Mr. FAHY. Now, is the action of the Board in the Sorg case, in not reopening the original "R" case after the unaffiliated union was formed, consistent with the Board's action in the General Leather case just previously referred to, in seeking to learn whether there was another union which should be a party to the case? Mr. MADDEN. Yes. The distinction is that in the General Leather case there was some indication of another union which had been in existence all the time, whereas in the Sorg case the new union sprung up after the hearing. In the Hyatt Roller Bearing Co. case, recently decided, where the C. I. O. started organizing after the hearing, the Board refused to permit them to take part in the run-off election. Mr. FAHY. Mrs. Stern testified this morning, in the Sorg case, with respect to a telegram, Exhibit 427, inquiring of the C. I. O. of the desire to proceed with election on the prior case. Was there anything, in your opinion, in any way improper in making that inquiry? Mr. MADDEN. There was not. It occurs rather frequently. If an election has been directed in which the XYZ Union is the only union on the ballot, then the XYZ Union files a charge the company is permitting unfair labor practices, we would always ask that union whether or not it desired us to proceed with the election while this charge was pending, because if we did go ahead with the election, with the charge pending, and then the union lost the election, it would claim that it lost it because there were current unfair labor practices of the employer. So we want the union to make up its mind whether or not it desires to risk the election in that situation. Mr. FAHY. Exhibit 429, page 537 of the record, is the request from Mr. Phillips, regional director at Cincinnati, for a decision in the Sorg case. Did this request influence the Board in any way in its decision as to the time element in the Sorg case? Mr. MADDEN. It did not. We get out all our decisions as soon as we can and as soon as they are ready, and the Lorillard case was not ready for issuance until many months later. Mr. Phillips, of course, would not have known anything about the progress in either of those cases in the Washington office, he being in Cincinnati. Mr. FAHY. In the Sorg case, do the Board records show when the company filed its objections and when the company's objections to the election were considered by the Board? Mr. MADDEN. Yes. They were considered on September 21, 1938. Mr. FAHY. Were the challenged ballots ever opened? Mr. MADDEN. They were not. It is a constant practice of the Board not to open and count challenged ballots. When making any assumption you please as to what those ballots contain, they would not affect the results of the election. Mr. FAHY. I would like to state, on the record, that we have here available for inspection the challenged ballots in the Sorg case and that file shows that they have never been opened. Mr. MADDEN. In other words, they were sealed in that envelope in Cincinnati and are still in the same condition. Mr. FAHY. That is correct. Mr. MADDEN. So we haven't the slightest idea now how those people voted and it was unnecessary for us to ascertain because however they voted wouldn't have changed the results of the election. 1 Indicates page reference to verbatim transcript of committee proceedings, January 11, 1940. Mr. FAHY. Isn't it also a fact, Mr. Madden, that our files show that the C. I. O. offered to have the challenged ballots opened and counted if the company would agree to bargain collectively with the union if the C. I. O. then had a majority, and that the company declined the offer? Mr. MADDEN. That is a fact. Mr. FAHY. I offer in evidence the supporting data from the file in the Sorg case, referring to the last question, being a memorandum for the files from Mr. Armistead of a report of conferences which he had on that subject, dated September 16, 1938. (Interoffice communication of the National Labor Relations Board from Charles S. Armistead to "The File," dated September 16, 1938, was received in evidence and marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 236” and is printed in the appendix of this volume.) Mr. FAHY. Referring to the Ford Motor Co. case at St. Louis, to which reference was made in the record (p. 6121 and following) why did the Board write to the regional office for information from the court records in that case? Mr. MADDEN. Because we wanted to know what the outcome of the court proceedings had been, so that we could take judicial notice of that outcome and give effect to it. Mr. FAHY. Mr. Madden, do you recall the so-called Elder