Page images

Mr. TOLAND. You don't know they did? You told them what was in it, though?

Mr. MILLER. That is correct.

Mr. TOLAND. And when you left there at that conference, did you leave with the instruction to prepare the tentative draft?

Mr. MILLER. Yes.
Mr. TOLAND. So that the Board decided then and there?
Mr. MILLER. That is right.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, will you tell the committee along the lines of which you just testified to, your best recollection as to the substance of what you reported to the Board the offers of proof contained?

Mr. MILLER. The offer of proof, or the offers of proof, as I now recall, contained something of this report, that the respondent would call each of its present employees to testify that they had joined the Donnelly Garment WorkersUnion of their own free will, that they did not desire to join the International Ladies Garment Workers Union. On that point, I think substantially that is what the offer of proof contained. It was followed by a list of names of employees who the respondent stated would so testify.

The CHAIRMAN. How many names? Do you know?
Mr. MILLER. In the neighborhood of 1,000, I believe.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. Did you hear the testimony of Mr. Ingraham while he gave it here this afternoon!

Mír. MILLER. Yes; I heard most of it.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. Do you recall his stating that the offers of proof were contained in exhibits that were handed to the trial examiner?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir.
Mr. ROUTZOHN. Did you have those exhibits before you?
Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. ROUTZOHN. When you had the transcript?
Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. At the same time, did the trial examiner who was making up his report, have those exhibits before him?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir; so far as I know.

Mr. RoutzoHx. In other words, do you know, as a matter of fact, that copies were made of those exhibits so that each transcript contained copies of the exhibits?

Mr. MILLER. I do not know that. I think this is what happened, Mr. Routzohn

Mr. RouTzOHN (interposing). Is it a fact that there was only one original copy of the exhibits and there never were copies, so that both transcripts would contain the exhibits?

Mr. MILLER. I believe that the trial examiner made use of those exhibits and after he had made his use of them, they were sent to me for a similar examination and use.

Mr. RoutzoHx. So they were separate and apart, segregated from the transcript of the testimony which you had!

Mr. MILLER. There is more than one copy of the transcript. Mr. RouTzOHN. But not more than one copy of the exhibits? Mr. MILLER. So far as I know, only one copy of the exhibits. Mr. ROUTZOHN. Yes, sir. Mr. TOLAND. Do I understand you The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Does that account for the reason why, when this committee sent for the record in that case today, we received only the evidence and not the exhibits that are in question?

Mr. MILLER. I don't know anything about that, Chairman Smith.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. That is the answer and that is the reason I brought it out to the witness.

Mr. Toland. Do I understand from you that what you have stated here is your best recollection of everything that was contained in the offer of proofs made by Mr. Ingraham?

Mr. MILLER. I do not recall specifically, Mr. Toland, other statements. I have tried to give in general the substance of the offer. There were, I might add, offers in regard to violence which occurred at other garment factories, I believe, in Kansas City, and in other cities throughout the country, in which the International Ladies Garment Workers Union representatives had participated, but I took it that you were referring to the testimony of the employees in regard to the coercion and interferences.

Mr. TOLAND. I was asking with respect to all offers made.

Mr. MILLER. I see. There were also the offers in regard to violence and threats of violence at other garment factories.

Mr. TOLAND. I will have the record at 10 o'clock, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Fahy. May I have the record on page 41 of the Board's printed decision? The problem was taken up and disposed of in the decision.

Mr. TOLAND. Will you speak a little louder?

Mr. Fahy. On page 41 of the printed decision of the Board, the matter which the committee is discussing now, was taken up and disposed of by the Board in its decision, and I think probably along the Iines of discussion before this committee.

The CHAIRMAN. And the Board in that decision held that it was proper to exclude the employees from testifying in this case ?

Mr. MILLER. They affirmed the ruling of the trial examiner, which you have in question.

The CHAIRMAN. Didn't the trial examiner rule that it was not proper for the employees to testify?

Mr. Fahy. I understand he did rule.
The CHAIRMAN. And therefore the Board so ruled.

Mr. Fahy. I don't want to make a general statement that the employees couldn't testify, but I think he did rule that it was immaterial that they would testify that they were themselves not coerced.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Fahy, let's get it straight. The actual fact is that the trial examiner would not hear them, is it not?

Mr. Fahy. On that point, it is correct. On that point.

The CHAIRMAN. There wasn't any other point to the case, except whether they had been dominated, was there?

Mr. Fahy. I suppose there was evidence by the company to rebut the Board's evidence of domination in other respects.

