Mr. BLOOM (interposing). If you want an opinion from me, I will be glad to give it to you.

Mr. TOLAND. I want this witness, who is a responsible official of this particular division, based upon his experience, to tell this committee whether he thinks the examination of informal files is proper or reprehensible.

Mr. BLOOM. I think it is proper.

Mr. TOLAND. That is all.

Mr. MURDOCK. You think it is proper?

Mr. BLOOM. Mr. Toland's question was limited, I assume, to the associate attorneys.

Mr. TOLAND. Anybody in your division.

Mr. BLOOM. Now wait a minute. Do you mean the trial examiner who heard the case?

Mr. TOLAND. I am talking about anybody that is assigned to this particular work.

Mr. BLOOM. What particular work?

Mr. TOLAND. Regardless of what his designation may be, anybody that is assigned to review a record and read an informal file and discuss with the man that heard the case his proposed intermediate report.

Mr. BLOOM. My answer to that is the same, I think, that it is proper. Mr. TOLAND. That it is perfectly proper?

Mr. BLOOм. I think so.

Mr. TOLAND. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all.

The next witness!

Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Farmer.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you been sworn?

Mr. FARMER. I have not.

TESTIMONY OF GUY FARMER, ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY, TRIAL EXAMINERS DIVISION, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, ARLINGTON, VA.

(The witness was duly sworn and testified as follows:)

Mr. TOLAND. Give the reporter your full name.

Mr. FARMER. Guy Farmer.

Mr. TOLAND. Where do you reside?

Mr. FARMER. 1801 Queen's Lane, Arlington, Va.

Mr. TOLAND. And what is your present business or occupation?

Mr. FARMER. I am an associate attorney in the trial examiners division of the National Labor Relations Board.

Mr. TOLAND. When were you appointed an employee of the National Labor Relations Board?

Mr. FARMER. I believe it was about July 1, 1938.

Mr. TOLAND. 1938?

Mr. FARMER. Yes, sir.

Mr. TOLAND. And where did you go to law school?

Mr. FARMER. I went to West Virginia University Law School and

to Oxford University, England.

Mr. TOLAND. When did you finish law school?

Mr. FARMER. I obtained an LL. B. degree in 1936.

Mr. TOLAND. When were you admitted to practice law?
Mr. FARMER. In 1936.

Mr. TOLAND. And prior to the time that you were appointed to the Board had you ever engaged in the active practice of the law? Mr. FARMER. For about 2 months' period prior to coming with the

Board.

Mr. TOLAND. Where was that?

Mr. FARMER. In Charleston, W. Va.

Mr. TOLAND. And were you with any law firm there?

Mr. FARMER. Yes, sir.

Mr. TOLAND. And it is a fact, is it not, that at the time you were appointed, on the 13th day of July 1938, your salary was $2,600 per annum?

Mr. FARMER. That is correct.

Mr. TOLAND. What is your present compensation?

Mr. FARMER. Thirty-two hundred per annum.

Mr. TOLAND. And when you were first appointed, what division were you assigned to?

Mr. FARMER. The review section, the review division.

Mr. TOLAND. How long were you an employee, or designated as an employee, of the review section of the National Labor Relations Board?

Mr. FARMER. I don't recall the exact date when I was transferred. I think it was about January 1, 1939, that I was transferred to the trial division of litigation-January 1, 1940.

Mr. TOLAND. And what division, what section of that division, were you assigned to?

Mr. FARMER. In the trial section.

Mr. TOLAND. Did you try any cases during the period you were assigned there?

Mr. FARMER. Yes, sir.

Mr. TOLAND. How many?

Mr. FARMER. Three cases I tried myself; one case I assisted in trying.

Mr. TOLAND. Were they R cases?

Mr. FARMER. Two of the cases were C cases, two R cases.

Mr. TOLAND. Where were the cases held?

Mr. FARMER. One case was in Dayton, Ohio; one case was in Charleston, W. Va.; one case was in Baltimore, Md.; and the other case was in the District of Columbia.

Mr. TOLAND. And about how long did all of those cases, approximately, take for hearing?

Mr. FARMER. For the actual hearing?

Mr. TOLAND. Yes.

Mr. FARMER. I Would say not more than 10 days.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, it is a fact, is it not, that during the period of time that you were assigned to the review division you did review cases and report them to your supervisors on the Board?

Mr. FARMER. That is true.

Mr. TOLAND. And is this a correct list of the cases that you worked on? (Reading:)

Goshen Rubber Co.

John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co.

Breeze Corp.

Picker X-Ray Corp.

Sanitary Refrigerator Co.

Kelley's Creek Colliery.

Mr. FARMER. I worked on those cases. I think I also worked on at least two additional cases.

Mr. TOLAND. Do you recall their names?

Mr. FARMER. One case was in San Antonio, Tex. I have forgotten the name.

Mr. TOLAND. Do you remember who it was that interviewed you when you came to the Board to apply for a position?

Mr. FARMER. I do.

Mr. TOLAND. Who?

Mr. FARMER. Thomas Emerson.

Mr. TOLAND. Do you know Mr. Emerson's handwriting?

Mr. FARMER. I do not. I have seen his initials, that is all.

Mr. TOLAND. Would you say that that was Mr. Emerson's handwriting (pointing)?

Mr FARMER. I don't know.

Mr. TOLAND. Did Mr. Fahy talk with you?

Mr. FARMER. Mr. Fahy did not talk with me.

Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer in evidence a pink memorandum that was found in the personnel file of the witness. It does not bear any signature at all. It reads:

Guy O. Farmer.

Nice looking young fellow.

I am in acord with that.

Has a very good record at West Virginia Law School. Not quite up to record, I would say, but still pretty good. Not aggressive, but will probably learn. Background in mining. No legal experience in labor field.

