say that their national officials complain bitterly about things in instances here they are not complaining, but are rather pleased with the action the Board as taken. I have received nothing but pleasant words from the local officials. The Seagram Company established a large branch in Louisville early in 1937. t is a modern plant and was designed for experimentation as well as for ordinary roduction. At the outset great difficulty was encountered in obtaining experi-nced and satisfactory personnel. When the plant was first opened it embarked pon the usual anti-union policy, had a company union, and cowed the men. After the upholding of the Act a new plant manager was stationed in the plant, vho broke up the company union voluntarily, without any complaint on our part r upon the part of the union. In addition, there is no evidence of any sort that Fince the advent of the new manager there have been any illegal activities.

Around June the new manager decided to use the Louisville modern plant as a training school for future executives, and contracted with certain universities n the vicinity—for example, the University of Louisville, Antioch College, Uniersity of Cincinnati, etc.-to furnish the plant with cooperative students. These tudents worked two weeks and went to school two weeks. They displaced certain of the old-time men on the more skilled jobs. For example, the entire fire room was given over to these students. The employees whose jobs were thus filled were placed in other positions throughout the plant.

A campaign of unionization began about the same time as the cooperative plan was inaugurated. This was not unusual, as all the distilleries in Louisville were Leing unionized at that time. Later on in the year a slump hit the distillery business and many men were let out of their jobs. The company retained the college students and laid off those whom they replaced. A thorough check of those laid off hows that the percentage of union men amongst the laid-off men was not any greater than the percentage of union men in the plant, if the college men were excluded. There is no evidence whatever that the men who were laid off were very active in the union.

We studied the universities' records and could find nothing suspicious there; in fact, the deans were much upset that their universities might be engaged in a controversy of this sort. If it were not for the fact that the college men had taken The place of the union men laid off, there would be absolutely no ground for a complaint. The dean of the University of Cincinnati, who is very liberal, withdrew the students who had been placed in Seagrams, but told me that he was doing it because of the policy of the University never to permit cooperative students to replace workers who needed the work rather than because of alleged union dis<<rimination.

The field examiner could not obtain any sort of compliance in the field, and I held two conferences in Cincinnati with the company and union representatives. The company agreed at the second conference to permit the union to furnish them with any additional help when needed, except in the jobs where the company was using cooperative students. This was not a mere gesture, as last week the company notified the union that eight men were required and the union was thus permitted to furnish eight of its members with reemployment, while the nonunion men who had been laid off were not given any consideration.

The company is perfectly willing to post the usual compliance notices and at the last conferences stated that they would be willing to bargain with the union on behalf of its members, and would bargain with the union as the exclusive bargaining agent any time it represented a majority. The union was not satisfied, and feels that it may be possible for us to get more men back to work. On the other hand, the president of the Kentucky State Federation of Labor told me yesterday that he felt we had done quite well to get as much as we had.

This is not the sort of a case, in my opinion, that needs a trial, but rather is one in which patient and painstaking conferences should be held, in order to be assured that there is no discrimination in the future and that the union men are given their rights.

It is interesting to note that several of the cooperative students have already made arrangements to take their places permanently on the Seagram staff when the next college term is over in factories other than Louisville.

It is also sad to note that the company presented both the union and the undersigned with a case of rare old whiskey for Christmas. The union, fortunately, had no rule such as prevails in the Board, and accepted the gift. We were forced to return ours, but I did not think that the rule of the Board prevented me from sampling some given to the union officials.

Sincerely,

PGP-m.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

LOUISVILLE, KY., March 19, 1978

To: Mr. Phillips.

From: Slyer.

Subject: Seagrams, Louisville, C-492. Final Report on case.
Dismiss, charges satisfied, and withdrawn.

Recommendation.

Statement of case. On Oct. 27, 1937, International Brotherhood of Fren and Oilers, Local 320, here-in called the Firemen and Oilers, filed a charge w the regional director, ninth region, Cincinnati, Ohio, alleging that Joseph E Seagrams and Sons, Co., Inc., Louisville Ky., herein called the company, h:1 violated sec 8 1 and 3 of the Act in that on various dates during July. A S and October 1937 the company had discharged 16 employes of the power pl. because of their membership in the Firemens and Oilers union, and non uis men had been employed to take their places, mostly college co-op students.

On Nov. 30, 1937, Federal Labor Union No. 20560, A F of L by J. T. Woodware filed a charge with the above regional director, alleging that, the company bi violated section 8 1 & 3 of the Act, in that, on various June thru November 1957 had discharged 3 men, because of their membership in the Union 20560, and non-union men had been employed in their places, mostly college Co-OP stude ** The Business of the Company. See attached statement.

The union claims that their activity in April 1937 resulted in having abst 85% of the employes enrolled and a contract was being prepared to be presented the company, when the plant closed in June, seasonal closing. When the pia re opened about Oct 1st 1937 the former employes were not taken back.

