Mr. Pratt spoke to me about it and said that he felt that it was essential that I go over the record again, make detailed notes, and then sit down with himself and Mr. Davidson. He felt that this was important, so that Mr. Davidson would know that any opinions I had concerning the case were based upon the record and his intermediate report and there were no personal matters involved at all. I fell in with his suggestion quite naturally, and did make a detailed analysis of the record. This was sometime in the latter part of January, as I recall it. I know definitely that one Saturday afternoon I dictated a complete analysis of the case into the Ediphone and left the records to be typed up the following week. The next day, which was Sunday, I discovered that I had the flu, along with a lot of other people in Washington, and, in fact, I didn't come back to work for about 3 weeks. During that period I was quite ill.

About the early part of February-I think about the 5th or 6th-I received a communication from Mr. Davidson which I should like to read or have in the record.

Mr. FAHY. Suppose you read it.

Mr. BLOOM. Very well. This communication was received by me at my home, and the envelope on the outside contains the following language: "Frank Bloom, Esq., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C." A line is drawn through the words "National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C." and underneath is written, "209 Spruce Avenue, Takoma Park, Maryland," and then along the lower left-hand part of the envelope, "Please forward to home." I might say this letter was directed to me at the Board and this is in Mr. Davidson's handwriting, except the "209 Spruce Avenue, Takoma Park, Maryland," which is in the handwriting of my secretary. I received this on about the 5th or 6th. The letter, which is entirely in Mr. Davidson's handwriting, reads:

433 LINCOLN AVENUE, ORANGE, N. J., February 3, 1940.

DEAR FRANK: Prior to the conference yesterday I did not know that you were suffering from anything worse than a bad cold. I am very sorry to hear that you have been so ill.

Here are my very best wishes for a quick and happy recovery. Regards to Mrs. Bloom.

Sincerely yours,

MAPES DAVIDSON.

P. S.-I am en route to Maynard, Mass. Am sending this to the Board because I don't know your home address.

Mr. FAHY. I would like to file the original envelope and letter as an exhibit and ask they be printed.

(The letter and envelope addressed to Frank Bloom, Esq., dated February 3, 1940, were received in evidence, marked "N. L. R. B. Exhibit No. 254," and appears above.)

Mr. FAHY. What was your feeling upon receipt of this with regard to these prior difficulties with Mr. Davidson?

Mr. BLOOM. Naturally, I was very much pleased when I received this, because I felt that Mr. Davidson had come around to the feeling that Mr. Pratt and I had, that any opinions I had had about the Weyerhauser case were based upon the record and that there was nothing personal about the matter at all. In fact, when I returned to work-I think it was about the middle or possibly the 17th or 18th of February-Mr. Davidson was in the office and I looked him

up and thanked him for his sending the note, for thinking of me at that time, and we chatted very amicably for 10 or 15 minutes, talking about, oh, most anything, and I was of the opinion at that time that the sentiments he had expressed to Mr. Pratt in December and which he testified about here, had completely disappeared. Mr. FAHY. Mr. Bloom, did the Board subsequently decide the Weyerhauser case?

Mr. BLOOM. Yes; the Board did decide the Weyerhauser case.
Mr. FAHY. And reinstated the man?

Mr. BLOOM. The Board did find a violation and ordered the discharged employee be reinstated.

Mr. FAHY. Turning to another matter, you recall Mr. Davidson testified about the meeting of the trial examiners at which Dr. Saposs gave a talk. Did you arrange that meeting?

Mr. BLOOM. Yes; I did. I believe that was sometime during the first 2 weeks in March of this year. Mr. Pratt was out of the city and I was the acting chief trial examiner. Mr. Ringer was also there, but I had been appointed as the acting chief trial examiner.

Mr. FAHY. Mr. Davidson testified on page 442, volume III, that the day before the meeting you came rushing in the room where he was working and stated, "Boys, we have got a real treat for tomorrow. We are going to hear a lecture from our dear old friend, Dr. Saposs, on company unionism." Did you so state?

Mr. BLOOM. No; I didn't make any statement at all like that. That sounds to me a great deal like Mr. Davidson and not at all like myself. Mr. Davidson would talk that way. I don't think I ever have.

Mr. FAHY. Did you attend the meeting at which Mr. Saposs talked to the trial examiners?

