But, for God's sake, don't send me any more silly notes like yours of September 20th. I'm sick to death of having you pass the buck to us! EMH: MK E. M. H. CC: Edwin S. Smith EXHIBIT NO. 1612-H INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Personal and Confidential. OCTOBER 14, 1938. To: Dr. J. Warren Madden. From: Edwin A. Elliott, Regional Director, 16th Region. MY DEAR DOCTOR MADDEN: Congressman Maury Maverick was a welcome visitor to our office a few days ago, and he is greatly concerned about the welfare of our Board and particularly is he fearful that there may be a great onslaught upon the appropriations for this next biennial. He said that he felt that the Board should have a strong lobby organization, in order to carry through its proposed budget. He said that he would be willing to come to Washington and spend a month or two there and, on the sideline, organize the forces necessary to pass an adequate budget for the Board. He said that he could not, of course, be on the Board's payroll but that he would ask the President to put him on the payroll of some other agency, probably in Secretary Ickes' department. We are giving you this information in order that we might have the advantage of Mr. Maverick's thought, and if there is something which you wish me to convey to him, please advise us. Maury is a genuine friend of the Board and of labor, and we are appreciative of his manifest interest in our own office. We shall be glad to hear from you if there is anything you wish us to do. The Board yesterday considered your memorandum of October 14 addressed to the Chairman. The Board is, of course, conscious of Maverick's friendship and his effective work on behalf of the Board in the past. However, at the present time the Board does not contemplate any activity along the lines set forth in your memorandum. I don't think there is much you can tell him except that the Board is making no such plans as discussed by him. nw.jcb DEAR MR. MADDEN: I am sending you memorandum of a very strange conference that I had with Homer Martin yesterday, and instead of telephoning to you last night, I decided to sleep on it and see whether I could get some idea as to his object in approaching me in this manner. I believe he was truthful when he said that Ford was willing to go along with him on the regimenting of the parts manufacturers. The action of the Ford Company in the sit-down strikes in 1937, and even as late as the Motor Products strike which we settled in this office last week, shows that it would be agreeable to such an arrangement, or any arrangement, in fact, which would insure the prompt delivery from its suppliers and no interruptions in such delivery through labor troubles. Bennett's statement in the News also bears out that conclusion I also felt confident that General Motors and Chrysler for the same reason would be willing to go along with the proposition. The history of the automotive industry shows that the "Big Three”, as Martin calls them, have not been very solicitous of the welfare of their suppliers when something turned up that would tend, or did, interfere with their production, but the reference to a prospective settlement of the Ford cases puzzled me. He said in his conversation that Mr. Ford would be willing to pay all of the back wages. I asked him about a cease and desist order, and he said that was a question which he could not answer. You may remember when I was in Washington last August that I said that I believed Harry Bennett was mixed up with Martin in the internal row of the U. A. W. A. This would seem to indicate that I was right. I do not think, Mr. Madden, that you should call me into Washington in the event that you decide to talk to Martin and Gillespie. As I told Martin, this is strictly a Board matter and entirely out of my hands, and as a consequence I don't see why I should be in on such a conference. I told him also that the Board would not compromise on a decision it had issued but I believed that it would be perfectly willing to settle these cases on the basis of the decision. If you were to meet with Martin and Gillespie I certainly would, in your place, demand Gillespie's authority to treat for the Ford Company. I feel certain he has no such authority, although Martin said he was called in and told, in his presence, that such authority was given him. I am passing this on to you for what it is worth. I feel that there is a plan under way to organize the parts manufacturers, because I can see the benefit to the automotive manufacturers in such a move. I also feel quite certain that Ford would be glad to be relieved of the stigma attached to the Board's decisions in the cases it has heard, but I cannot for a moment believe that Henry Ford would attain this end by a complete compliance with the orders of the Board. Yours truly, FHB/fh FRANK H. BOWEN, Frank H. Bowen, Regional Director. MEMORANDUM OF A CONFERENCE BETWEEN HOMER MARTIN AND FRANK H. BOWEN, 10/28/38 Mr. Martin called at this office on appointment at 4:30 and remained until shortly after 6:00 o'clock P. M. He immediately on arrival told me that he had arranged with the "Big Three", as he expressed it, of the automobile industry, meaning Ford, General Motors and Chrysler, which would result in contracts with all of the parts and equipment manufacturers with the union, paying a minimum wage of 656 an hour, no more than 8 hours of work in any one day, a 40-hour week, time and a half for Saturday and double time for Sundays and holidays. He said that there would be 600 wage classifications based on the different operations and that the matter was close to completion of the contracts. I asked him whether he had been dealing with the Parts Manufacturers' Association and he replied he had not, but told me that he had the assurance from the "Big Three" that they would force the acceptance of the contract by the manufacturers, believing that it would insure them immunity from worry on deliveries due to the fact that these contracts are to be made with the International, and the International is to appoint the bargaining committees. He said that each committee-man would have his appointment directly from Martin's office so that in the event of any difficulty caused by such committee-man, he could be immediately removed. He said that this was the real reason for his visit to Ford, and that Ford saw the point immediately and said he would cooperate with him to the fullest xtent. He told me he had an appointment with Mr. Sloan, and that the brokerage firm handling the Chrysler Corporation affairs in New York had directed Mr. Keller to also receive him. I asked him what assurance he had that General Motors and Chrysler would go along in this matter with Ford and he said that he had already talked it over with people sufficiently high in both organizations to insure that statement. He said that he had issued a statement en this subject to the evening papers, and the statement as published in the Detroit News is attached hereto. He said that he had a long talk with Bennett of the Ford Company and forty-five minutes with Ford. After speaking for a considerable time about the situation in the U. A. W. A.