affidavit, which is copied into the record now as Exhibit No. 447? Mr. MADDEN. I do recall it. Mr. FAHY. Could you say whether you saw that affidavit? Mr. MADDEN. Yes; I saw it. It passed across my desk at some stage. I can't remember, as I sit here, whether I read that story first in a Detroit newspaper or in the affidavit, but I saw it in those two places. Mr. FAHY. As far as you know, does it have any bearing on the issues in the Ford-St. Louis case or in the St. Louis Ford case or any other Ford cases? Mr. MADDEN. There is nothing in it that seems to have any relation to that or any other Ford case that I know of. Mr. FAHY. In the Utah Copper case, I show you Exhibits 644, 648, and 643, and ask you if you have seen them before. Mr. MADDEN. If I have seen their contents, which I don't recall at all, it was in the proceedings of this committee, and not before. Mr. FAHY. Were they taken into consideration by the Board in its decision in the Utah Copper case? Mr. MADDEN. They were not. As a matter of fact, the Board had already decided that case when these exhibits, according to their dates, were received, although the Board's formal decision was not issued until a few days later. Mr. FAHY. The Kansas City Light & Power case. When that case was reported to the Board, did the review attorney, Mr. Sullery, discuss with the Board the question of whether any of the company officials were members of the Kansas City Chamber of Commerce? Mr. MADDEN. I have no recollection of his having done so, and apparently it would have nothing to do with the case, so I say that he did not. 1 Indicates page reference to verbatim transcript of committee proceedings, January 12, 1940. Mr. FAHY. Well, was any question of its membership in the chamber of commerce taken into consideration by the Board? Mr. MADDEN. It was not. Mr. FAHY. And nothing relating thereto appears in the Board's decision? Mr. MADDEN. That is correct. Mr. FAHY. In the Mount Vernon case, referred to in the record at pages 240, and following, did the Board in deciding that case take into consideration any material in the informal file? Mr. MADDEN. It did not. Mr. FAHY. And was the Board in any way influenced in its decision by the fact that there was a memorandum prepared by a review attorney in connection with the oral argument to be had in the case, which memorandum in part was based on information in the informal file? Mr. MADDEN. It was not. Mr. FAHY. That is all. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will recess until 2 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12:30 p. m., a recess was taken until 2 p. m. of the same day.) AFTER RECESS (The hearing was resumed at 2 p. m. upon the expiration of the recess.) Mr. FAHY. Mr. Watts. TESTIMONY OF ROBERT B. WATTS, ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, SILVER SPRING, MD. (The witness was duly sworn and testified as follows:) Mr. FAHY. For the record, Mr. Watts, please state your full name. Mr. WATTS. Robert B. Watts. Mr. FAHY. And your present residence address? Mr. WATTS. 8318 Draper Lane, Silver Spring, Md. Mr. FAHY. And your present occupation? Mr. WATTS. I am the associate general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board. Mr. FAHY. How long have you been associated with the Board? Mr. WATTS. Since approximately late in 1934, when I came with the predecessor Board. Mr. FAHY. Was that with Mr. Garrison, of the middle Board? Mr. FAHY. NOW, Mr. Watts, will you outline, not in great detail, your academic experience and legal experience up to the time that you came with the Board? I should say, your education and legal experience. Mr. MURDOCK. May I suggest, Mr. Chairman, I can't hear the question or the answer. The CHAIRMAN. The amplifying system isn't working today. Mr. FAHY. I asked Mr. Watts to outline his education and legal experience up to the time he came with the Board in 1934. Indicates page reference to verbatim transcript of committee proceedings, January 23, 1940. Mr. WATTS. I am a graduate of Bates College, Yale Law School. Following my graduation from Yale Law School I was appointed as an assistant United States attorney for the southern district of New York. Thereafter I became chief assistant United States attorney for that district. I remained in that position for 2 years; thereafter I resigned to become a member of a private law firm in New York City and practiced with that firm until 1934, when I was especially retained by the predecessor Labor Board as its counsel in charge of litigation, Mr. FAHY. How old are you, Mr. Watts? Mr. WATTS. Thirty-eight. Mr. FAHY. Since you have been with the present Board you