Things seem to be running smoothly in this office. The people are all on their toes and from what I have observed, they are doing a very good job. If you have any suggestions I should be pleased to receive them. Sincerely yours, (Signed) MAURICE J. NICOSON. I would also like to offer in evidence a copy of a communication from the same individual to Paul Broderick, dated May 1, 1939. This was found in the informal file of this case. I offer this copy. (Copy of communication dated May 1, 1939, from Maurice Nicoson to Paul Broderick was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1350" and follows.) The CHAIRMAN. What was Mr. Nicoson's position? Mr. TOLAND. He is attorney for the Board. Isn't he connected with the litigation division? Isn't that right? Mr. MILLER. I am under the impression he is. Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Fahy says that he is connected with the litigation division. Exhibit 1350 (reading): To: Paul Broderick, Acting Director, 17th Region. From: Maurice P. Nicoson. Subject: Donnelly Garment Company, Case No. XVII-C-371. MAY 1, 1939. I have been informed by Mr. Watts that I shall not be required to return to Kansas City to assist in the handling of this case and thought it well to forward you the material that I have, for such assistance as it may be. I am enclosing statements from the following persons: May Innes Sylvia Hull Virginia Stroup Thelma Owens I am also enclosing copy of the statement taken by the company of Fern Sigler, together with a copy of the affidavit of Mary Hanback. I think perhaps you have this in your file. Also copy of minutes of the Donnelly Garment Workers' Union, May 25, 1937, copy of announcement of a Hallowe'en party, dated October 12, 1937. I will give you such of my notes that seem to be of some value, particularly points of cross-examination which I have drafted in pencil. These points seem to be such as should be covered on cross-examination of the following persons: Elizabeth Reeves Rose Todd Hobart F. Atherton Jack McConaughey My idea was to concentrate our evidence on the 8 (2) phase of the case. I am very little impressed with the merits of the 8 (3) case of May Fike, but do not think that the complaint should be dismissed as to her. Rather, it should come in with the record for the Board's determination. I think I told you that I had quite a conversation with Jane Walker Palmer, before I left Kansas City, about this case and had some further discussion with Meyer Perlstein coming back on the plane. I gathered from this conversation that the 8 (2) phase of the case is one of paramount importance. Miss Palmer informs me that witnesses will be gathered who have worked in the plant since the effective date of the Act and who were present and can testify concerning the formation of the Donnally Garment Workers' Union; that also, these persons who worked until fairly recently will be in a position to testify as to what the Donnelly Garment Workers' Union did. Miss Palmer seems to have grown up with this case, and unfortunately I think you are going to have to depend a great deal on her for some of the information. While I do not admire the tactics of Miss Palmer, believing that she is trying to turn all the advantages of the Board case into a personal triumph, she seems to hold the trump hand in this matter. Wave Tobin will be left in charge, and as I understand it, she favors Miss Palmer very much. I do not want you to take from this statement the meaning that you have to bow to the wishes or the desires of Miss Palmer. fter all, this is a Board case. You are in complete charge and that I think, ould be politely impressed upon Miss Palmer and Miss Tobin. I know you 11 have some difficulties with Miss Palmer but I am confident that you are well le to take care of yourself. I do not think you should be at all discouraged because of the Federal Court junction. This demonstrated very forcibly, at least to my mind, that there is company-dominated union. The Federal Judge throughout that hearing ated Mr. Tyler with almost contempt. I am inclined to think the Federal dge also sensed a "nigger in the wood pile." It seems to me that the demon-ation at the factory at the conclusion of the Federal hearing can be utilized demonstrate more forcibly the company domination. I think you should take vantage of this. I understand that our friend, Tyler, was involved in the company union in the ace Garment Company Case, and there was some testimony in this record out it. I intend to look the record over and if there is anything advantageous, 1 forward it on to you. I am also enclosing a key to the office, which in my -te I seem to have carried away. Give my regards to the gang in the office, and accept my best wishes for a sucsful conclusion of the Donnelly Case. Sincerely yours, IJN/GS. Enclosures. MAURICE J. NICOSON, Attorney. Now, Mr. Miller, will you tell the committee whether or not in the formance of your duties in other matters, you discussed the merits of the controversies with trial examiners, attorneys of the litiion division. any Mr. MILLER. The only discussion I have ever had with any trial orney or trial examiner is that in the Donnelly Garment Co. e, in which I conferred with Trial Examiner Batten. I have ver in any other case discussed any matter with either a trial attoror