*1 (PLAN OF et al. STEEL CO. BETHLEHEM AT REPRESENTATION EMPLOYERS’ STEELTON, PA., OF PLANT THE al., Inter et STEEL CO. BETHLEHEM RELA LABOR veners) NATIONAL v. BOARD. TIONS AT THE OF EMPLOYEES

ASSOCIATION BETHLEHEM PLANT OF MARYLAND SAME. CO. STEEL 7503, 7538.

Nos. Appeals for the Court of

United States Columbia. District of

Argued 17, 1941. Feb. May

Decided *3 McCormack, City, Alfred New York vice,

pro by special court hac leave of Wilmer, C., (Richard Washington, H. D. Broun, City, Fontaine York New brief), Bethlehem al. et Steel Co. Warnken, Ralph Baltimore, Md., S. petitioner Employees Association Maryland Plant of Bethlehem Co. Steel Atty., Weyand, National Labor Re- Ruth (Robert Watts, Gen. lations B. Counsel, Knapp, Laurence A. Associate Counsel, Gross, Gen. Ernest A. Asst. Counsel, C., Washington, all of D. Gen. respondent. brief), for on the Storey, Pa., Douglass Harrisburg, D. Employees’ Repre- Plan of for intervener Steelton, Pa., sentation at Plant. Driskill, H. of Washington, Robert D. C., Rep- Plan Employees’ for intervener the Cambria resentation at Plant. Pressman, of Washington, (Jo Lee D. C. seph Anthony Wayne Smith, Kovner Washington, C., brief), both of D. on the Organizing for intervener Steel Workers Committee. STEPHENS, VINSON, Before

EDGERTON, Associate Justices. EDGERTON, Associate Justice. Corporation Bethlehem Steel and its iron producing subsidiary and steel Bethlehem Company, here petitioners, Steel called ask STEPHENS, Justice, Associate dis- and set us to review aside1an order of the senting. Charges National Labor Relations Board.2 10(f) Section Under the National 160(f), Tit. Section 29 U.S.O.A. 160 § Act, Relations 49 Stat. U.S.C. (f). 2 14 N.L.R.B. 539. Mi practices organization; were filed with istration o.f other labor unfair representing Organizing from recognizing the Steel Workers the Plans as employees; affiliated other manner (S.W.O.C.), a union from in Committee with, Organiza- interfering employees restraining, coercing or Congress of Industrial with the complaint rights was issued. (C.I.O.), tions and a exercise of Act, guaranteed occu- form Hearings a Trial Examiner Section 7 of the before join organizations pied engage several months. The Examiner issued and to petition- report, purposes to which in concerted an intermediate activities for the exceptions, bargaining other mutual aid ers filed case was ar- protection. pe- gued requires also orally order before Board. recognition all titioners withdraw The Board dismissed a number of completely disestablish Plans them violence, charges, including discriminatory *4 employee representatives bargaining as purposes, for discharge, offering join inducements not to post compliance. and to notices of S.W.O.C., conducting a “back-to-work” petition, movement so In its answer employees as to interfere to with Two of rights. exercise of their of its order. But asks enforcement support pe- petitioners Board found that the Plans intervene of the had dominat- ed, with, support of interfered intervenes in support and contributed S.W.O.C. tition. petition (now organizations, to ten labor A the Plan called order. “Plans of Maryland Employees’Representation,” respec- Employees) at the located Association of tively Plant, order, Company’s Cambria, at the is consolidat- to set aside Lacka- wanna, Lebanon, Steelton, Maryland, proceedings. ed these Bethlehem, Plants, and Concentrator Ran- findings, are The Board’s ultimate Works, kin Leetsdale Works No. findings stated, succinctly rest basic expressed Leetsdale Works No. and had occupy pages of the record. employees their against to animus S.W.O. findings except These basic all meet tests C.; Company petitioner had sur- brevity, length and their does not invalidate reptitiously given money Mayor them. We shall not undertake to summarize Pennsylvania, Johnstown, to insure contin- findings. them, basic all of these Some of his anti-union uance duct, attitude and con- together evidence, with some items of infer- Corporation and that the petitioner ences, comments, approximately are to responsible therefor; pe- must be held following effect: employed titioners had ob- detectives to (1) Petitioners created most of Plans tain, surveillance, by information about un- and issued their charters. In material re- activities; and that pe- ion titioners had interfered this conduct spects, nearly the charters are- identical. with, restrained, 1918, petitioners them, devised and dis- employees and coerced exercise copies tributed at some of guaranteed rights, Section of the plants together with an announcement Act, join 29 U.S.C.A. to form or § that the Plan established.” In “is. organizations and engage labor in con- years a few course of the charters were purposes for activities of col- certed put operation by Company, into at its bargaining, lective etc. The Board con- plants. years Company For various cluded matter of law that dominat- recognized it, were created Plans etc., Plans, petitioners ing, engaged had Corporation, or it and the as a unilat- engaging prac- and were in unfair labor pamphlet act. Thus a entitled “Hints eral within meaning 8(2) tices of Section Meeting Employee,” to Foremen in the New Act, 158(2), of the 29 U.S.C.A. and that § Company distributed at some of which the with,