The unfair labor practices. Careful investigation developed that the history of this plant and others owned by the company had not been favorable to Unica labor, and had discriminated against them, under the new management, obe Perchaskie, manager of one of the Louisville plants, was active in having the foremen interview the men who were then working at the plant, (after October 1937) to find out who did belong to the union. One Eikler chief engineer, a hold over from the old management, had been active in threats and question” g the members of the Firemen and Oilers as to membership in the union.

The defense of the company. The company claims, they are trying to operate the plants on an exact scientific basis, that each man should have a high degrHE of scientific training and knowledge in his work, and that when the company employs him, they expect to start him at the bottom, and have him acquire the practical knowledge, so that he will know, not only, WHY thinks are done a certain way, BUT HOW they are done, also, and for that reason, they decided to man the Louisville Plant with college trained men, who could work thei way up thru the various jobs to higher positions. The company deny any discrimination against the employes for their union membership, on the contrary the company states they are in favor.

Unfair list. About the middle of January the A F of L caused to be issued notice to all Central Labor Bodies, State and Local Labor bodies, an un-fair Labr practice, Bulletin, setting forth, among other things, that Seagrams Ine was unfair to organized labor, and urging an 'We Don't Patronize' campaign. The result was almost immediate, sales dropped off, and an official of the company approached A F of L representative Woodward, for information, as to the matter.

This pressure and the ever constricting investigation of the Board, which was gradually turning up facts to support the charge, evidently caused the company to enter into negotiations with the unions.

Conclusion. The unions have succeeded in getting the company to take back most of the men, they have agreed with the company that a certain number of the employes shall be college men whom the company selects, for officer training material, the company has entered into an agreement with the firemen and oilers, for their three plants, and have agreed to enter into an agreement with the Federal Union, for the distillery workers, at their three plants, as to wages, hours and working conditions; the unions have been requested to furnish the Board with copies of such agreements (per letter attached).

Recommendation. Dismiss.

The Seagraves Corporation:

JUNE 18, 1937.

Ir. G. GEORGE DENUCCI,

Columbus Federation of Labor,

58 East Gay Street, Columbus, Ohio.

e The Seagrave Corporation and United Automobile Workers of America, IX-C-66.

DEAR GEORGE: Enclosed find copy of Trial Examiner's Report in the above aptioned matter. I do hope it brings results. I think some of it should make ry good stuff for the newspapers.

I am sorry the Columbus cases have not been attended to as they should have een by the boys and I will personally look into the matter myself. I will see hat someone gets there the very early part of next week with instructions to lean them up promptly.

Cordially,

PGP GF.

Co: Mr. Charles M. Ryan, 7th Region.
From: Philip G. Phillips, Ninth Region.
Subject: Seagraves Corporation.

PHILIP G. PHILLIPS, Regional Director.

JANUARY 6, 1939.

Thanks lots for your charge against Seagraves. We will get right to work on Et and you will hear from us shortly.

You may recall we originally had a case against Seagraves, issued a complaint, and lost it. I certainly would like to get these babies because they have in the past violated the law.

GENTLEMEN: This is to advise you that the charge in the above matter has been withdrawn without prejudice by the charging party. Further action in the above matter is not contemplated by this office at this time.

Very truly yours,

PHILIP G. PHILLIPS, Regional Director.

mr.

Sorg Paper Company:

To: Ronald Stevenson, 120 North St. Clair, Dayton, Ohio.
From: Ninth Region.

Subject: Sorg Paper Company, IX-C-945.

MAY 22, 1939.

Harry Doll called and stated that Thompson has more evidence in the Sorg case. Next time you go through there contact him and see what it is.

I am inclined to agree that certainly on what the union has presented, there is

nothing we can do.

PGP: RSM: SP.

PHILIP G. PHILLIPS, Regional Director.

JULY 5, 1939.

To: Mr. R. D. Stevenson.

From: R. S. Macke,

Subject: Sorg Paper Company.

Mr. Phillips suggested before he left that you try to obtain a withdrawal from Harry Doll in the Sorg case. I have gone through the file with him and it does not seem as if there is any basis for the union's claim.

RSM: mr.

To: Ronald Stevenson Office.

From: R. S. Macke.

AUGUST 22, 1939

Subject: Sorg Paper Company.

Before he left, Mr. Phillips told me that he had talked with you with regard to having a conference with Harry Doll. Will you please see Harry Doll at your first opportunity and find out what can be done about the case.

gf.

ARBITRATION ACTIVITIES

AUGUST 31, 1:38

To: Mr. Leonard Brin, Hermitage, Louisville.

From: Philip G. Phillips.

Incidentally, I will be in Huntington on Friday, as I am acting as an arbitrator in the Standard Ultramarine set up.

