« PreviousContinue »
Mr. Fany. Congressman Ramspeck had proposed there be adopted a proviso that no unit shall include the employees of more than one employer.
That is in the Seventy-ninth Congressional Record, 9728, Seventythird Congress.
Congressman Connery, in charge of the bill on the floor, then said:
According to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia, the l'uited Mine Workers (then known as the A. F. Of L.) would have to deal with each separate coal operator, and they could not unite for collective bargaining as a unit in the coal industry.
That is the end of the statement of Congressman Connery, and the amendment proposed by Congressman Ramspeck was not adopted.
The C'HAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Toland.
Mr. Ozanic. Following the decision of the Board then, on that petition
Mr. TOLAND. May I interrupt you, Mr. Ozanic? Will you tell the committee what conversation you had during the month of September 1938, with Mr. Dunbar, regional director for the National Labor Relations Board; and, if you recall the conversation, will you tell the committee what he said to you?
Mr. OZANIC. That conversation was held by Mr. Herman Eecher, our representative, who is here to testify, and it wasn't I.
Mr. TOLAND. You were not present?
Mr. Ozanic. After the Board rendered its decision dismissing our petition in the Alston Coal Co. case, which decision was read into the record, the regional office then dismissed all of the other petitions that we had pending before the Labor Board, including all of the charges we had before the National Labor Relations Board, on the basis of the decision rendered by the Board in the Alston Coal Co. case, of Pittsburg. Kans., stating that the petition and charges we had filed could not be sustained due to the decision of the Board in the Alston Coal Co. case, which apparently was being used as a precedent to govern all other coal cases in that section.
First we were asked to withdraw all of the other petitions and charges against all of the other companies in Kansas, some 10 or 11 companies involved—that is, I should say, 10 petitions and 10 charges. We refused to withdraw the petitions, as was suggested or requested by the regional director. In this case it was Mr. Broderick, the acting regional director who succeeded Mr. Dunbar, and we pointed out to him that we insisted the Board hear our petitions and charges and proceed to order an election so that the mine workers involved in those cases could determine their own unit by secret ballot. But later on they did dismiss all of the petitions and part of the charges without any hearings whatsoever.
We, of course, appealed them over the decision of the regional director to the National Labor Relations Board in Washington, and the Board here in Washington sustained the regional director in refusing 10 issue a single complaint, and closed their dockets as far as our Kansas cases, both charges and petitions, were concerned.
Mr. TOLAND. May I read, Mr. Chairman, from the file of the National Labor Relations Board, the Alston Coal Co. case, Pittsbury, Kans., the following:
June 11, 1938, petition for investigation and certification filed.
Memorandum from the file signed H. H. F., dated June 26, 1938. On page 3 the following appears:
As a matter of diplomacy it might be well to either delay the investigation until shortly before the expiration cate of the contract
Interoffice communication dated July 1, 1938, from Dunbar to Witt, giving additional information in response to a memorandum from Witt of June 29, 1938, asking additional information.
Memorandum dated August 3, 1938, unsigned, initials G. S. W., titled “Coal operators association as the appropriate unit in the bituminous-coal industry.”
Telegram August 6, 1938, to Ernest C. Dunbar, regional director, from Nathan Witt, stating that the United Mine Workers of America reports that all employed at the mine will be members of the United Mine Workers of America within the next few days, and that Herman F. Eccher, Progressive Mine Workers of America, reports discharge of fire miners for Progressive Mine Workers of America activities and requests investigation.
Memorandum August 13, 1938, from Ernest C. Dunbar to Nathan Witt, page 2:
The entire difficulty in this field is fomented by desire on the part of the rank and file of membership in the U. M. W. A. to change its union regulations from a provisional type of government to autonomy. The present fracas is simply a continuation of a similar fight starting about 1921 with another flare-up of major proportions in 1930.
Report titled "Authorization and order for investigation and hearing" from Paul Broderick to Nathan Witt, dated February 14, 1939, page 7, refers to discharge of 5 employees because not members of the United, and refers to incident where 30 members of United came to company property during working hours and solicited employees to resign from membership in the Progressive and join the United.
A letter from William R. Ringer to George 0. Pratt, dated April 11, 1939, while the hearing was in progress:
I excluded evidence on autonomy and provisional rule on their direct case. think it will have to be gone into before the case is over as a practical matter.
Mr. TOLAND. Now, Mr. Ozanic, will you tell the committee what cases, in addition to the Alston Coal Co, cuse, that you filed with the National Labor Relations Board and its regional offices? Do you have a list of all the cases filed?
Mr. OZANIC. We introduced them here all as exhibits, Mr. Toland;
Mr. TOLAND. Individual exhibits?
Mr. TOLAND. Proceed and tell the committee about the next case you filed with the Board.
Mr. MURDOCK. May I interrupt there! You say you have filed a list of all the cases that were dismissed in line with the decision in the Alston Coal Co. case!
Mr. OZANIC. Yes.
Mr. TOLAND. He has not filed them. He has them as exhibits to take them up individually.
Mr. Ozanic. For example, in Kansas, after the Board dismissed the Alston Coal Co. case, then under date of September 7, 1939, which we have marked as “Exhibit K-10,” to which I should like to call attention of the committee
Mr. TOLAND. I show you a mimeographed copy of a letter from Beatrice M. Stern to James A. Glenn, and ask you if that is a true and correct copy of the letter to which you refer?
Mr. OzANIC. It is.
Mr. Ozanic. James A. Glenn is attorney for the International Union, Progressive Mine Workers of America.
Mr. ToLand. I offer in evidence a mimeographed copy just identified by the witness.