by interfering restraining and coerc- plants about instructed foremen the to employees in ing their the exercise of men explain to new that “the 7, petitioners Section rights guaranteed * * * adopted the Plan of Em- engaged, and were engaging in unfair Representation” ployees’ “is one that it practices meaning within the Sec- important policies of the Com- of the most 8(1) of the Act. The Board’s order pany.” officers, agents, and their directs assigns Although majorities to cease from dom- have voted in (2) successors with, elections, found, interfering inating or or Plan it is not contribut- various to, evidence, support Employee Rep- no majority Plans of that a plants ap- plants; have ever at the ten named from men in resentation interfering Plans, giv- proved formation admin- or have ever been with the or against up machinery for for- opportunity to for members and set no en an vote mulating controlling or in- demands them.3 Meetings structing representatives. are mere- (3) Petitioners continued not practice. held The charters part of Plans as a Com- ly to hold out funds, by provision raising encourage pany policy facilitare but Independent action in dues otherwise. Plans; voting represent to em- impossible. obviously such circumstances is ployees beneficial the Plans them; support (5) the Plans advise Until the charters of join unions— the Plans and not to amended concur could without specifically, (S.W. join Management Representatives the C.I.O. rence required O.C.). Up to 1937 the charters on Rules. In 1935 Committees Joint expenses pay all the in- the charters were amended permit volved the conduct of nominations and further amendment a two-thirds elections, Repre- pay Employees’ Employees’ and to Representatives; vote sentatives, spent meetings exceptions. excep for time in Plan important One but activities, or in “might Plan rate tion is that no amendment which ordinarily prevent received their work. operating Plan as a fair representatives method of selecting (4) preclude The charters Plans whole body *5 of independence Company embody domi- as a method bargaining” fair of power nance. Plans have no The to ad- approval can be made without the 4 mit, exclude, expel, discipline control or Rules, on the which Committee Joint employees, members. All non-supervisory power. voting half the Company abilities, characters, whatever their or petitioners, for and also counsel Counsel sympathies, automatically become members Employees the Association of for at they as soon as have worked for the Com- Maryland Plant, language in identical pany days. for severely The charters briefs, respective excep describe their power limit the of the Plans to choose their just quoted have being tion which we representatives. own “Employees’ Repre- effect, “in a condition the Com which sentatives” must (1) pany repre will deal Petitioner Company, (2) at year’s least one stand- sentatives in accordance ing, (3) working the department which procedure In outlined.” them, elects (4) adult American citi- words, Company requires, as a condi zens. may However Plan much members Plan, dealing tion of with a (1) that wish representative to select as their a good Plan shall continue receive and retain bargainer or administrator who does not member, regardless conduct, aas of his meet all requirements, four of those views, principles, every non-supervisory or prevent Plan charters it. The charters au- employee sees fit whom practically thorize no action the mem- employ, (2) shall bership, voting other than Employees’ have a determining voice in the fairness Representatives. Employees’ While changes desired method of Representatives as a Body” meet “General representatives choosing Pían or of Pian Representatives” “Committee snd bargaining. permanence This insures the committees, choose pro- the charters also large degree of a control vide for composed Committees of a Joint the subjects over of Plan membership, group Employees’ Representatives and representatives, choice and bargaining group Management Representatives. Obviously methods. organization no labor two groups equal power voting have independent when management is shares joint Committees. There is a “Mian- control over such matters. agemeut’s Special Representative”, who be and sometimes Management’s Special invited Rep to attend meet- ings Employees’ Representatives. plants at various resentatives sent identi provide charters meetings response for no letters to Plan of cal officers in only Limited, “Their cheleo is to vote et al. v. National Labor Rela vote, Board, Cir., under the Plan. If do tions F.2d vote, representatives (now Cambria), Bethlehem, At Midvale will chosen perhaps plants, do, representatives some of the other those who and these representatives recognized by elected company will bo tlie as the approved the charters. bargaining agents sole em ployees.” Shipbuilding Corp., supplied. Italics Bethlehem

