N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 265-E [Telegram] J. WARREN MADDEN, PITTSBURGH, PA., August 6, 1940. Chairman, National Labor Relations Board: Steel Workers Organizing Committee representing 525,000 steel workers throughout the Nation views with grave "pprehension threatened abolition of Technical Service Division which is now engaged in computing back wages in the amount of several million dollars owed by Republic Steel Corporation to seven thousand of its employees as a result of its unfair labor practices which brought on the strike in 1937. These workers have suffered heavy financial losses through no fault of their own and have been without remedy for over three years. Calculations still to be completed will require many weeks with full staff. Reduction in staff or abolition of division would be disastrous. Services of division in regard to many other problems will continue to be vitally important. We urge the Board to make every effort to continue this work and suggest our attitude in this respect be brought by the Board to the attention of the appropriate committees of Congress. PHILIP MURRAY, Chairman, Steel Workers Organizing Committee. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 265-F JOSEPH A. PADWAY COUNSEL, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR WASHINGTON, D. C., May 17, 1940. Mr. WARREN S. MADDEN, Chairman, National Labor Relations Board, Shoreham Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. MADDEN: I have carefully followed the Congressional proceedings with respect to the appropriations for the National Labor Relations Board. I notice that among the reasons assigned for a reduction in the appropriation is that the Economics Division can be dispensed with. When I testified before the Labor Committee of the Senate in connection with amendments to the National Labor Relations Act, I stated that it was my opinion that the Economics Division was important and served a necessary purpose. I stated, in substance, that it performed excellent work. I am still of that opinion. The work performed by this Division is of great help to labor when litigating in courts respecting fundamental questions affecting labor which are not Board matters. For instance, an important problem, and perhaps the most important confronting the American labor movement today, is legislation of the type and character of the Oregon antipicketing statute. The constitutionality of this Act is being attacked in the Supreme Court of Oregon. As chief counsel in association with Mr. B. A. Green of Portland, Oregon, on behalf of the American Federation of Labor, we have presented a brief on the law, and in connection with this brief we also presented two economic briefs, one prepared by Mr. Boris Shiskin, of the Research Department of the American Federation of Labor, and the other prepared by your Economics Division, "Bulletin No. 1," entitled, "Governmental Protection of Labor's Right to Organize." The fund of arguments and facts set forth in this bulletin are of tremendous help to me and the other lawyers engaged in this litigation. I do not need to mention the excellent work performed by this Department in the Jones Laughlin and other Board cases decided by the Supreme Court April 12th, 1937, and also the splendid work now being done in the John Hancock Insurance Company matters. I believe that the Economics Division should be retained. It would be a serious mistake to abolish it. These are my personal views based on my experience with matters before your Board. Very truly yours, N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 265-G LAW OFFICES FRANKLE, ASHE & RIFKIN Jos. A. PADWAY, DAVID I. ASHE MAX H. FRANKLE GEORGE RIFKIN Hon. J. WARREN MADDEN, NEW YORK, May 17, 1940. Chairman, National Labor Relations Board, Shoreham Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. MADDEN: As an attorney for numerous labor unions, I was very much distressed to hear that the Board is considering abolishing its Division of Economic Research because of the cut in the appropriations for the N. L. R. B. made recently by Congress. Should this be done, it would be a calamity for the Board and a distinct loss to the litigants and attorneys appearing before the Board. It is hardly necessary to remind you of the important role the Economic Research Division has played in the functioning of the Board ever since its inception. That the Supreme Court declared the National Labor Relations Act constitutional is due in no small measure to the excellent economic material prepared by this Division and contained in the Board's briefs in the original five cases that came before that Court. The decisions in those cases might well have been different in the absence of such nonlegal data. The Division has also been performing useful work in the preparation of its various bulletins and other publications. Its recent "Written Trade Agreements in Collective Bargaining" is particularly noteworthy. It is, in fact, the most comprehensive book on the subject-and a very important subject— to date. The value of such publications in educating public opinion to the purposes of the Act and to the reasons for the decisions of the Board is inestimable. To abolish the division at the particular time, or to curtail its activities, would be so shortsighted that I cannot believe the Board will do any such thing. My views, may I say, are shared by a great number of lawyers and union representatives with whom I have discussed this matter. Chairman, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. MADDEN: I have just learned that the appropriation bill for the National Labor Relations Board includes a cut in your budget to the amount specified in the House bill. I am aware that the enemies of the National Labor Relations Act in the House justified this cut in an attack upon Dave Saposs and the Board's Division of Economic Research. Under the circumstances, the Board may feel that Congress wishes it to eliminate this Division. As Congress did not direct the Board to do so, I hope that you will not take this step. For its efficient functioning, the Board needs the sort of data which the Division of Economic Research has been compiling for its use. The general studies of this Division which have been published are of exceptionally high quality, and I know also that the Division has rendered very valuable service in connection with concrete cases, particularly those which have resulted in court actions. The Congressional action puts up to you the very unpleasant task of making reductions somewhere in your budget. This is an unwise and unfortunate action on the part of Congress, but I hope that you will not do what the enemies of the Act want you to do above anything else in this connection, namely, to eliminate Dave Saposs and his Division of Economic Research. Doing so would, in fact, be a surrender to the enemies of the Act. Sincerely, Edwin EWitte/h N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 265-I EDWIN E. WITTE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, CITY HALL Councilman HARRY W. LAIDLER, Mr. J. WARREN MADDEN, MAY 22, 1940. Chairman, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. MADDEN: I understand that a movement is on foot to abolish the Division of Economic Research of