have been associate general counsel of the Board? Mr. WATTS. That is correct. Mr. FAHY. Now, what are your duties as associate general counsel of the Board? Mr. WATTS. In general, subject to the directions of the general counsel, to supervise the litigation of the Board and in turn that involves the direction of the proceedings in the courts for enforcement or review on the one hand, and the direction of the trial of cases in the field on the other. Mr. FAHY. Now, you have engaged actively personally, have you not, also in the conduct of Board litigation? Mr. WATTS. I have. Mr. FAHY. In the courts of the United States? Mr. WATTS. I have appeared repeatedly in each of the circuit courts of appeals and in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and in the Supreme Court. Mr. FAHY. And during the period of what is called the injunction period, did you not appear before many of the district courts of the United States? Mr. WATTS. I did. I personally appeared and argued against the attempted injunctions throughout that period, and carried those proceedings through the circuit courts of appeals and argued the case in the Supreme Court. Mr. FAHY. Those cases involving the right or lack of right to an injunction that reached the Supreme Court were the Bethlehem and the Newport News Drydock and Ship Building cases? Mr. WATTS. That is correct. Mr. FAHY. Did I understand you to say that you have argued cases on the enforcement or review of Board orders in all of the circuit courts of appeals in the United States? Mr. WATTS. I have. As far as I am aware, I have appeared before every United States Appellate Court. Mr. FAHY. And in addition to the Supreme Court cases, which we have just referred to, you have also, have you not, argued a number of other cases involving questions arising under the act before the Supreme Court of the United States? Mr. WATTS. That is correct-matters of procedure. Mr. FAHY. In matters of procedure? Mr. WATTS. Yes. Mr. FAHY. Well, also, have you not argued cases involving merits of the Board orders in the Supreme Court? Mr. WATTS. Oh, yes. Mr. FAHY. Including the Waterman Steamship Co. case, recently decided by the Court? Mr. WATTS. That is right. Mr. FAHY. Now, Mr. Watts, in the present record, at page 373,1 volume 1, there appears in evidence a memorandum dated September 27, 1937, from you to David Shaw, inquiring about Jack Davis' conduct in the investigation of the American Radiator Co. case. Do you recall writing Mr. Shaw about that matter? Mr. WATTS. I do. Mr. FAHY. And who is Mr. Shaw? Mr. WATTS. Mr. Shaw is a member of the litigation division and one of my assistants. Mr. FAHY. And he is the attorney who tried, in the field, the American Radiator Co. case? Mr. WATTS. That is correct. Mr. FAHY. Did you receive any reply from Mr. Shaw to the communication you sent him on September 27, 1937? Mr. WATTS. I did, approximately a month later, and at the time of the annual conference of the Board's directors and regional attorneys. Mr. FAHY. And what was, in substance, that reply given you at that conference? Mr. WATTS. Mr. Shaw reported that he had looked into the charges on the ground that he was of the opinion that the charges were not supported in fact, and also added that in his opinion Mr. Davis had not used entire discretion in his press comments about his own work and about the work of others in the office. Mr. FAHY. Prior to the time you wrote Mr. Shaw in September, Mr. Davis was in St. Louis, was he not? Mr. WATTS. He was temporarily assigned to work in St. Louis. Mr. FAHY. And what did you do about his assignment shortly thereafter? Mr. WATTS. He was immediately recalled from his assignment and taken off the case. Mr. FAHY. And was he transferred to some other point? Mr. FAHY. In volume 2, at page 3122 of the record, there were put into evidence letters from you to Stanley W. Root, dated November 23, 1937, and December 10 of the same year, inquiring of Mr. Root about Mr. Davis' conduct in Philadelphia, and Mr. Davis' reply dated December 11, 1937, recommending Mr. Davis' retention was placed in the record. Mr. WATTS. You mean Mr. Root's reply. Mr. FAHY. Mr. Root's. Who is Mr. Root? Mr. WATTS. Mr. Root at that time was the regional director and the officer in charge of the Philadelphia office. Mr. FAHY. Did you consider his response Mr. WATTS. I did. I made the inquiry as a secondary check on this man who had once been criticized. Mr. FAHY. Did you come to any conclusion as to whether or not Mr. Davis should be retained? Indicates page reference to verbatim transcript of committee proceedings, January 1940. Idem, January 29, 1940. |