Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. FAHY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that the letter of Dean Acheson to the Attorney General does relate to the Board in part.

(Off the record committee in conference.)

The CHAIRMAN. This goes in.

(The Memorandum of Law on Contract Requirement of Compliance with National Labor Relations Act by Thomas H. Eliot, General Counsel of the Social Security Board, together with letter of transmittal by Fowley V. Hartper, General Counsel of the Federal Security Agency, was received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 246," and is printed in the appendix of this volume.)

The CHAIRMAN. The committee is adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.

(Whereupon, at 5:40 p. m., an adjournment was taken subject to call of the chairman.)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT

FRIDAY, APRIL 26, 1940

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10:15 a. m., pursuant to adjournment on Wednesday, February 28, 1940, in room 362 of the Old House Office Building, Representative Howard W. Smith, chairman, presiding.

Present: Representatives Howard W. Smith of Virginia and Harry N. Routzohn of Ohio.

Edmund M. Toland, general counsel to the committee.

Charles Fahy, general counsel to the National Labor Relations Board.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order.

Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I have a letter that was transmitted to you on April 24, 1940, by Mr. Fahy, with reference to a letter of the Board signed by Mr. Fahy on February 12 regarding the list of pending cases before the Board. I ask that it be made an exhibit and printed.

(Communication dated April 24, 1940, from Charles Fahy to Representative Howard Smith was received in evidence and marked "Exhibit No. 1095" and is printed in the appendix of this volume.) Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Davidson.

The CHAIRMAN. Raise your right hand.

Mr. DAVIDSON. I have been sworn in this proceeding.

Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Davidson has been previously sworn in this proceeding, Mr. Chairman.

TESTIMONY OF MAPES DAVIDSON, TRIAL EXAMINER, NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, WASHINGTON, D. C.-Resumed

Mr. TOLAND. Will you give the reporter your full name?
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mapes Davidson.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, Mr. Davidson, at the time that you testified previously before this committee on the 16th day of January, 1940, what was your present occupation at that time?

Mr. DAVIDSON. I was a trial examiner for the National Labor Relations Board.

Mr. TOLAND. And will you tell the committee what your present connection, if any, with the National Labor Relations Board is?

4147

Mr. DAVIDSON. I have no connection with that Board, sir, having resigned by letter dated March 17, 1940.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, Mr. Davidson, will you tell the committee, from the time that you testified before this committee on the 16th day of January, 1940, what your duties were and what time you devoted to your duties in the city of Washington and elsewhere, as a trial examiner for the National Labor Relations Board, down to and including the 17th day of March, 1940?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Well, after having testified before this committee on the date you mentioned, Mr. Toland, I returned to the Board offices and continued work on an intermediate report. If my memory serves me correctly, it was the Tex-O-Can Co. case. We were working on a review of it, and when that case was finished or my work connected with it was finished, I sat around the office 1 or 2 days, and finally, on February 1 or 2, I asked Mr. Ringer, one of the assistant chief trial examiners, whether I was to be sent into the field, and if so, when.

I said that I was making the inquiry because I had need to go home for the purpose of going to the dentist, for a period of about 2 days. Mr. Ringer informed me that I was to hear a representation case in a small place about 20 miles outside of Boston, on Monday, February 5. I then asked him whether I could go home or stop home on the way up to Boston, and he said that was agreeable; so I remained home for the week-end and continued on a midnight Sunday train to my destination. The hearing lasted only a matter of 3 hours. I returned to Boston, sent word to the Board where I was staying, in accordance with the rules, and received a wire assigning me to another case in North Adams, Mass. On Thursday of that same week-on Wednesday, an hour or two before I was to set out for North Adams, by chance I went into the regional office in Boston, and someone said to me, "What are you doing around here?" and I said, "I'm starting off to North Adams"; and the reply was, "Well, don't you know that case has been indefinitely postponed?" and I said that I had no such knowledge and went outside and called the Board at Washington. I gave the information and was told to return to my official station.

I then asked Mr. Ringer whether it wouldn't be possible to give me 24 days of my leave in order to go to the dentist, and he said that would be agreeable and that I would probably be assigned to cases in New York the following week.

I went home, and thereafter was assigned to hear several cases of the representation type, and that work kept me at home until the 26th day of February, when I returned to Washington.

At that time I saw Frank Bloom, the other assistant chief trial examiner, who told me that Mr. Pratt, the chief trial examiner, was away but that before going away he had indicated his wish for me to do some review work in Washington, and Bloom said, "There is a case I expect to come in which I want you to work on, but the report hasn't arrived yet." It was one of Mr. Denham's reports. He said, “I think you will enjoy reading it, and perhaps get some benefit out of the experience."

Well, I sat around the office for a full week and 2 days besides, waiting for that report to come in. It didn't arrive, and finally I was given another report, very short in nature, and at the end of another 3 days the Denham report did arrive in the mail.

I was given that report to work on, was reading the record, and on Thursday afternoon, March 14, I was at my desk in one of the trial examiner's rooms when Bloom came gushing in and said, "Boys, we've got a real treat for tomorrow! We're going to hear a lecture by our dear old friend, Dr. Saposs, on company unionism."

Well, Mr. Saposs was a man I had never met personally, but he was known to me by reputation as a very "red" radical. I had heard of him in that connection for a number of years, but as long as he never came in contact with me in my Board work I minded my own business and didn't let it bother me. But from the moment Bloom came in with that message, couched in those terms, my temper began to rise. Mr. TOLAND. May I interrupt you there, Mr. Davidson?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. TOLAND. And ask you if prior to the time that you are now testifying about, did you have a conversation with Mr. Bloom about your going home, the following week or the preceding week?

Mr. DAVIDSON. I did, Mr. Toland. That conversation was held earlier in the day of which I speak. I should say about noontime on March 14 Bloom was passing through the office where I had my desk, and I said, "Would it be agreeable to let me do this review work, which will take another week, at home?" I said, "Next week is Holy Week; I would like to be home at that time, and, besides, I have need to be measured for some new clothes which I need quite badly."

Bloom did not immediately reply, but later in the day, perhaps an hour afterward, came back and said, "Mapes, as long as Mr. Pratt❞— no, he didn't say Mr. Pratt, he said "As long as George was the one who suggested that you come down here and work, both Bill Ringer and I feel that your request to go home next week should be addressed to him. Now, George will be in the office next Monday morning, and you can ask him, and if he says you can go home, that will be quite Satisfactory."

Well, I was very well pleased in that disposition of the request because Mr. Pratt never, in two years and a half, refused a request of mine to work at home. I figured that the request was as good as granted, on that account.

Mr. TOLAND. Would you tell the committee why it is, in the past, that you made the request to work at home instead of in the city of Washington?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Yes, sir. First of all, I like to be home, and, in the second place, it was expensive for me to be in Washington. This is my official station but not my residence, and, consequently, the expense of being in Washington was tantamount to a reduction in salary.

Mr. TOLAND. And so far as you know, has it been the practice, so far as the trial examiner is concerned, for the Board or Mr. Pratt to permit them to do their work at home?

Mr. DAVIDSON. Not in all cases, but those of us who lived in the vicinity of New York and New Jersey and who could get here on fairly short notice, were allowed to work at home.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, will you go ahead and testify regarding the conversation or the statement that Mr. Bloom made about Mr. Saposs? Mr. DAVIDSON. About what?

Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Saposs.

218054-40-vol. 19-7

« PreviousContinue »