Mr. VOGT. Well, I don't know the exact employers that I have made the statement to. You mean the names?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. VOGT. Oh, I think I told them in this Sherman case that you just referred to. I am quite sure I did when he told me he did not know anything about the act, I said, "Well, you have a right to have your counsel," and in fact he did bring in a counsel.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you tell all the employees that you interviewed and put under oath in hotel rooms and C. I. O. meeting rooms that they could have their lawyer, that you would not talk with them but would postpone the conference until they got their lawyer?

Mr. VOGT. I didn't tell all of them, but if they asked me whether they had a right to have counsel, I told them they could have one. The CHAIRMAN. Did anybody ever tell you before that you have a right to call them in and put them under oath and take their statements?

Mr. VOGT. No; I read it in the act, and the act says that any agent of the Board can take statements under oath, under section 11 and 12, I think it is.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know whether that is a custom or practice of the field examiners that are interviewing witnesses, that they make them raise their right hands and swear?

Mr. VOGT. I don't know as to the custom of the other examiners, but I have found that it saves me a lot of trouble to put them under oath, because that way you don't have to listen to a lot of stuff that is not relevant.

The CHAIRMAN. What difference does that make?

Mr. VOGT. I think when you tell them that, and get their statements under oath, they are more conservative.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you do that with union witnesses?

Mr. VOGT. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Tell me one case that you took the union witnesses under oath when you examined them.

Mr. VOGT. I think the case you referred to, the Cudahy case, definitely showed that I did.

The CHAIRMAN. And when you had witnesses of the independent union, did you ask them, "Aren't you a member of the company union?"

Mr. VOGT. No; those weren't.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, let us get the exhibit. That speaks for itself, those yellow papers.

Mr. MURDOCK. Is there any question, Mr. Toland, about this witness's right to put witnesses under oath when he examines them? Mr. TOLAND. I am not questioning his right, I am questioning if it is a policy and practice of the Board, and whether he does it and no one else does it.

Mr. MURDOCK. The act reads as follows:

Any member of the Board or any agent or agency designated by the Board for such purposes may administer oaths and affirmations, examine witnesses and receive evidence.

Now, I am informed by the general counsel for the Board that under the provision I have read the field examiners, by the rules and

regulations of the Board, have been designated as agents of the Board who can properly put people under oath.

Mr. TOLAND. May I say that this is the employee of the Board, and he is the first employee of the Board that I ever heard of who swears witnesses when he examines them.

Mr. MURDOCK. I don't think that that is important, whether you heard of it or not. The question in my mind is whether there is any question about this man's authority under the statute and under the rules and regulations of the Board to put witnesses under oath. Mr. TOLAND. There is a question.

Now, here is what he said to this witness.

Mr. MURDOCK. Before we go on to that, then, I ask if you will point out for me, Mr. Fahy, the rules and regulations here that cover it. I would like to put that in. I read part of the statute. Now if there is a rule or regulation designated here why

Mr. FAHY (interposing). It is section 2 of article IV of the rules and regulations of April 27, 1936. Now I think they were in the prior rules, too, which were adopted originally in September 1935. Mr. MURDOCK. May I read this into the record, then? This is section 2 of the rules and regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, series 1, as amended, section 2 of article IV (reading):

Section 2. All examiners now or hereafter in the employ of the Board, or herewith designated by the Board as its agents:

(c) To have access to and the right to copy evidence and to administer oaths and affirmations in accordance with section 11, subsection 1, of the Act.

Mr. TOLAND. I would like now for the record, Mr. Fahy, at the appropriate time to have you advise me if it is the custom and practice of examiners of the National Labor Relations Board to swear witnesses when they interview them in the course of their investigations.

Now, as a typical example of what the witness, based upon his own exhibit, has done, I read as follows:

Roy Schaeffer and Ollie Davis will raise your right hand. Do you swear you are telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? We do.

Are the records you have produced the only records that are within the company union and that the union has and that there are no other records on file that have been perjured, either upon the advise of counsel or advice of the trustees, or any other officials but where you get your authority?

Mr. SCHAEFFER. There are no more than I am aware of. We endeavor to get everything, and as far as my knowledge is concerned this is all and nothing has been changed.

