of the case, that they needed to know all the facts of the case before they could participate in such settlement, to determine what action they should take, and they couldn't obtain the facts of the case without having the affidavits in which the facts were set forth.

It was my thought that the affidavits or the copies of the affidavits should be turned over to them, I cleared the matter with Mr. Fahy and also with the Board, and thereafter asked that copies be made at the expense of the S. W. O. C. When those copies were made, they were sent to me by Mr. Miller, and I turned them over to Mr. Smith, the assistant general counsel of the C. I. O.

Mr. FAHY. The S. W. O. C., whom Mr. Pressman and Mr. Smith represented, were parties to the case?

Mr. HALLIDAY. That is correct.

Mr. FAHY. And affidavits had been prepared by them or in consultation with them?

Mr. HALLIDAY. In their office and with their cooperation.

Mr. FAHY. And they had simply failed to retain copies in their own offices of some of them?

Mr. HALLIDAY. That is correct.

Mr. FAHY. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions?

Mr. TOLAND. I would like to examine Mr. Halliday for the rest of the day.

218054-40-vol. 19

« PreviousContinue »