President, Cincinnati Newspaper Guild, c/o The Cincinnati Post, Cincinnati, Ohio. GENTLEMEN: I attach hereto my decision on the interpretation of the contract. When I was not quite as bald as I am now I learned that it is very bad practice for arbitrators to give their reasons. The winner always figures how much better a report he could have written on the same thing, and the loser is always certain that the arbitrator was screwy in his logic. You asked, however, that I do so. I do se Very truly yours,

PGP
GF

CC to Mr. Carl Groat, Editor The Cincinnati Post.
Mr. George Bidinger, % The Cincinnati Post.

PHILIP G. PHILLIPS

IN THE MATTER OF THE CINCINNATI POST AND CINCINNATI NEWSPAPER GUILD A contract entered into in 1938 between the Cincinnati Newspaper Guild and the Cincinnati Post provided “all employees will be granted reasonable sick leave, in accordance with past practices." A similar clause existed in a contract between the same parties in 1937. The latter contract covered only editorial employees, the present contract covers, in addition to editorial employees, employees in other departments of the paper. Both contracts provided for a five-day week and employees are customarily assigned a regular day of the week for their "day off " The five-day week was not in effect on the paper until the particular group of employees was covered by the contract. Until that time the six-day week was customary.

The question submitted for determination is whether an employee who is sick for one or more days in the week must make up the time which he was ill on his "off day."

The possible hardship on the company, or the pleasure of an individual employee enjoying his "day off," factors argued by the contending parties, cannot be considered in interpreting a contract which, after all, must govern the relationship of the parties. If contracts could be violated or refused enforcement by weighing business or visceral factors there would be little point in signing them. The argument of the company that it is entitled to as full a week's time as is possible. or the Guild's that a full week means a week without the "off day," are rejected as question begging.

The precise language of the contract is not overly clear. It is difficult to see how "past practices” could refer to events transpiring before 1937 because there was no five-day week before the contract was signed and no possible way that the question could ever have been raised.

In 1938 when the present contract was signed there was the past practice of a year when employees had not been required to make up sick leave. From a purely legalistic viewpoint that is the only thing to which “past practices" could refer in the 1938 contract and if I were not a lawyer I doubtless would adopt a legalistic view and decide accordingly.

On the other hand if the word "past practices did not refer to the only past practices that were in existence, it seems reasonable to say that the clause meant what the parties themselves interpreted it to mean. The best evidence of interpretation can be found in the action of the parties. A practice of a year and a half cannot be easily disregarded. Certainly the company cannot be heard now to say that it did not think the words meant exactly what it permitted them to mean over this time. The company is chargeable with the knowledge of what it, through its agents, did. If either the Guild or the company could continue for such a long time to carry out a certain practice apparently under the contract, and then be heard to argue that the contract meant otherwise, or to claim lack of knowledge of what has been going on, again apparently under the contract, the very security and certainty which contracts try to achieve would be lost by constant claims for changes.

I do not think, therefore, that the time lost by employees because of sickness should be required to be made up. I may say parenthetically that it is just as likely to argue that sick leave should come off of vacations or time allowances as to be deducted as here required. For this obviously no one is contending. I recognize at times there may be hardships on the company caused by them being required to shift employees to take the places of those that are ill and having no one then available on the ill persons' “day off". Purely in a mediatory capacity I may say that if such a situation arose the company ought to immediately take the matter up with the proper Guild committee whom I feel, from past experience, would be happy to work out a solution with the management in any particular case.

Respectfully submitted,

PHILIP G. PHILLIPS.

MAY 22, 1939.

To: Mr. Wagner, Charleston.
From: P. G. P.

Subject: Ohio Valley Bus Arbitration.

I have already appointed Professor Ellsworth of the University of Cincinnati as the arbitrator. In fact, it was one of the first things I took care of when I came home and I would have notified you sooner but I have been simply swamped. I notified Easton and I felt he would be after you to find out who he was. He is starting hearings next Friday and I think he will be as fair as fair can be. I would like, the next time you are in, to discuss the Ultramarine arbitrations with you. I don't want to go haywire on it and would like to have a bit of outside assistance. Marshall has not as yet sent in the transcript and I therefore am writing him for it. They are funny cases, to say the least, and never should have been submitted.

gf

To: Mr. Brin Harlan,
From: P. G. P.

Subject: Harlan County.

JUNE 14, 1939.

Due to the filing of several of the 8 (5) charges, the Board has decided to permit me to try to mediate the entire situation. This information should be kept strictly confidential and I would like you to be thinking about the best way to do it. I got a very conciliatory letter from the attorney for High Splint and Coleman, who is representing Clover Fork, likewise wrote a letter which isn't so bad.

I would like your ideas on the subject and please be thinking it over for discussion this weekend as I hope to get to work very early next week.

gf.