Mr. BLOOM. Yes; I did. That was the Friday of that week, I think it was probably the 15th.

Mr. FAHY. And you heard what he said?

Mr. BLOOM. I heard what Mr. Saposs said.

Mr. FAHY. Mr. Davidson testified on page 442, volume III,2 that "Saposs' remarks constituted a plain and open invitation to sabotage every American conception of justice and fair play." Do Do you think that is correct?

Mr. BLOOM. No; I heartily disagree with that statement of Mr. Davidson's. What Mr. Saposs did talk about was based pretty much on material which is part of a Board decision. That is the pamphlet issued several years ago by the Board under the title "Governmental Protection of Labor's Right to Organize." In the decision of the Board in the first volume, I believe it is Crucible Steel decision, the Board incorporated that as part of its decision, although it was not set forth in the volume itself. And the greater portion of what Saposs spoke about that Friday was taken out of that decision itself, out of that pamphlet that I have referred to.

Mr. FAHY. And that dealt primarily, did it not, with the background as it bears on the question of company interference and domination?

1 Indicates reference to verbatim transcript of committee proceedings, April 26, 1940. * Idem.

Mr. BLOOM. That is quite correct. Mr. Saposs stressed that irrespective of what ultimate findings a trial examiner or the Board might make in a case, he felt that certain types of evidence were helpful in determining and in arriving at those facts. A number of the trial examiners who appeared there that Friday entered into somewhat lengthy discussion with Mr. Saposs, expressing a different opinion as to the interpretation of some of the facts, which is quite normal and I believe helpful for adult discussion.

Mr. FAHY. Now, turning to the events leading up to Mr. Davidson's termination of services with the Board, I wish you would explain to the committee what you know about the circumstances preceding his termination of employment.

Mr. BLOOM. Shortly after I returned to work after I was ill, Mr. Pratt and Mr. Ringer and I were talking over the work situation. By reason of the fact that a number of the trial examiners who had been doing reviewing work had been sent out to hear cases, we were confronted with a possible backlog in our department, which of course we wanted to avoid. The question came up as to whom we could possibly use to take the places of certain of the trial examiners, such as Mr. Denham, Mr. Bokat, and I believe, Mr. Raphael and one or two others. I suggested that I thought Mr. Davidson might do very well at that work because he did work very rapidly. Mr. Pratt had previously during this conference expressed considerable dissatisfaction with Mr. Davidson's work, and I said at the time that I felt that if he were assigned to doing this review work where he would of necessity go over the records and reports of the men whom we considered to be the better trial examiners, that he would probably be benefited by that. Mr. Pratt and Mr. Ringer thought that the suggestion was good, and Mr. Pratt directed Mr. Davidson to report to Washington.

It is my recollection that he came to Washington, probably the last week or so of February, the 25th or 26th, and since he was to do this work more or less under my direction, Mr. Pratt asked me if I would speak to him and tell him the nature of his duties. When Mr. Davidson came to the city I talked to him and told him that before he actually had any reports to review, I thought it might be well-and I might say this was Mr. Pratt's suggestion also-that he read over a number of reports that we had placed in the library, which we believed represented a fairly good run of intermediate reports.

Mr. Davidson did this and came in the next day and said he had read them and what was next. I expressed a bit of surprise that he could have read these reports, totaling, I should say, probably seven or eight hundred pages, in a day, and considered them very seriously. I suggested that he go through them again and really study them very carefully. I believe he did that for the balance of the week. I was waiting at that time for a report from Mr. Denham, whom I considered, and do consider now, a very good trial examiner, both in his conduct of hearings and his writing of reports, and I was waiting for the report in the Dayne Manufacturing case to come in, so I could assign it to Mr. Davidson for review.

The report didn't come in, and I assigned him a record to read and report to go over in the Fletcher Paper Company, a case that had been heard by Mr. Peter Ward, who also conducted a very good hearing.

I might say at this point that one of the things that we felt Mr. Davidson should not do was engage in quite so much discussion and conversations in the course of the hearings. I assigned the Fletcher Paper case to Mr. Davidson. He worked on that and then the Dayne Manufacturing case came in, and he was given that also.