The CHAIRMAN. The whole point is that the Board, though, wouldn't hear the people who were most interested on that subject. Now that is a fact.

Mr. Fahy. On that subject. The CHAIRMAN. And that was the whole issue of the case. Mr. Fahy. I said, on that subject, that is, the testimony which they offered, they were not dominated. I don't think the trial examiner precluded from rebutting the testimony of domination in other respects, Mr. Chairman. It was just in that limited respect.

The CHAIRMAN. I wouldn't regard that as a limited respect when the 1,300 employees offered to testify that they were dominated. That was the only issue in the case, so that the Board really did rule that they could not testify on that point.

Mr. Fahy. On that point, that is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Toland, did we have some witnesses here yesterday from a distance that you wanted to take up on Monday?

Mr. TOLAND. Monday morning at 10 o'clock.

The CHAIRMAN. We will adjourn until Monday morning at 10 o'clock.

(The following was offered for inclusion in the record by the chairman:)

The CHAIRMAN. The following is an extract from the Board's opinion in the case, confirming the ruling of the trial examiner in ruling out the testimony of the employees as to company domination (reading):

The respondent and the D. G. W. U. contend that its employees formed and joined the D. G. W. U. of their own free will in order to resist unionization by the I. L. G. W. U. and were not coerced or interfered with in their choice of the D. G. W. U. or in their rejection of the I. L. G. W. U. In support of this contention they sought to introduce the testimony of the members of the D. G. W. U. that they were not dominated by the respondent but formed, joined, and supported the organization of their own free will. They also offered evidence to show that the employees knew of the violence accompanying the I. L. G. W. U. organizational campaigns at other garment factories and of threats by I. L. G. W. U. representatives that the same tactics would be used at the respondent's plant and formed the D. G. W. U. for that reason. The Trial Examiner refused these offers of proof, ruling that such testimony was irrelevant and immaterial to the issues. We have affirmed the rulings of the Trial Examiner on those offers of proof because, giving full credit to such testimony and assuming that the employees had other motives for rejecting the I. L. G. W. U. and joining the D. G. W. U. as an instrument for opposing the I. L. G. W. U., the fact remains that the record shows the respondent to have committed acts of domination, interference, and assistance in the formation and administration of the D. G. W. U. which makes that organization company dominated and not the free agent of its members. Section 8 (2) proscribes such conduct on the part of employers regardless of the ostensible willingness of employees to accede to it.

(Whereupon, at 2:25 p, m., the hearing was adjourned until Monday, May 6, 1940, at 10 a. m.)


65 N. L. R. B. v. Brown Paper Mill Co. (C. C. A. 5th), decided January 17, 1940, enf'g Matter of Brown Paper Mills Co., Inc. and Int. Brotherhood of Paper Makers, affiliated with the A. F. of L., 12 N. L. R. B. 60; cf. Matter of New Era Die Company and I. A. M. Lodge 243, A. F. of L., N. L. R, B., No. 27.


MONDAY, MAY 6, 1940


Washington, D. C. The committee met at 10:15 a. m., pursuant to adjournment on Saturday, May 4, 1940, in room 362 of the Old House Office Building, Representative Howard W. Smith, chairman, presiding:

Present: Representatives Howard W. Smith of Virginia, Abe Murdock of Utah, 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. Vogt.


LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.—Recalled Mír. ToLAND. Mr. Vogt, when we recessed you were making an explanation as to certain exhibits that had been introduced in evidence. Now, do you have before you the verbatim record of the committee?

Mr. Vogt. Yes; I have.

Mr. TOLAND. And will you make any explanation as to any of the exhibits that are recorded in the verbatim record that you did not make any explanation about at the time you were on the stand?

Mr. Vogt. I referred to Exhibit 1311, appearing on page 638. I wish to make a correction that when that exhibit was shown to me, it was several letters, and I only looked at the first page, and I answered, “I don't remember seeing this letter, but I do remember what he speaks of here." After reading the letter through completely, I recalled distinctly that John Senneff saw me on the street and he said to me, “Herb, I want to show you a letter that I am going to send to your office.” So I went up to his office and he showed me the letter. I read that letter, and at that time in his letter where he refers to:

I had not supposed that the National Labor Relations Board or its officers or employees would demonstrate this much zeal in the outcome of any election, and I wish to believe that it was personal with Mr. Vogt rather than with your office. I have shown this letter to Mr. Vogt

1 Indicates page reference to verbatim transcript of committee proceedings, May 3, 1940.

218034-40-vol. 23--6

« PreviousContinue »