(Letter, September 7, 1939, Stern to Glenn, was received in evidence, marked “Exhibit No. 75," and is printed in the appendix of this volume.)
Mr. Ozanic. Under date of September 7, 1939, as the letter itself explains, we were asked to withdraw the unfair labor practice charge, No. C-395, which was pending before the Board, which we refused to do.
Then following our refusal to withdraw the cases, such as was suggested by Mrs. Beatrice M. Stern, acting secretary of the Board, the Board then under date of July 22, 1939, which we marked as Exhibit K-13 and to which I wish to call the committee's attention, notified my office of dismissing 12 additional petitions pending at that time before the Board.
Mr. TOLAND. I show you a mimeographed copy of a letter signed by Hugh E. Sperry, acting regional director, dated July 22, 1939, addressed to you, and ask you if that is a true and correct copy of the letter you received ?
Mr. Ozanic. It is.
Mr. TOLAND. I notice that there is attached, in your file, copies of orders dismissing petitions.
Mr. Ozanic. That is right.
Mr. TOLAND. Did you receive the original orders, together with the letter, for each case listed in the body of the letter!
Mr. OZANIC, Mr. Toland, yes; the originals are all in this file here (indicating).
Mr. TOLAND. I would like to offer the letter in evidence, and make the mimeographed copies of the orders a part of the exhibit, as identified by the witness.
The CHAIRMAN. K-13, isn't it?
The CHAIRMAN. You don't want them spread in the record, do you? Mr. TOLAND. No, no.
(Letter July 22, 1939, Sperry to Ozanic, enclosing copies of 12 board orders dismissing petitions, and the 12 orders were received in evidence, marked “Exhibit No. 76," and are printed in the appendix of this volume.)
Mr. Ozanic. Mr. Chairman, as you will note, Exhibit K-13, dated July 22, informs my office they were enclosing copies of the Board's orders dismissing the petitions in each of the following cases, and then they name 12 cases. I will not necessarily have to read the numbers of those cases, in order to save the time here, unless you prefer I do that. Shall I read the number and name of each case di: missed, notifying us they were dismissing the following cases?
Apex Coal Company, R-126.
And then Exhibit K-13 carries copies of the original orders dismissing all of these petitions, and I want to emphasize here, now, for the information of the committee, that these petitions were all dismissed by the Board without any hearings whatsoever and without it going into the merits of these cases in order to learn whether or not the majority of the employees at these mines covered by these petitions desired to be affiliated with the Progressive Mine Workers and without giving us an opportunity to present our evidence in a hearing being conducted by the Labor Board on these petitions.
Mr. HALLECK. Was there ever any finding as to whether or not those cases involved associations like that in the Alston Coal Company case?
Mr. OzANIC. In each case the employer was a member of the operators association. Then following the dismissal of the petitions, my office received a letter which has already been introduced as K-13, dated September 28, 1939, which immediately follows the copies of the original orders dismissing the petitions, and in that letter they notify my office, over the signature of Mr. Hugh E. Sperry, acting regional director, that he has refused to issue a complaint in the following-named cases:
Western Coal Mining Co., C-530.
There again I want to emphasize that the Board refused to issue complaints in these unfair-labor-practice cases, without any hear
ing whatsoever, or without giving any consideration to the charges filed by the Progressive Mine Workers. The National Labor Relations Board has closed its dockets on these cases, and all of these mine workers are forced to belong to the United Mine Workers as a condition of their employment, and refusal to do so means forfeiting their jobs at these mines. That is the situation in Kansas with reference to all of the petitions and charges that we had filed with the Board.
Mr. HALLECK. Referring to page 8 of the decision which has been read into the record, which recites that five Progressive members were replaedi by United members, and then recites that within a week thereafter all other members of the Progressive Miners renounced their membership in that organization and joined the United, why did they do that?
Mr. Özanic. Here is what happened: The majority joined the Progressive Mine Workers, and while the case was still pending before the Board, during which period we were unable to get any consideration from the Board, then the United Mine Workers--and if I have to use his name, the dietator, John Lewis himself-brought pressure to bear upon these employees to force them to sign the petition asking the National Labor Relations Board to disregard the petition we had already filed with the Board asking for investigation and certification. The men refused. He then saw to it that charges were preferred against certain individuals employed by the Alston Coal Co., setting the stage for expulsion from the United Mine Workers in order to deprive them of their employment. Then, in order to show that they meant it, the coal company discharged five men, and the other men did sign that sort of a petition to save their jobs, and will testify under oath that they did that for the mere purpose of saving their jobs, but that they do desire affiliation with the Progressive Mine Workers and are denied that opportunity. There is a witness here who will testify to you from first hand, who was an employee of that company, who was discharged in July 1938, who is still out of employment, and who was discharged because he refused to sign that petition.
The CHAIRMAN. What you mean to say is that they were discharged for union activity, is it not?
Mr. Ozanic. They were discharged because they refused to resign from membership in the Progressive Mine Workers; because they refused to sign a loyalty pledge to the United Mine Workers.
Mr. HALLECK. But there is in this particular case a closed-shop agreement, is there not?
Mr. OZANIC. Now there is.
Mr. ToLand. May I say in that connection that I would like and I think it is necessary--to read from the files of the Board concerning the statements just made by the witness, from the Board's file in the Alxton ('oal Company case, (9-395, Pittsburg, Kans., which is the complaint case.
The following appears: On Sept. 6, 1939, a charge was filed alleging violation of Section 8 (1), (3), (5) of the Act. On March 2, 1939, the Board refused to issue complaints and dismissed the charges.
On March 9, 1939, the union applied for a review of the refusal to issue the complaint. On September 9, 1939, the complaint was dismissed.