— stating that he had control and would continue control, that he had no idea of taking the organization, out of the C. I. O. but if so it would be tried as an dependent organization for a time at least, that there would be no immediate allation with the A. F. of L.; on the subject of communists in the organization le said that they would gradually be eliminated but he did not propose to do anything in a hurry; he explained the action of his executive board by stating that he did not interfere with Mr. Murray and Mr. Hillman, explaining the complete situation as they saw it, but that also he had lost the executive board for his side for the time being, yet he controlled the rank and file-I knew there was something that he had not mentioned, so I listened intently to all he had to say. He told me in strict confidence that he had talked the matter of settling the Ford cases before the Board with Ford and Bennett and that John Gillespie had been designated by them in his presence to act for them. He said that he Wanted to make an appointment with me to talk over the matter with him and Gillespie, and I told him that as far as the Detroit case was concerned it was ont of the hands of this office and the only approach to a matter of this kind would have to be to the Board. He then stated that he did not desire at this time to place the matter squarely before the Board, but I told him that I would not act in any way without the full knowledge and direction of the Board. He then decided that he would like to restrict such information for the present to the Chairman, and suggested that I contact the Chairman with the view to making an appointment with him and Gillespie for the middle of the week, provided I were to accompany them. I asked him what his object was in having me present, and he said that both Ford and Bennett expressed great confidence in my fairness and he felt that I could be of service. I asked him why this sudden change on the part of the leaders of the automotive industry toward the union and himself, and he explained to me it was more because of him personally and him as the President of the union, etc. He said they felt that his leadership would guarantee to them fair treatment. He said they appreciated the fact that he had come out strongly against the Violation of any contract, that he had pronounced strongly against unauthorized strikes, that he had publicly stated his intention of removing all communists from the union, and more than all else, because he had taken such a decided and against the domination of John L. Lewis. This is in the main the gist of our conversation. would get in touch with the Chairman. I told him finally that I F. H. B. Mr. Bowen just talked to me on the phone as follows: "I talked to Mr. Smith yesterday relative to a confidential letter that I sent the Chairman about that situation (Ford) Martin is after me to know whether I am going down to Washington with him tomorrow and I have got To know pretty soon as the train leaves at 5:15. There is evidence of Ford propaganda right along. I had a long conversation with an editor of Readers Digest, who came out to explore the possible truth or fiction of a story that had been submitted to them which was of a Lighly laudatory character and concerned the Liberty Legion-he seemed surprised that a writer of the calibre who wrote this story-name I do not know— should have lent himself to a thing of this kind. "I have the thought they are going to start in a sort of backfire-being burt by these hearings and I don't know just how far they are willing to go toward making a settlement-I have no faith in them at all. "Martin is trying to use it as an excuse for being absent from the meeting of the Executive Committee for conference in Washington tomorrow and he would say he was talking over a very important matter with the Chairman and it was so important that I had been ordered into Washington and that his representative is of course with him—just his excuse. "I don't want to come down and I don't think I should, but I promised Martin that I would present the matter to the Board and now Martin is on my neck. "Would you let me know by phone what Mr. Madden wants me to do?" EXHIBIT NO. 1612-J INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATION NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD To: Mr. Witt, Mr. Emerson. W. P. DECEMBER 20, 1938. You will just have to figure out what you think I ought to say about our affairs at the symposium, and let me have an outline as soon as possible. J. W. M. DECEMBER 23, 1938. To: J. Warren Madden, Chairman. I am sending you herewith my random thoughts on the subjects we discussed Wednesday afternoon. nw:jcb Encl. SOME PROBLEMS OF PROCEDURE ARISING UNDER THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT 1. SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES Probably more than any other agency, speedy disposition of cases is essential if the purposes of the Act are to be effectuated. Consequently, a central problem which faces the Board in making procedural rules is to frame them in such a way as will assist in speedy determinations and which will still not deny to the parties the elements of a fair hearing. In the experience of the Board, many specific problems serve to illustrate this thesis. For example, in drafting the Rules originally, we