6á6 organizations National and shake down the regarding effect of inquiries Laughlin employer employee too.” & Relations Jones found, despite of a Pin- called at Board the denial Corporation.5 These letters Steel officer, Act, descriptions in- kerton necessity, under the that these tention support scope cluded within their the activities of Company’s limiting the financial organization. “opera- union Plans, Plan Pinkerton officers assured “correspondents,” several of were tives” and charters changes no other one union or an- accord whom were necessary. members In the course of other, proceeded Agency substantially amendments inform identical ingly, activity among charters, sentiment union but Com were made Repre Company’s employees. con- Petitioners Employees’ pany pay continues from the cede that obtained spent time in conference with sentatives Management frequent which the agency reports in Representatives6 during work oral S.W.Q. lack pays progress progress plant it hours. At the Cambria was discussed. working hours) C. (within for the time them Representative Management during (7) During the Cambria strike at Body present meetings of General at plant Mayor (Johnstown) Representatives. thereby Employees' speech he re- Johnstown effect, present them, pays him broken ferred to the fact that violence had meetings. is no evidence at their There promised suppress He it. also out practice followed at the a different that other spoke in hostile terms the “dictation Apart plants. from the amendment sharply strike lead- outsiders” criticised clauses, support clauses and the financial Evans, Repre- Special Management’s ers. charters, hearing, at time of the re plant, through in- Cambria sentative substantially original form. tained termediaries, sev- afterwards turned over erase from the The amendments could not Mayor; *6 eral thousand dollars employees minds of the the well-known plant, Ellicott, Manager General of encouragement long-continued Company several thousand dollars direct- turned over ly approval of Plans. money paid Mayor. The was Testimony findings was taken and were by check, but in Board did not cash. The regard practical operation to the made find, clearly appear, and it does not what stipulated It was of the Cambria Plan. money. It Mayor did with the is not operated all other Plans ma- applied it to or shown he found respects substantially in accordance terial purposes of a “Citizens’ The Committee.” respective provisions. their Company’s payments found that the Mayor Company employed calculated to insure the were (6) Pinkerton’s to the Inc., hostility of Agency, his to S.W.O.C. Detective National continuance and so others, deprive impar- among the union of purpose, obtaining found spies city also through regarding labor information tial administration. activity Company promised money to a organization. “Citi- and employed union which, name Agency first before 1936. It zens’ Committee” order, 1936, reengaged following to break strike. June, sought law and S.W.O.C., employed and was formation I. 1937; purposes time some until 8(2) of the Act makes it others, evidence, Section among according to the practice employer for an labor “the informing on activi- an unfair with the forma or interfere trying to an- dominate various who are “to ties of men organ labor administration employees,” disturb on or noy and their “the tion sup or financial other or contribute and out- arrival of-radicals ization activities prohibit support, to disturbers,” Thus it.”7 going port on what was on side forms. It is ed, not take financial vicinity including need plants, dominated, inter C.I.O.; protecting also clear activities with, supported Plans. The plants and from violence “out- fered which we have communists, racketeers,” findings other labor defined Board’s side supported by substantial evi- “people get legitimate are control of referred 5 301 U.S. The Act 108 A.L.R. 1352. does 57 S.Ct not forbid such L.Ed. pay- ments. U.S.O.A. S.C.A; U.S.C. § U.S.O. 158(2). § Tit. 158(2). Tit. Italics Section 29, Sec. supplied. 