Mr. DAVID. My answer is the same; nothing has been changed.

You understood the question fully?

Yes.

I would like to take up also the witness's activity in connection with the Iowa Southern Utilities Co.

Did you investigate that case?

Mr. VOGT. Yes.

Mr. TOLAND. I show you a copy of a communication from yourself dated July 12, 1939, and ask you if you didn't dictate the same? Mr. VOGT. Yes. May I comment on it?

Mr. TOLAND. Yes; sure.

Mr. VOGT. Please. This was quite a complicated case. Originally we had an 8 (2) charge of the company-dominated union. That case

was settled by the company agreeing to disestablish that union. After that union was disestablished another union sprang up in its place. The utility workers in Burlington, Iowa, asked me at one time whether or not an appropriate unit could be established for the city of Burlington. I looked up some of the Board cases and found that it could. I told them there were cases on both sides. They said, "Well, all right, we want to then file a petition."

They filed a petition and the company and the union and myself conferred, and the company asked me to draw up the stipulation for consent election, which I did. They asked me then if they could have a little time to look it over. I told them "Yes." After they looked it over they decided that they couldn't agree to that unit, and I think you got a letter in their files indicating they would like to have a hearing.

Then in that intervening time, as I recall it, another petition—no; the utility workers said—

Well, we won't consent to any election if the company is going to hear it because we feel this present association is a violation of section 8 (2)

Mr. TOLAND. Which union said that?

Mr. VOGT. The utility workers.
Mr. TOLAND. The independent?
Mr. VOGT. No.

Mr. TOLAND. The C. I. O.?

Mr. VOGT. The C. I. O. was the utility workers' union, accused the independent union of being company dominated. I told them, "All right, if you have any evidence, present it and then there could be consolidation." Then in the meantime the independent union filed a petition and I informed the independent union of this other charge, and the Board couldn't very easily hold an election while this other charge was there, unless it was disposed of, because the Board could not very easily certify a union if the 8 (2) was present, in the presence of this charge. And I investigated; they asked me then to investigate, and I did, and in this memorandum of July 12 I informed the secretary of that union that I didn't think he had much of a case in the 8 (2) and asked him to withdraw.

Finally, a hearing was held; the Board ordered an election, and the independent union won that election.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, do you recall saying prior to this communication

Mr. VOGT (interposing). I didn't hear that.

Mr. TOLAND. I say, do you recall prior to this communication in the month of June writing to Mr. Wiener and saying (reading):

Your letter of May 23, 1939, certainly is not helping investigation of the 8 (2) charge.

The company union boys are covering up beautifully and if things do not break pretty soon we are going to certify a company-dominated union?

Do you remember making that statement?

Mr. VOGT. I must have made it. This is a memorandum from me to Wiener.

Mr. TOLAND. I offer it in evidence.

(Memorandum dated July 12, 1939, Re: Iowa Southern Utilities Co., was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1438," and is on file with the committee.)

218054-40-vol. 23-9

(Memorandum dated June 7, 1939, to Robert Wiener from H. Vogt, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1439," and is on file with the committee.)

Mr. VOGT. I think, though, in passing, as a matter of fact I don't know why it is easier to say a company union than to say independent union, and I think when we have interoffice communications we use that term; we don't always use it with that idea because unions when they talk to you hardly ever say independent unions; they always call it company unions. And I think we get in the habit of saying it is the same thing, and we shouldn't.

Mr. TOLAND. I would like to read the chronology briefly in this

case:

It is R-1456 and R-1457; Iowa Southern Utilities, R-171; petition filed by the
utility workers' organization committee on February 10 by the C. I. O.
On November 18 a petition sent to the Board by the independent union.
On March 31, 1939, a request for authorization of investigation and hearing.
On April 6, 1939, charges of 8 (2) violation against the company were filed.
On April 22, 1939, a hearing and investigation authorized.

And on July 15, petitioning union withdrew charges then pending.

July 31 to August 2 there was a hearing held by the Board.

And on September 22, 1939, a decision in direction of election.

On October 6 and 7, 1939, the election was held.

On October 9, 1939, a protest of the election by the C. I. O. telegraphed to the Board and formally filed under rule 17.