a trial examiner. Mr. TOLAND. How many drafts of this decision that was issued 1 you draw before the final decision in this case was issued by the ard? Mr. MILLER. I believe largely for my own use I drafted, or drew raft, which included verbatim large numbers of exhibits which e pertinent to the issues involved. This was merely for the pure of collecting in one place all of the pertinent material. Thereer, from this draft I have referred to, a tentative draft was prered which was submitted to my supervisor. After going over some corrections were made and the tentative draft was submitted he Board. Ir. TOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer in evidence aner copy of a letter from Mr. Nicoson to Mr. Broderick, dated April 1939, found in the informal files of this case at the National oor Relations Board. I ask that that exhibit be spread on the ord. Copy of communication dated April 26, 1939, from Mr. Nicoson to Broderick was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1351" follows:) Paul F. Broderick, Acting Director, 17th Region. m: Maurice J. Nicoson. ject: Complaint Amendments. APRIL 26, 1939. ou will recall a discussion concerning the right of the Regional Director ssue an amended complaint. am now advised that while it is the general practice for the Regional ectors to issue amended complaints there is some doubt under a strict conction of the statute that the Regional Director has that right. The better 218054-40-vol. 23- -3 practice seems to be for the Regional Director to withdraw the original complaint and issue a new one. The practice that you have been following, that is, issuing notices to amend can still be used but it involves the possibility of the Trial Examiner finding it necessary to grant additional time to respondent if the motion to amend is allowed. Technically, the complaint is not amended until after the motion is made and allowed by the Trial Examiner. Such motion is granted upon such terms as the Trial Examiner deems right and proper. In the Donnelly case I think the better plan would be to withdraw the original complaint and issue a new one which will be the same as the amended complaint I have heretofore drafted. This will avoid the complications of amended notices of hearings and extension of time to answer and will also obviate any necessity of granting a further postponement of the hearing by the Trial Examiner should you follow the motion method. I think this will solve our pleading problems. (Signed) M. J. N. That is all, if the committee wants to question the witness. The CHAIRMAN. Just one question that I think the witness ought to be permitted to state. You started to state, I think, an explanation, your explanation, of why this irregular procedure of referring this case to the Review Board before the trial examiner had written his intermediate report. Do you wish to make any statement about that? Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir; thank you very much, Chairman Smith. My instructions were that about the time I was assigned to this case the trial examiner's section had begun the practice of having review trial examiners go over the intermediate reports submitted by the trial examiners in the cases which they had heard. Before those intermediate reports were issued, the Board desired to determine, by way of experiment, whether this review work could be done by the review section of the Board, which was assisting the Board in its judicial capacity, just as the trial examiners were. It was for that reason that I was assigned to the Donnelly Garment Co. case and to confer with the trial examiner. Mr. TOLAND. Did the members of the Board or anybody tell you the reason why you were assigned? Mr. MILLER. I have told you, Mr. Toland, just what I have been told. My own instructions came from Mr. Thomas Emerson, associate general counsel. Mr. TOLAND. So you don't know what purpose, if any, the Board had in Mr. MILLER (interposing). I understand Mr. TOLAND (interposing). No; I just want you of your own knowledge Mr. MILLER (interposing). Well, I can only say this: That the Board desired to know whether decisions could be expedited in this fashion— that is, whether the time elapsing between the close of a hearing in the field and the issuance of a Board decision could be shortened in this fashion. Mr. ROUTZOHN. Of course, you don't know, of your own knowledge, whether the reason you have just assigned for your having been assigned to this particular matter was the real reason that motivated the Board, or whether it consisted of the reasons that were given the Board by the regional director. Mr. MILLER. I know nothing about that. Mr. ROUTZOHN. No. So that would be up to the committee to draw its own conclusions as to what may have motivated the Board in assigning you to this case. Mr. TOLAND. I would like to offer in evidence a pink memorandum found in the files of this case at the Board dated approximately the 27th day of April, although it doesn't have any date, reading as follows: Broderick called Shaw from Kansas City. In Donnelly Garment injunction case, Jim Reed pulled a phoney by setting up a dictaphone behind the wall at conference of union and company. Broderick says Reed is pulling out half statements and distortions and pleading them in injunction case. Broderick feels Board may be involved, and therefore wants to know if he can take the stand as a union witness to protect the Board. Shaw is to wire him this afternoon. What do you advise. (Pink memorandum relating to the Donnelly Garment Co. case was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1352," and appears above.) Mr. TOLAND. Did you ever see that? Is that in your handwriting? Mr. MILLER. No, sir; it is not. I have never seen this. Mr. TOLAND. Do you know whose handwriting this is? Mr. MILLER. No, sir. Mr. TOLAND. Do you know whose handwriting that is? Mr. TOLAND. That is all. (The witness, Mr. Miller, was excused.) Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Ingraham. TESTIMONY OF ROBERT J. INGRAHAM, ATTORNEY, KANSAS CITY, MO. (The witness was duly sworn and testified as follows:) Mr. TOLAND. Will you give the reporter your full name, please? Mr. INGRAHAM. Robert J. Ingraham. Mr. TOLAND. Where do you live? Mr. INGRAHAM. In Kansas City, Mo. Mr. TOLAND. Are you a member of the bar of the State of Missouri? Mr. INGRAHAM. I am. Mr. TOLAND. And are you associated in the practice of law with Senator Reed? Mr. INGRAHAM. I am. Mr. TOLAND. Now, Mr. Ingraham, will you tell the committee, briefly but in detail, your connection with the Donnelly Garment Co. case, both with respect to the injunction suit in the United States district court and the National Labor Relations Board case that I have just questioned the witness, Mr. Miller, about? Mr. INGRAHAM. Yes; I have been one of the attorneys for the Donnelly Garment Co. in the injunction suit and also in the Labor Board case. I think it would be helpful, Mr. Toland, if I could be permitted to briefly state the history of the company and the relationship it has with its employees. Mr. TOLAND. Right. I think the committee would like to hear it. Mr. INGRAHAM. The Donnelly Garment Co. was organized in 1917 by Mrs. Reed. It employed at that time only a few people; I think it was 3 in number. It started with very little capital. It gradually grew, and by 1930 the company employed approximately 1,000 people. At that time the depression started and Mrs. Reed, in attempting to help the unemployment situation, decided that the company would employ 100 employees in 1931 in addition to the regular employees. That same thing took place in '32; another 100 were employed, and in 33 another 100 were employed. During all this time the company had paid wages far in excess above the usual wages paid in the industry, and I mean by that the union scale. There had been no complaint or trouble or controversy of any sort between the company and its employees. In 1934 there was a business slump, and in June of that year the company was forced to lay off over 300 employees. In the fall, the late fall, business picked up and the company gradually called back to work part of those employees, and I think by December 150 of the 300 employees had been called back. On December 4, in 34, the company received a notice from Mr. George Pratt, who was then the secretary of the N. R. A. labor office in Kansas City, advising that his office was filing a complaint against the company alleging that it had discharged some 15 people. Mr. Pratt had never notified the company of any complaint before and that was the first notice that the company had. The company investigated at once the complaint and found that 8 of the 15 people were working and that the 7 would probably be called back when business picked up, and that the remaining 150 out of the 300 would be called back. Well, Mr. Pratt insisted that there be hearings, and in February of that year the hearings began. Mr. Pratt was the attorney who examined the witnesses. He was the judge; he ruled in the case on the evidence, but before the hearing closed the Supreme Court declared the N. R. A. unconstitutional. Then everything apparently stopped. The Wagner Act became effective in July 1935, but there was no complaint made under the Wagner Act concerning any violations on the part of the company in connection with discharging or discriminating against employees. In December 1936 Mr. Dubinsky, in Washington, gave out a statement to the public press that the International Ladies Garment Workers Union intended to organize all remaining unorganized workers in the country, that they had $4,000,000 to accomplish that end, that they were going to open offices in various parts of the United States, that there would be an office in St. Louis and in Kansas City, that ordinarily one office in a State would suffice, but in connection with Kansas City, that office would be used to concentrate on the organization of the Donnelly Garment Co., and that Dubinsky was going to give Jim Reed a break. Following that by several months, I think it was February 26, Meyer Perlstein, who was the Southwest regional director of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, arrived in Kansas City and called in the press reporters and gave out a public statement. He said that the union was going to commence their drive on the Donnelly Garment Co., that the union had, I think, $250,000 to spend on the Donnelly Co., that they would commence their campaign by sending a polite letter to the company asking for a conference on collective bargaining, that if the company refused, they were training emissaries |