were faced with the problem as to whether or not we should provide for an Intermediate Report after hearing in a 9 (c) proceeding. If we thought only in terms of giving the parties all the possible procedural protection we could give them, we would have provided for an Intermediate Report, Exceptions, etc. However, another central objective was to certify representatives as speedily as possible so that the question concerning representation could be settled before a dispute broke out. Inasmuch as the statute clearly does not require an Intermediate Report, and inasmuch as no constitutional issues seem to be involved, we decided not to provide for Intermediate Reports in R cases. In this kind of a situation, it seemed to us that the additional procedural safeguard had to yield to the other objective-that of speed. As for the elements of a fair hearing, we felt that the rights of the parties were sufficiently safeguarded by Article III, Section 8 which provides for briefs and oral arguments. A further safeguard is the fact that the 9 (c) record would receive an additional review in any subsequent 8 (5) proceeding. Another problem that had arisen in R cases was whether the Trial Examiner should issue an Intermediate Report after hearing on objections to the Regional Director's Intermediate Report upon Secret Ballot. For similar reasons as thus outlined above, we decided not to provide for an Intermediate Report at this point. With respect to the C cases, the approach outlined above must be kept in mind at every stage of the proceeding when we act on motions for continuances, extensions of time, etc. If the Board handled all such motions as a matter of routine, it would soon find that its decisions were delayed to such a point as to become meaningless. We are constantly deluged with motions of this kind at every stage. To list only some of the points along the line at which they arise, we have the following: 1. Answer: Motion for extension of time within which to answer. 2. Field Hearing: Motion for continuance. 3. Exceptions: Motion to extend time within which to file. 4. Brief: Motion to extend time within which to file. 5. Oral Argument before Board: Motion for postponement. 6. At any stage after field hearing: Motions to reopen the record for one purpose or another. The Board would like, of course, to be able to grant motions whenever they are made on apparent good grounds and in good faith. However, if it did so as a matter of course, it would soon find that it was really throwing away its cases. 2. PROBLEMS OF EVIDENCE The Act provides that in proceedings before the Board "the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be controlling" (Section 10 (b)). The Board's problem in applying this provision is basically different than that faced by most other agencies operating under statutes with such a provision. This basic difference arises out of the fact that at least 90%, if not more, of the witnesses in Board proceedings are workers out of the plants who haven't had the benefits of a formal education. This necessarily gives rise to many problems. For example, there is the problem of leading questions. If the rule concerning leading questions were applied strictly in Board proceedings, it would often be impossible to elicit all the facts. Another problem is the problem of the hearsay rule. As a general proposition, it is fair to conclude that educated people are sophisticated enough to handle rumors intelligently, while uneducated people are more susceptible of being influenced by rumors. Any person with experience in labor relations knows that working forces are easily stirred up by all sorts of rumors, the truth of which may affect their jobs or their conditions of employment in serious ways. A frequent type of rumor in Board cases is the rumor that the employer will shut down the plant if the men organize, or if they organize into a particular type of union, or if they refuse to join a particular type of union. Our experience shows that if an employer wishes to intimidate his workers with this kind of a threat, he rarely communicates it to them directly. Instead the threat arises from no one knows where and finally communicates itself to the working force. Since such threats have powerful effects, it is important for the Board to adduce all possible testimony with respect to their circulation. If, for example, half of the workers in a plant have heard and believed such rumors, it throws significant light on their conduct even though it may be impossible to connect the employer with the rumor. In connection with the hearsay rule, it should be stated in passing, that despite the fact that the Board feels that it is often necessary to admit hearsay testimony if the truth is to be reached, an examination of the Board's cases will disclose that the Board has never made essential findings which are based merely on hearsay. The fact that the Trial Examiners may often admit hearsy evidence, does not mean that the Board will base its findings on hearsay. Generally speaking, the Board uses hearsay testimony for the purpose of throwing light on other events with respect to which there is direct testimony. A similar problem is that raised by the rules of evidence concerning documentary proof. We all know that union membership and other records are rarely kept in such perfect shape as are corporate records, generally speaking. If whenever union records become relevant and are otherwise admissible, the Board were to impose the strict rules of evidence, we would find that we would be foreclosing ourselves from arriving at the truth of the matter. This, of course, may be just as hurtful to the employer as to the union, since the facts to be proved from the records are as often to his advantage as they are to the union. 3. PROBLEMS OF PLEADING The Consolidated Edison decision points to a problem of pleading which has confronted the Board from the beginning of its work. The problem may be stated in this fashion: Section 10 (c) of the Act empowers the Board to issue cease-and-desist orders and also contains the provisions requiring "such affirmative action * as will effectuate the policies of this Act." Is the Board required to plead the possible remedies under this provision? (There is usu |