They have been organized and reorganized. I really don't know whether that organization is in existence.

Mr. TOLAND. It is not in existence now.

Mr. SAPOSS. I think that was one of them, as I recall, but since there were several of them that had almost similar names I believe that I ought to check before I make a definite statement.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. What are some that may or may not be out of existence? Can you tell us that much?

Mr. SAPOSS. I don't remember, as I said, because I haven't had an opportunity to follow this thing very carefully recently.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. Your memory is failing you lately.

Mr. SAPOSS. My memory is not failing me. It is a fact that I have been preoccupied with so many things, I might say, and I ought to say that if I did remember them I wouldn't hesitate in mentioning them. I think my testimony here this afternoon clearly indicates I wouldn't.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. Perhaps I can disagree with you on that, because I think at the time that you talked to Mr. Keefe, as we will be able to show, you thought you were losing your job. You then went back on everything that you told Mr. Keefe and Mr. Engel because you found out that you were going to be kept on your job.

Mr. SAPOSS. I don't think I look as though I am a person that has lost much sleep within the last year or so.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. That was what was concerning you at the time you talked to Mr. Keefe and were willing to tell him everything.

Mr. SAPOSS. I think you are wrong. I disagree with you completely.

Mr. ROUTZOHN. I would rather believe him than I would you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fahy, can the committee have your attention for a moment? You are here as the representative of the Board this afternoon, although you have resigned.

Mr. FAHY. I have not resigned yet.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fahy, as one member of the committee, and I believe the committee would probably unanimously agree on this, I would like to know what members of the staff of the Labor Board hold membership in the League for Peace and Democracy and what lawyers employed by the Board hold membership or recently held membership in the Lawyers Guild, or any other of the so-called subversive organizations. It would be an interminable job to call them all up here and put them on the witness stand and ask them that question under oath. If necessary, I am inclined to do it. It seems to me the Board could furnish that information.

Mr. FAHY. I think they will be glad to furnish you information as to membership in the Lawyers Guild. As to the League for Peace and Democracy, I don't know whether that would be possible. I think the league is out of existence, isn't it? But I suppose you mean those who were.

The CHAIRMAN. A lot of them have hunted cover in view of recent developments.

Mr. FAHY. I think it grew up during the Spanish War, and when the Spanish war was over it passed, but I can probably get you the information.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, sir; will you let us get that?

Mr. TOLAND. I would like to say this, that Mr. Shaughnessy has

called twice the Lawyers Guild and asked for a list of the members, and in addition to that has written, and to date has not received a reply to his letter, nor has he been furnished with the employees of the Board that are members of that organization.

Mr. FAHY. I am sure, with respect to the Lawyers Guild, that there would be little difficulty in giving the information that you request. The CHAIRMAN. Give it to us as to the Lawyers Guild, and give us all you can give us as to the former membership, if it has blown up, of those employees who are still employees who were at one time members of that organization. If we are not able to get it all, we will try some other method of getting it.

Mr. FAHY. I will do the best I can. You made the request, stating that they were subversive organizations. I am not defending

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). I will withdraw that part of the statement. We won't get into any argument about that.

Mr. FAHY. I was referring particularly to the Lawyers' Guild. The CHAIRMAN. Strike the word "subversive" out of my question and we will not get into any argument. Then there was another matter here. We have been wanting to get Mr. Thomas H. Kennedy, a trial examiner. I understand he is on vacation in California. We telegraphed him and the question arose about his expenses. When do you expect to have him back here? Mr. FAHY. He can come at any time. The reason he isn't here today is because there is some misunderstanding as to how to get him back here. If you want him on a certain day, I think the method of gettig him here has been solved.

The CHAIRMAN. I don't want to discommode the Board. If he is there on his vacation and his vacation will soon be over and he will be back, we will wait.

Mr. FAHY. His vacation is up on the 23d.

The CHAIRMAN. Will he be back here then?
Mr. FAHY. Yes.

Mr. TOLAND. I understand, Judge, that he is planning to leave there the 24th. If he, of course, is not reassigned to some case on the coast which would prevent him from coming back here. And then there is the question to consider of the 24th, Judge, as to whether or not you will be in session at that time.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fahy, do you think we can get him by Tuesday?

Mr. FAHY. I am sure if the committee wants him he will come regardless of his vacation. My only point is that I think the committee should pay the expense of the trip. We are short of funds, as the committee knows.

The CHAIRMAN. You are in the same fix as the committee.

The committee will be adjourned until Friday at 10:30 a. m. (Whereupon, at 4:35 p. m., the committee adjourned until Friday, September 13, at 10:30 a. m.)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1940

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10:50 a. m., pursuant to adjournment on Wednesday, September 11, 1940, in room 362 of the Old House Office Building, Representative Howard W. Smith, chairman, presiding. Present: Representatives Howard W. Smith of Virginia and Abe Murdock of Utah.

Edmund M. Toland, general counsel to the committee, ex officio. Charles Fahy, general counsel to the National Labor Relations Board.

Mr. TOLAND. Mr. Bloom.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bloom, have you been previously sworn?
Mr. BLOOM. Yes, I have, Mr. Chairman.

TESTIMONY OF FRANK BLOOM, ASSISTANT CHIEF TRIAL EXAMINER, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, WASHINGTON, D. C.— Recalled

Mr. TOLAND. I would like you to tell the committee the duties of the associate attorneys that have been assigned to the trial examiner's division.

Mr. BLOOM. Do you, Mr. Toland, happen to have a copy of the job classification, the posting of it?

Mr. TOLAND. No. I would like to have you tell me what you tell them to do, what instructions you give them, and what they have done, as far as you know.