Mr. Ward was out hearing a case and didn't come back to Washington, although Mr. Davidson was ready to talk to him. Mr. Davidson had not dictated or had typed an intermediate report. It is my recollection that he showed me some handwritten notes that he had taken of the record and the intermediate report. About the middle of March-just about the same time as the Saposs talk previously mentioned in the course of my daily rounds in talking to the men and checking up to see how they were getting along, I talked to Mr. Davidson. I think this was about Thursday or Friday of either March 14 or 15-I am not sure that is exactly the date and after talking to him about the Dayne Manufacturing case for about 10 minutes or so Mr. Davidson expressed the opinion or said to me as I was leaving his office, "I would like to go back to Orange, if it is O. K. with you. The expense of being here is pretty terrific, and I have got to get a new suit of clothes, and, besides, next week is Easter week." I am not sure that is the exact order in which he stated the reasons, but that is the substance of it.

I told him that since Mr. Pratt, who was going to return the following Monday, had directed that he do his work in Washington, I didn't feel justified in rescinding, in effect, Mr. Pratt's order, and I suggested that he make the request of Mr. Pratt when he returned to the office the following Monday. I told Mr. Davidson that after inquiring of Mr. Ringer, and that was their joint opinion, although since I was the acting chief trial examiner, I accept full responsibility, of course, for the decision.

Mr. Pratt did return the following Monday, and one of the first things we mentioned to him was Davidson's request that he be permitted to return to Orange, N. J., and work there. Mr. Pratt said "No," that he didn't think that would be a good idea; he would rather have Mr. Davidson here in Washington, and said that he would so advise Mr. Davidson. As a matter of fact, he never advised him of that because in the interim Mr. Davidson's letter, which is in the record, was received, the letter he wrote to the Board.

Mr. FAHY. Just one other question I would like to ask, Mr. Bloom, about the Weyerhauser case. Mr. Davidson testified that at your insistence he placed in his report some remote or double hearsay testimony. Do you know what he was talking about?

Mr. BLOOM. Yes; I do.

Mr. FAHY. In that connection?

Mr. BLOOM. Mr. Chairman, the question Mr. Fahy has just asked me implies a knowledge of a certain portion of the record. I had a question and answer written out; and if I may be permitted to refer to the note on the record, I shall do so.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. BLOOM. I just want to read from the record.
Mr. FAHY. Is this the quotation?

Mr. BLOOM. That is correct, if I may read this. Mr. Davidson referred to what he called rank or double hearsay. This is the record in the matter:

Question by Mr. Graham

That is the Board's attorney

"Didn't you state to Mr. McGlasky that I mentioned to Mr. Moore something about him being on a blacklist at Ludlow?"

Answer by Mr. Proctor: "Yes; I made that statement."

In other words, Mr. Davidson characterized as hearsay a question directed to a man asking that man if he had made a certain statement. I don't believe anyone would have any serious question about the fact that that is most assuredly not hearsay.

Mr. FAHY. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HINKEL. I would like to ask that Mr. Bloom be recalled later this afternoon.

The CHAIRMAN. At 2:30.

Mr. FAHY. That is all, except I do desire now to offer certain documents and perhaps later to testify myself regarding certain material. The CHAIRMAN. How long is that going to take, Mr. Fahy?

Mr. FAHY. I should say perhaps an hour.

The CHAIRMAN. We will recess until 2:30.
(Whereupon at 1:30 a recess was taken until 2:30.)

AFTER RECESS

(The hearing was resumed at 2:55 p. m., upon expiration of recess, Chairman Smith presiding.)

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Toland, do you wish to ask Mr. Bloom any questions?

Mr. TOLAND. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any witness you wish to put on in the meantime?

Mr. FAHY. No; I have no other witness.

TESTIMONY OF FRANK BLOOM, ASSISTANT CHIEF TRIAL EXAMINER, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD-Resumed

Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Bloom, has it been your custom in practice to advise trial examiners on certain rulings to be made in the course of hearings?

Mr. BLOOM. If necessary, it has been; that is, if the request were made to me of the trial examiner for an opinion as to a ruling, I would give him my advice and opinion, and if I came across something in the course of a hearing of my own motion, if that is what you have in mind, that I felt I should call to his attention, I should do SO.

Mr. TOLAND. Has it happened that you prepare in writing rulings for the trial examiner to make during the course of the hearing?

Mr. BLOOM. Well now, I have prepared more or less as a matter of convenience from time to time for trial examiners in the field that which I would assume would be the ruling, for example, parties would stipulate for corrections in the record, those stipulations.