the National Labor Relations Board or greatly to decrease the appropriations for such Board. In behalf of many people in New York, may I express the hope that this tremendously important Division of the Board's work will be retained and strengthened. The effectiveness of this Board depends, to no small extent, upon the continued work of the Economic Research Division. Chairman, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. MADDEN: With thousands of activists and educators in the trade union movement, I hope that the Division of Economic Research connected with the National Labor Relations Board will be retained and extended. The work which this Division has done is invaluable for any future legislation governing collective bargaining. I do not see how laws can be intelligently made based upon the experience and the decisions of your Board unless they are preceded by competent investigation of the current labor situation. In your present staff, headed by David J. Saposs, it seems to me you have an irreplaceable combination of historians of the past and researchers in the present state of labor unions. With all the complications of C. I. O., A. F. L., and independent unions, there is all the greater need for such combinations and therefore I trust that instead of cutting down in any way, that the activity of the Division will be maintained and extended. Yours sincerely, MARK STARR, Educational Director. N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 265–K Mr. J. WARREN MADDEN, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS, May 17, 1940. Chairman, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. MADDEN: From the reports in the newspapers and in conversations in the labor movement, it has been called to my attention that there is particularly grave danger that the Division of Economic Research of the National Labor Relations Board will either be abolished or its work so seriously curtailed as to make it almost ineffective. As an educational director for one of the unions which has made consistent use of the National Labor Relations Board, may I protest very vigorously any action of this sort. The Division of Economic Research has provided the material which makes possible an intelligent understanding of the problems being administered by the National Labor Relations Board. Were it to be discontinued in its present form, someone else would have to do the work in order for the Wagner act to be effectively administered. May I, therefore, urge you to give every consideration to this plea that the work of the Division of Economic Research be unhampered. Respectfully yours, LAWRENCE ROGIN, Educational Director. Chairman, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. MADDEN: I understand that there is a possibility that the Division of Economic Research of the National Labor Relations Board will be eliminated due to budget cuts. I feel so strongly that this Division has proved itself an indispensable part of your Board's splendid work that I would like to add my voice to those urging the continuance of Mr. Saposs' Division. It seems to me of the utmost importance that all governmental administration touching on economic problems should have the assistance of the best economists' knowledge, and should not be treated merely as a problem in law or administration. May I take this opportunity of saying how very greatly I admire the work you and the Board have been doing under all sorts of handicaps, not least of which is constant investigating. Sincerely yours, AMB: hc ALFRED M. BINGHAM. Mr. JOSEPH MADDEN, N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT No. 265-M Chairman, National Labor Relations Board, Shoreham Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. MADDEN: The cut in the appropriation for the National Labor Relations Board by Congress is unwarranted and indefensible. We are greatly concerned lest the reduction in the funds of the Board seriously hamper its highly important work. Our organization is particularly anxious that the unfair attacks on the Board's Division of Economic Research shall not be permitted to interfere with its proper functioning. We all appreciate the usefulness of the Division in the preparation of Board cases and in the publication of valuable economic studies and bulletins. Our Union regards these services as indispensable to the enforcement of the Act. If the modest funds with which the Division of Economic Research has been operating are reduced, it will, in our judgment, undermine the effectiveness of the Board's work. We cannot too strongly urge the Board to make adequate financial provision to enable the Division of Economic Research to continue its vital service. WASHINGTON, April 19.—(UP)—Results of a collective bargaining election at the Anderson, Ind., Delco-Remy division of General Motors Corporation posed new run-off election problems today for a National Labor Relations Board already split three ways on the controverted question. Anderson workers voted 2,774 for no union representation, 2,454 for the C. I. O. faction of the United Automobile Workers Union, and 688 for the U. A. W.A. F. L. There was no majority sentiment. N. L. R. B. Chairman J. Warren Madden and Edwin S. Smith have ruled previously that they would order a run-off election only at the request of the high union, but, in this case, the "neither" vote was high, and this group presumably would not desire another election. Member William M. Leiserson contends that the N. L. R. B. does not have authority to order run-off polls. But, accepting a majority ruling that the Board does, he has joined with Smith in adopting a new run-off policy in which the "neither" choice was dropped from the second ballot. Madden argued in a recent dissent that the new run-off policy advocated by Leiserson and Smith carried to its logical conclusion would mean that the "neither" vote, largest at Anderson, would be left off the ballot, and the effect would be "to disfranchise all those employes whose point of view received the highest number of votes in the first election." It could not be learned definitely whether the Board would grant a run-off request at Anderson, but it was pointed out that Smith and Leiserson, in promulgating the new policy, acted in a case where the "neither" vote was smallest, and thus left the new choice between the two high unions in the first balloting. None would predict whether Smith and Leiserson would order a new poll between the "neither" group and the U. A. W.-C. I. O., or between the two U. A. W. factions with the "neither" group eliminated. GE1156A N. L. R. B. EXHIBIT NO. 267 EXCERPT FROM NOON-DAY HEADLINES NEWS-CAST 12:45-1:00 P. M., APRIL 19, 1940-SOURCE, UNITED PRESS Results of the collective-bargaining vote at one General Motors plant have created a perplexing problem for national labor board members to solve. There was no majority sentiment. Now the labor board problem is what to do. Chairman J. Warren Madden had ruled previously that the board would order a run-off election only at the request of the high union. But in the Anderson case, the "neither" vote was high and this group presumably would not desire another election. So it's still indefinite whether the board will order another election at Anderson or let matters stand as they are. |