Mr. BLOOM. We have, as Mr. Pratt described the other day, five associate attorneys. They are assigned to the chief trial examiner. Their function is primarily to assist the chief trial examiner in his work in the going over and assistance generally that we furnish to the trial examiners in the preparation and issuance of their intermediate reports.

I think I can make the answer very clear, Mr. Toland, if I can go into a bit of detail and describe precisely what happens when a draft intermediate report comes in, if you care to have me do so.

Mr. TOLAND. That will be all right. I am principally concerned with the committee realizing and understanding what material is furnished to these men when they are assigned to a particular case. Mr. BLOOM. I understand. When an intermediate report is received from a trial examiner, it is turned in to the chief trial examiner,

together with the transcript, the exhibits, the formal files, and the informal files. Before the draft intermediate report is assigned to an associate attorney for review, it is read by the chief trial examiner, Mr. Pratt, or Mr. Ringer, the other assistant chief trial examiner, or myself.

If on the face of the draft intermediate report we think that there are matters that should be written or gone into further by the trial examiner, we will call the trial examiner in, if he is in Washington, go over the matter with him and suggest that he go into the matters that we think should be gone into. Frequently it occurs that the trial examiner will explain the reasons why what appear to be gaps in the report are not in fact gaps, in which case we would then assign the report for review and would not suggest that he do any more work in connection with it.

Assuming, however, that it does go back to the trial examiner for further work, he would take it, work it over and turn it in again. Then if we thought from the face of the report that the report was in good shape, we would assign it to a review attorney-not a review attorney, we would assign it to an associate attorney for the purposes of review. At such time we would turn over to him the draft intermediate report, the transcript, the exhibits, in short, the record that has been made in the hearing of the case, together with the formal file and informal file. In every instance Mr. Pratt or Mr. Ringer or myself, whoever has assigned the matter for review to the associate attorney, has instructed him to start by reading the request for authorization which is contained in the informal file. I think Mr. Pratt went into that rather fully the other day.

Mr. TOLAND. Let me ask you, now, isn't the request for authorization the statement of the regional director as the result of the investigation made by his office on the charges that were filed by the individual or the union?

Mr. BLOOM. I would say that is a fair statement.

Mr. TOLAND. In addition to those attorneys, do you likewise have trial examiners engaged in doing the same work?

Mr. BLOOM. Well, as you know-when I say "you" I mean the committee—we did have the trial examiners doing this type of work until the reduction in the staff made it necessary to conserve our energies in that regard. At the present time we have only five and several of the associate attorneys are on vacation, and in order to prevent accumulation of a backlog, some of the trial examiners presently in Washington have been asked to help out to a minor degree. I don't think any of them read records. They have been assisting some of the other trial examiners more in the nature of an editing job with their reports. At the present time I can think of only two men who are doing that work. Mr. TOLAND. Now, is it a fact that at all times the informal files were made available to trial examiners?

Mr. BLOOM. That is not the fact. I know of no case where the informal file has been made available to the trial examiner in the case. Mr. TOLAND. Is it a fact that the informal file has been made available to trial examiners and associate attorneys engaged in reviewing the record, and that these trial examiners and these associate attorneys later conferred with the trial examiner who prepared the report! Mr. BLOOM. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Was that review attorney that you said?

Mr. TOLAND. Review attorney and associate attorney. Mr. BLOOM. They made a very sharp distinction between the trial examiners' division and the new associate attorneys who were assigned to our division for the purpose of assisting the chief trial examiner in his work in reviewing intermediate reports. I hope that you will get that distinction because I believe it to be fundamental if the committee is to understand this proposition.

The CHAIRMAN. I get the distinction all right, but I don't get any distinction as to the logic of letting the review attorneys see or not see the informal file, and these other attorneys connected with the trial examiners' division. I understand you make a distinction between those two groups of employees.

Mr. BLOOM. They serve different functions.

Mr. TOLAND. But one of them is permitted to use the informal file and the other is not.

Mr. BLOOM. That is correct.

Mr. TOLAND. And the ones that are permitted to use it are the attorneys connected with your trial examiners' division.

Mr. BLOOM. That is correct.

Mr. MURDOCK. May I ask this question. It has been decided by the Board, as I understand it, as a matter of policy that your review attorneys should not have access to the informal file.

Mr. BLOOM. That is my understanding, also.

Mr. MURDOCK. And that policy was established many months ago. Mr. BLOOM. I believe that is correct, sir.

Mr. MURDOCK. Now, if it is improper for the informal file to be accessible to the attorneys of the review division, what distinction is there, or why is it proper for the associate attorneys in the trial examiners' division to see the informal file?

Mr. BLOOM. I think I can explain the difference. Before we had associate attorneys, the chief trial examiner had the job-that is part of his job-to go over intermediate reports and see to it that they are correct. As Mr. Pratt stated the other day, when the cutting of the budget made it necessary to let trial examiners go, the Board was confronted with the question of whether or not it desired the careful checking of intermediate reports to be kept up in the trial examiners' division. Apparently the Board did feel that it was necessary and essential that the careful work now being done in our division be kept up.

Mr. Pratt further explained that he, as an individual, and his two assistants could not possibly go over all these records ourselves, it is a physical impossibility. Therefore, he suggested that he have five assistants to help him in this work. These associate attorneys are assistants to the chief trial examiner. He delegates to them work which he is charged with doing. Rather, he delegates to them that they assist him in the doing of work that he has to do.

The Board charges the chief trial examiner with the duty of seeing to it that reports go out in good form, that they are accurate, that nothing that should be in the report has been omitted. That being the case, the chief trial examiner must have assistance in the doing of this work. If the chief trial examiner alone were doing this work, he of course has access to the informal file. He could not function without the informal file. The Board has decided that.

218054-41-vol. 266