Mr. ROUTZOHN. Continuing further with these evidences of domina tion (reading): and various facilities to employee organizations such as the use of bulletin boards, mimeograph machines, a company automobile Does the Board have an automobile that you use? Mr. ROUTZOHN. I assumed you had your own. ing:) stenographic services and office space and mailing lists. (Continues read That is the reason I was asking these questions. Mr. CONDON. In connection with that line of questioning, Judge, I would like to point out that it is the practice of other Government unions, either affiliated with the American Federation of Labor or with the Congress of Industrial Organizations or independent unions, to make use of the facilities of the agency of which those unions are a locus. For example, other unions, to my own knowledge, use the auditorium of the Department of Labor. There are three other Government unions that have bulletin boards; other Government unions have messenger service and so forth, so I don't think you will find the practice of our union is at all different from the practice of the other unions in organizing similar employees to ours. Mr. ROUTZOHN. You have heard the statement before; it is an old adage that two wrongs never make one right. Mr. CONDON. But, you see, you are talking about alleged company unions. Before one takes any specific line of approach such as you have done you must consider the field, the entire practice in that particular type of industry. Mr. ROUTZOHN. I understand that, and throughout these hearings, whenever something has been called to the attention of a witness regarding some irregularities of this Board, the attempt is always made to cover that up by saying that that is the practice in other agencies of the Government, but that doesn't make it right, does it? Mr. CONDON. Well, Judge, I was pointing that out just to show you the practice. In addition I could also state that commonly, when the Board has found those things that you have listed as being evidence of company domination it is because those benefits were denied another organization and granted to a favored organization, which of course is not the case in our agency. Mr. ROUTZOHN. Mr. Condon, let's you and I reason together for just a moment. Your agency is charged with the duty of carrying. out the National Labor Relations Act, is it not? Mr. CONDON. That is true. Mr. ROUTZOHN. And in administering the National Labor Relations Act you hold, in certain instances where employers are concerned, that it is an unfair labor practice on their part to do certain things? Mr. CONDON. I don't think we ever hold that in fact, Judge; it is always in relation to the particular circumstances surrounding that particular plant or industry involved. Mr. ROUTZOHN. And isn't it true-I am asking you if you know whether it is true that what I have just read to you as indications of employer domination have been decided by the Board as being contrary to the principles of the National Labor Relations Act? Mr. CONDON. That is true. Mr. ROUTZOHN. That is true. Now don't you consider it just a little bit inconsistent for your Board to hold that a private employer should not permit certain things to go on, such as a meeting of the union in his plant and on his time, and so forth, and at the same time permit your union to do that? Mr. CONDON. I don't think the Board has held that. It is not a question of whether the employer permits the union to use the bulletin board; it is a question of whether the employer discriminatorily permits that. Mr. ROUTZOHN. Let's see if it has held that. I find some annotations at the bottom of everything I have read you. Let's go back over this a moment. (Reading:) The Board has also considered the effects of employer's activities on the employer's premises during working hours with the consent of the employerThat is a citation here, "40," and that refers me down here to some fine print: Matter of Regal Shirt Company and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, 4 N. L. R. B. 567 and I would say that there are at least 10 other citations under that. Now, let's go further. Mr. CONDON. Can we stop just there? Mr. ROUTZOHN. No; I know you will say you have already testified—that this was not on the premises during working hours. Is that what you wanted to say? Mr. CONDON. No; I was going to say that in all of those cases you must look to the practice of the industry. If it is the practice of like industries to allow organizational work, of course the Board would probably ignore that; and, secondly, if both or all organizations were allowed the same privileges and rights, the Board would ignore that, which is true in our case. Mr. ROUTZOHN. Do you mean what you have just said, that if it is the practice