Worth considering.

(Pink memorandum without date or signature headed “Guy O. Farmer" was received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1670", and appears above.)

Mr. TOLAND. Would you tell the committee whether or not at any time before you were appointed as an employee of this Board you actively participated in any kind of a law case before any court in the United States?

Mr. FARMER. I did.

Mr. TOLAND. What kind of case?

Mr. FARMER. I defended one criminal case; I have tried two justice of the peace cases.

Mr. TOLAND. What kind of cases were they?

Mr. FARMER. One was a criminal case, the other was a civil action. Mr. TOLAND. For debt?

Mr. FARMER. Yes.

Mr. TOLAND. Was it one of those cases where you take judgment? Mr. FARMER. No; the case was tried.

Mr. TOLAND. The case was tried?

Mr. FARMER. It was contested.

Mr. TOLAND. Now, it is a fact, is it not, that you were assigned

to the trial examiners' division, and that you are now employed in that particular division?

Mr. FARMER. That is a fact.

Mr. TOLAND. Who was it assigned you to that division?

Mr. FARMER. I assumed the Board assigned me to that division.
Mr. TOLAND. I mean, who was it spoke to you about it?
Mr. FARMER. Who interviewed me for the position?

Mr. Pratt.

I think Mr. Bloom and Mr. Ringer were also present at the inter

view.

Mr. TOLAND. Would you tell the committee what was said at that first conference?

Mr. FARMER. Quite a lot was said. I might state in substance what Mr. Pratt said to me. One other applicant was present. Mr. Pratt merely stated that they were creating five new jobs in the trial examiners' division for the purpose of assisting him in reviewing the trial examiners' reports, and any other way in which he might wish to use us; that he didn't know what the exact nature of the job would be because it was a new undertaking and it would have to grow as time went on. He couldn't tell us what the exact nature of our duties would be, but we would more or less make our own job and do whatever he told us to do as it occurred to him to tell us to do it.

Mr. TOLAND. Were you here when Mr. Bloom testified?

Mr. FARMER. I was.

Mr. TOLAND. And you heard Mr. Bloom testify about the system that was in vogue, where trial examiners were assigned to review other trial examiners, that because of the reduction in appropriations that was discontinued, and five men were assigned?

Mr. FARMER. I heard his testimony.

Mr. TOLAND. Did you apply for a position in the trial examiners' division?

Mr. FARMER. I applied pursuant to a posting of five jobs of associate attorney.

Mr. TOLAND. And had you any indication at that time that in connection with the reduction of appropriation, you were on the skids in the review division?

Mr. FARMER. I was not in the review division at the time.

Mr. TOLAND. Or in the litigation division?

Mr. FARMER. I had indication to the contrary that I was not on the skids.

Mr. TOLAND. You had indication to the contrary?

Mr. FARMER. I did.

Mr. TOLAND. It is a fact, is it not, that you did take up your duties as an associate attorney in the trial examiner's division? Mr. FARMER. It is a fact; yes.

Mr. TOLAND. What was your salary that you were receiving prior to the first day you entered into your duties as an associate attorney in the trial examiner's division?

Mr. FARMER. Twenty-nine hundred dollars.

Mr. TOLAND. And as the result of the transfer you received an increase of $300, is that correct?

Mr. FARMER. That is correct.

Mr. TOLAND. It is a fact, is it not, that you did become attached and you are now attached to that division, and I wish you would

tell the committee what you have done since you have been assigned to the trial examiner's division, the nature of the work that you have done in connection wtih trial examiners' reports.

Mr. FARMER. Since being assigned to the trial examiner's division, I have been assigned by Mr. Pratt or his assistants to assist a number of trial examiners with their report. Pursuant to that assignment, I have been handed the file, including both formal and informal file, told to read the request for authorization in the informal file, and to read the record of the hearing. In some cases I have been told to read the record carefully and in other cases I have been told to go through the record more hurriedly.

I have been told to, and have consulted with trial examiners and made to them certain suggestions which I thought would aid them in getting out their reports, suggestions pertaining both to form and to substance. That is the nature of my duties.

Mr. TOLAND. And there came a time, did there not, when the case known as the S. S. Kress Company case was assigned to you? Mr. FARMER. I believe it is the S. H. Kress Company.

Mr. TOLAND. That is right, I beg your pardon.

Mr. FARMER. That is true.

Mr. TOLAND. And is it a fact that the files and the record were assigned to you before you ever met Mr. Kennedy or discussed the case with him?

Mr. FARMER. That is true.

Mr. TOLAND. And is it a fact that before you met or discussed the case with Mr. Kennedy, you had read the record and the informal files?

Mr. FARMER. That is true, and the draft intermediate report. Mr. TOLAND. And the draft intermediate report.

In that connection, Mr. Chairman, I would like to read excerpts from the informal file in this case that was in the custody and possession of this witness.

Do you have any recollection of the contents of the informal file right now?

Mr. FARMER. I do not. I might say that the only thing I read in the informal file, actually read, was the request for authorization. There are two informal files, I believe, because there were two separate cases which were consolidated for the purposes of hearing. I did not go through the entire informal file in either case, merely reading the request for authorization.

Mr. TOLAND. Did you read the master file in that case?
Mr. FARMER. I did not. I believe the master file

Mr. TOLAND (interposing). Where was the request for authorization?

Mr. FARMER. I am not sure whether it was in the so-called master file or the informal file. They are both informal files in that they are not a part of the record. I read what was called the request for authorization, but whether it was in the master file or informal file. I don't know.

Mr. TOLAND. If you read the request for authorization and it was in the master file, then you did read to that extent anyway the master file. Mr. FARMER. To that extent; yes.

Mr. TOLAND. I might say for the record the request for authorization