March 9, 1940: Respondent petitioned CCA, 8th, to review and set aside Decision and Order.

Aug. 9, 1938: Charges filed (III 667 (2))

January 18, 1939: Nathan Witt to Paul F. Broderick, Regional Director, asking that a report on case be transmitted to him covering details on progress of investigation, efforts to secure compliance, the Union's position and present status of case. (III 679 (3), Comm. Ex. 1353). January 21, 1939: Paul F. Broderick to Witt, asknowledging memo dated January 17, 1939, and giving the requested information. Broderick again points out the "Prime" importance of the case to the Union. (III 680, (1), Comm. Ex. 1354).

February 3, 1939: Witt to files stating that he called Acting Regional Director Broderick at Krivonos' suggestion asking that he sit in on all negotiations and make effort to include a provision in a stipulation to cover problem of successor company dominated union.

"He said he would work along these lines."

(III 682 (2), Comm. Ex. 1356) (Attached is Comm. Ex. 1357, being a pink memo refiling.)

February 3, 1939: F. G. K. (Krivonos) to Witt (III 682 (1, 2), Comm. Ex. 1358) Advising of talk with Elias Lieberman (Dubinsky's attorney) about Donnelly Garment Co. case, stating that;

"according to Lieberman, Senator Reed and the Company are feeling the union's boycott sufficiently to talk substantial settlement. The memo purportedly gives the position of the Company and discusses the union position on proposed settlement on question of 'a successor' inside organization."

August 9, 1938: Charges 8 (1) (2) (3) filed in ILGWU. (III 667 (2)). February 8, 1939: In the Regional Director's Request for authorization of Complaint, he states, that the case is important because (III 668, 672 (3, Comm. Ex. 1343):

1-Of prominence of James A. Reed, former US Senator who is husband of and attorney for president of Company.

2-Of personal interest of David Dubinsky.

3-Union has set aside $100,000 to organize plant.
4-Injunction suit pending in Circuit Court.
5-Number of employees envolved-1400.

March 29, 1939: Complaint authorized. (III 673 (B), Comm. Ex. 1344).
April 6, 1939: Complaint issued. (III 667 (2)).

April 7, 1939: Meyer Perlstein to Frederic F. Umhey (Comm. Ex. 1360, III 690 (2, 3)).

"You know the pressure we brought on Washington to issue the complaint as quickly as possible *

*

and that Witt had promised him he would act at once, but adds that the complaint had previously issued.

April 8, 1939: David Dubinsky to Witt, advising that he (Dubinsky) had been called as a witness in Donnelly case. Encloses a copy of a letter:

"I received today from Mr. Meyer Perlstein, our representative there, as I thought you should have this confidential memorandum."

April 12, 1939: Witt to Dubinsky, asknowledging receipt of Dubinsky's letter to Witt dated April 7, with enclosed copy of a letter from Perlstein to F. F. Umhey. (Comm. Ex. 1361, III 690 (2)).

April 22, 1939: Nicoson to Watts, Nicoson, specially assigned to work on this case, reports that one 8 (3) allegation is "fair", the other 8 (3):

"is perhaps without merit. However, I find myself in a position where I am compelled to keep the weak case in the complaint in order to have a favorable witness to prove my 8 (2) allegation. So far as I have been able to learn at present, the company has been exceedingly careful in its participation and domination. However, I am convinced that the evidence is there and it is only a matter of finding it." (III 675 (3), Comm. Ex. 1349).

April 26, 1939: Nicoson to Broderick, suggesting that to save time that a new complaint be issued instead of amending the former one. (III 676 (3), 677 (1), Comm. Ex. 1351).

April 27, 1939: New complaint issued.

(III 667 (2)).

Undated pink memo: Broderick called Board asking that he be permitted to testify for Union in an injunction case then pending. (III 677 (2), Comm. Ex. 1352).

May 1, 1939: Nicoson to Broderick, criticizing the Federal Court judge for injoining the ILGWU, which (the decision itself) demonstrates forcibly, in his mind, the fact of company domination of the Donnelly Garment Workers Union. (III 676 (2, 3), Comm. Ex. 1350).

May 5, 1939: Donnelly Garment Workers Union's petition for intervention allowed.

May 31, 1939: Daniel J. Leary to M. F. Halliday, denying that Board employees assisted ILGWU at Circuit Court trial of Injunction case in which the Donnelly Garment Co. was plaintiff and the ILGWU was defendant. The memo admits attendance at the trial but the only time did representatives of the Board confer with ILGWU attorney was to ask him for a piece of paper. (III 681 (3), Comm. Ex. 1355).

June 3, 1939: Malcolm F. Halliday to Daniel Leary, advising that evidence of alleged conspiracy be objected to at hearing before Trial Examiner Batten (Ex. 1355).

Attached to the foregoing memorandum is a reply to Leary from Halliday stating that Leary should ignore "irritating" answers filed by respondent which consist of matters "clearly beyond the scope of the hearing." (III 682 (1), idem.

June 3, 1939: Telegram from M. F. Halliday to Leary advising that matters raised by respondents answer are beyond scope of hearing and directing that Leary (Board attorney) object when "company offers evidence of alleged conspiracy" as immaterial. (III 682 (1) idem).

June 5-July 15, 1939: Hearings before Trial Examiner Batten. (III 667 (2)). July 15, 1939: New complaint amended. (III 667 (2)).

August 12, 1939: Madden and Leiserson directed Review Attorney N. Barr Miller to help the Trial Examiner with Intermediate Report. (III 694 (1), Comm. Ex. 1345).

October 7, 1939: Intermediate Report issued. Formal file. (III 667 (2)). October 12, 1939: Case transferred to Board.

October 19, 1939: Frankfurter to Witt, stating that when Miller was assigned to help trial examiner, the latter had tentatively drafted his Intermediate Report, but that changes were made as a result of their collaboration. (III 674 (2), Comm. Ex. 1346).

November 2, 1939: N. Barr Miller, Review Attorney to Geo. O. Pratt, Chief Trial Examiner. (III 674 (3), Comm. Ex. 1347).

January 3, 1940: Memo for oral argument by Miller, Review Attorney. (III 674 (2), 694 Comm. Ex. 1348).

January 9, 1940: Oral argument before Board on appeal from Intermediate Report, 8 (1) (2).

March 6, 1940: Decision and Order issued. Drafted by N. Barr Miller and finding 8 (1) (2) (3) violations. (Comm. Ex. 1359).

March 9, 1940: Respondent petition to CCA-8th to review and set aside Decision and order.

Present status: Pending before CCA-8th.

EXHIBIT NO. 1467

INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

To: Messrs. Madden, Smith, Leiserson, Witt, and Fahy
From: David J. Saposs, Chief Economist

Subject: Work Report

Attached is a copy of the work report of the Technical Service Division for the week ended July 6, 1940.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
TECHNICAL SERVICE DIVISION,
Washington, D. C., July 11, 1940.

Work report for week ending July 6, 1940

EMPLOYER RECORD ANALYSIS AND RELATED WORK UNDER SECTION 8 (3) OF THE ACT

BOARD RECORDS AND RELATED STUDIES

DATA ON JURISDICTION: UNDER SECTIONS 2 (3) AND (7) OF THE ACT.

Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. Witt: for issuance of com

STUDY OF LABOR RELATIONS: UNDER SECTIONS 8 AND 9 OF THE ACT.

Halliday of Litigation: for Began research on espionage activities. investigation.