of a certain industry to allow such things, then it would be all right? Mr. CONDON. I have yet to read a Board case in which the employer allowed certain privileges to organizations in which those privileges were evidence of company domination where there was no discrimination, where all organizations were treated alike. Mr. ROUTZOHN. And if it was coextensive of that industry there would be exceptions to what I am reading here as the law as laid down by the Labor Board? Mr. CONDON. For example, I can get you citations if you want them. I know I have seen a case in which there was an established union, and the employer made some remarks in reference to that which under other circumstances might be coercive, but under those circumstances were not. Mr. ROUTZOHN. Then, under this statement: and various facilities to employee organizations, such as the use of bulletin boards that is 42-I find there a number of citations, beginning with— Matter of Central Truck Lines, Inc., and Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Stablemen and Helpers of America, 3 NLRB 317— and so forth. 218054-40-vol. 18- -2 There is something that you have admitted, have you not, has taken place; that is, that you have used bulletin boards and other facilities that are used by, or on the premises of, the Board? Mr. CONDON. Oh, yes. We have our own bulletin boards. Mr. ROUTZOHN. Don't you think that would be inconsistent for the Board to be holding in one instance that a private employer should not do those things and at the same time permit such things in its own organization? Mr. CONDON. My answer to that would be the same answer I gave before, that I just don't draw the conclusions that you do, Judge. Mr. ROUTZOHN. No. Well, I wouldn't expect you to. Mr. MURDOCK. May I ask you what the pamphlet is that you are referring to? Mr. ROUTZOHN. I will be glad to show it to you. It is a very nice pamphlet. It is the Third Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board. It is quite elucidating. One other question. Have you told of all the contributions that were made? Did you make any contribution at any time to the Friends of Spanish Democracy? Mr. CONDON. I believe we may have done so. I don't recall offhand. Mr. ROUTZOHN. I am reading here from the minutes of a regular meeting of September 3, 1938, that were found in Mrs. Eden's file. Who was Mrs. Eden? Mr. CONDON. Mrs. Eden was and is secretary of our union. Murray Weisz, delegate to the Washington Friends of Spanish Democracy, reported that about $300 had been collected around the Board for the W. F. S. D. Who are the W. F. S. D.? Mr. CONDON. Washington Friends of Spanish Democracy, I as sume. Mr. ROUTZOHN. Do you recall that incident? Mr. CONDON. This is an announcement made at the union meeting. Collections were made by members and friends. Mr. ROUTZOHN. That is, at your union meeting the announcement was made that you were to take up a collection. Mr. CONDON. No; the minutes as I heard them read that the announcement was made that the collection had been taken up, but that was not by union people, that was by people who themselves were Washington Friends. Mr. ROUTZOHN. But those who contributed were members of the union as well, were they not? Mr. CONDON. Most of the employees of the Board are. Mr. ROUTZOHN. Do you know what the Washington Friends of Spanish Democracy are, what organization that is? Mr. CONDON. I am somewhat acquainted with it; yes. Mr. ROUTZOHN. Do you belong to it? Mr. CONDON. No; I do not. I believe Mr. Leon Henderson is the president of the Washington Friends. Mr. ROUTZOHN. Do you know what the objects or the purposes of the organization are? Mr. CONDON. Yes; the purposes of the organization, as I recall, were to raise support for the Spanish Government. Mr. ROUTZOHN. Is it still in existence? Mr. CONDON. I don't believe it is. Mr. CONDON. No; I think it is something else now, but I am not sure. Mr. ROUTZOHN. Some other organization that has taken its place, superseded it? Mr. CONDON. I think it is an organization to collect funds for Spanish refugees. Mr. ROUTZOHN. Do you know any other officers of that organization? Mr. CONDON. Not offhand, no. Mr. ROUTZOHN. Were any of them officers or members of the union to which you belong? Mr. CONDON. I beg your pardon? Mr. ROUTZOHN. Were any of them officers or members of the union to which you belong? Mr. CONDON. As I say, I don't recall offhand any of the others. I could find out, if you like. Mr. ROUTZOHN. Who is Leon Henderson, so we get that in the record? Mr. CONDON. He is a commissioner on the Securities and Exchange Commission. Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Miss Levy, along that line I show you a photostatic copy of the minutes of the regular meeting of March 24, 1938, held in room 442, at 8:15 p. m., National Labor Relations Board Lodge No. 301. On page 2 is this sentence (reading): It was then moved and carried that $10 be donated to the Washington Friends of Spanish Democracy. That action was taken by the union, was it not? Miss LEVY. Well, it appears from the signature or from the first statement-it says "Owing to the illness of the secretary the minutes were recorded by Helen White"-that I wasn't at that meeting, but I believe these minutes are correct. Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. May I offer these in evidence? (Photostatic copy of minutes of meeting of National Labor Relations Board Lodge No. 301, held March 24, 1938, was received in evidence and marked "Exhibit No. 1009" and is printed in the appendix of this volume.) Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. I show you photostatic copies of minutes taken from the files of the National Labor Relations Board union, and photostatic copies made of them by the staff, and ask you to identify them, please. That is the second page of the minutes of the regular meeting of November 9, 1937. Mr. CONDON. These minutes that are being identified are the minutes of the old N. L. R. B. union, not the present union. Miss LEVY. This appears to be correct. Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. In order to save time, I have here various photostatic copies of minutes of the meetings of the National Labor Relations Board union taken from a period beginning with November 1937, up to and including January of 1939. The originals are in the possession of the union and these photostatic copies were made from them. I would like to offer them all in evidence as one exhibit. Mr. CONDON. Does that include the Lawyers Union minutes also? Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. No; these are the minutes of the National Labor Relations Board union to the last meeting Stella Levy was secretary-Lodge 301. I offer these in evidence. Mr. MURDOCK. Do you offer them with the intention of having them printed as an exhibit, Mr. Shaughnessy? Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Not necessarily; they may be just filed as one exhibit. Mr. CONDON. These would all be minutes of the predecessor union, wouldn't they? Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. They are minutes of the National Labor Relations Board union to January of 1939. Mr. CONDON. That is right, and that was prior to February of 1939, at which time the Lawyers Union amalgamated with that union. (The photostatic copies of minutes of the meetings of the National Labor Relations Board union beginning with November 1937, to and including January 1939, were received in evidence, marked "Exhibit No. 1010," and is printed in the appendix of this volume.) Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Wolf. The CHAIRMAN. Before you do that, I want to make a statement on the record. In connection with the testimony of Mr. Witt at the hearing on February 6, at page 658 of the hearing, I asked Mr. Witt to supply the committee with the number of cases, both C and R, that were pending on the docket of the Board and had been pending for more than 1 year. That question was asked in connection with the testimony of February 3, on page 546, when Mr. Madden was on the stand, as to the current condition of the dockets of the Board. I have been supplied with that information by letter from Mr. Fahy, under date of February 12, and I would like it read into the record at this point. Will you read it. Mr. Toland? Mr. TOLAND (reading): Honorable HOWARD W. SMITH, FEBRUARY 12, 1940. Chairman, Special Committee to Investigate the National Labor Relations Board, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN SMITH: In response to your request, I am giving you herewith the data as to the number of cases pending before the Board and its regional offices on January 1, 1940. On January 1, 1940, there were pending before the Board and its regional offices 3,010 cases. Of these 3,010 cases, 2,161 involved charges of unfair labor practices ("C" cases), and 849 involved petitions for certification of representatives ("R" cases). Of the 2,161 "C" cases pending 763 were pending for one year or more.' Yours sincerely, CC: Hon. Arthur D. Healey Hon. Abe Murdock Hon. Charles A. Halleck Hon. Harry N. Routzohn Edmund M. Toland, Esquire. CHARLES FAHY, General Counsel. 1 This figure does not include 425 cases in which decisions and orders have been issued but compliance has not yet been secured, and 159 cases in which decisions and directions of elections have been issued but certifications are awaiting the election results. 2 A large number of these cases are in the various stages of formal proceedings before the Board. |