On October 26, 1939, the protest was withdrawn.

And on November 15, 1939, the independent union was certified.

Mr. VOGT. May I make further comment on that, since you have got that chronology. As an interesting sidelight-I don't mean to pat myself on the back, but the independent union there-Harry Charry, who heads up the independent union, told me personally the day of that election, "I thought you gave us the fairest break we ever got," and thanked me for it. And the C. I. O., as indicated in that chronology, thought that I had been too fair, and Harry Charry, president of the independent union.

Mr. TOLAND. I show you a communication dated the 25th day of October, 1939 bearing the signature of Mr. Wiener, a copy of letter from Mr. Robert J. Shaw, attorney at law, addressed to regional director, and ask you if you recall seeing either of those coinmunications, both of them found in the files of this case.

Mr. VOGT. Yes; I think I have seen both of these.

Mr. TOLAND. I offer them in evidence.

(Communication dated October 25, 1939, headed "Iowa Southern Utilities Co., XVIII-R-171, R-178," signed by Robert J. Wiener, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1440," and is on file with the committee.)

(Communication dated May 15, 1939, to Regional Director, Minneapolis, signed by Robert J. Shaw, was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1441," and is on file with the committee.)

Mr. MURDOCK. Along the line that you stated with reference to the company union there, Mr. Vogt, don't you find, or hasn't it been your experience, that whether it is the respondent, the C. I. O., the A. F. of L., or an independent union, that their attitude as to your procedure, their attitude as to your fairness or unfairness, is largely dependent on the outcome rather than what you actually do prior to the outcome?

Mr. VOGT. I think when we have two conflicting unions we are in a tough spot, so to speak, and whatever you do the other side wins, the other one says, "Well, you did this in their favor." I think you have sized the situation up right.

Mr. MURDOCK. It is very similar, is it not, to all things that we do in this life, that the winner always is for us and the loser is always against us, isn't that true?

Mr. VOGT. Generally.

Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Vogt, you also investigated, did you not, the Rath Packing Company case?

Mr. VOGT. I did; one of them.

Mr. TOLAND. C-262, charges filed October 13, 1938; charges filed section 8 (1), (2), (3).

Mr. VeGr. I think that case at the present time-I don't know whether it is in the courts or in the midst of negotiating, the Rath Packing case.

Mr. TOLAND. And did you interview witnesses and take statements in that case?

Mr. VOGT. Yes.

Mr. TOLAND. Is this your handwriting?

Mr. VOGT. I think so.

Mr. TOLAND. And do you recall taking those statements or receiving them?

Mr. VOGT. I think I did.

Mr. TOLAND. I offer in evidence document identified by the witness. (Twelve pages of question and answer material, bearing date October 23, 1939, and marked "Rath Packing Company," was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1442," and is on file with the committee.)

Mr. TOLAND. I also show you, Mr. Vogt, C. I. O. stationery being attached and ask you if you didn't use C. I. O. stationery in taking the statements of the witness, and also if you used C. I. O. stenographers. Mr. VOGT. Out of 13 pages I used three C. I. O. Evidently, I must have run out of paper.

Mr. TOLAND. Well, you did use them, did you not?

Mr. MURDOCK. I didn't get your statement there.

Mr. VOGT. Out of 13 pages that are here, 3 of them are on C. I. O. stationery, so I must have run out of paper.

Mr. MURDOCK. You should have gone out and bought some.

Mr. TOLAND. Is that your handwriting?

Mr. VOGT. Yes.

Mr. TOLAND. I offer in evidence document identified by the witness. (Six blue cards with pink memo sheet, dated October 22 and October 27, 1939, respectively, were received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1443," and are on file with the committee.)

Mr. TOLAND. What is on the back of the cards just identified?
Mr. VOGT. There again I must not have had any paper.

Mr. TOLAND. I didn't ask you that.

Mr. Chairman, can't I get a responsive answer?

The CHAIRMAN. I thought the witness answered the question.

Mr. TOLAND. No. I said, "What is on the back of the card that you just identified?" He said, "There again, I ran out of paper." Mr. VOGT. I say the application cards of the C. I. O.