158(2), 158(2), 29 U. with, restrained, coerced follow. had interfered law dence. Its conclusions Company’s similarly dom- the disestablishing exercise Board orders upheld rights guaranteed repeatedly Section inated unions have Act, petitioners to cease Board order Board ordered Supreme Court.8 A with, dominating, or con interfering Plans from similarly dominated disestablishing support tributing has been to either Plans plants in other organization,” Appeals “any cease upheld other and to Court of labor the Circuit with, Circuit;9 Company’s interfering manner pe- from “in the First employees in restraining, coercing on dismissed tition for certiorari has been rights self-organ the exercise ization, own motion.10 their form, join, or assist spies to employment of labor bargain through collectively ganizations, to union, report growth a new choosing,” etc., their representatives of own support company union a context of guaranteed Section order is 7. The independent organ and interference with language Sections substantially the ization, part support interf 7, 8(1) 8(2), subdivisions spe not be shown that erence.11 It need violated. found to have information, spies’ cific use was made 8(5) 8(3), 8(4) and of Sections Violation they be or that the knew nor The act neither found forbidden. many employees But must watched. if example would ineffectual each new prior have known to the Board’s hear interference, domination, etc., required testimony ing, for La Follette before the hearing new and a new order. Under Committee, early Civil Liberties Act, Railway statutory Labor similar public Company’s employment order, purpose12was enforced a similar Pinkerton’s. upheld Court which protest over the II. employer.13 Accordingly, Board orders in the form used here Petitioners attack the breadth of repeatedly been enforced the Su Having the order. found that had preme Court.14 dominated, with, interfered and contributed Plans, support expressed to the National Ex Labor Relations Board v. against S.W.O.C., men animus press Publishing Co.15 does not overrule 251, steel 197, National Labor Board v. tional 85 Heinz ed, et Relations Board Dry L.Ed.-, Board, March L.R. Board Board, Mfg. Co. v. National Labor Relations lations S.Ct. U.S. 5. A.L.R. 6, 1941, 61 S.Ct. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 12 National Labor Relations Board 11 10 9 *7 8 Ct. Bethlehem L.Ed. National Labor Relations Board v. Jan. Consolidated Edison 59 S.Ct. 261, 231, Dock Metallurgical Corp., 203, 599; v. Link-Belt Labor 1 Board, al. v. 307; 13, Cir., 58 S.Ct. —; Newport 59 affirming, 84 L.Ed. Company, 1941, L.Ed National Relations 490, 114 S.Ct. National Labor Relations National 10, 1941, Jan. Shipbuilding Westinghouse Relations Board v. Fan- 358, v. National Labor Re v. F.2d 980. 571, 61 . —. 83 L.Ed. News 6, Co., 219; 2 206, Link-Belt 85 S.Ct. 1941, Cir., 308 U.S. 82 Labor 61 Jan. L.Ed. National 83 L.Ed. Shipbuilding L.Ed. 306 U.S. 112 F.2d 657. 448, Corp., S.Ct. 61 627, Electric & —; S.Ct. Relations Co., Relations 305 U.S. Inc., 85 L.Ed. 831, 1941, 241, 736, v. Na Limit Labor H. 126; 240, Jan. 320, 115 303 A. 85 60 J. & 627, Link-Belt 877; fering Newport Ed. quires Co., Co. v. National Labor Relations 126; N.L.R.B. 1034; hood of Ed. —. 115 A.L.R. 307. 806 U.S. 548, 552, 571, Board v. Fansteel N.L.R.B. 805 U.S. U.S. choosing.” through Ct. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., ganization 13 Texas & 14 “The 123 358, March 219; 261, 266, 308 U.S. National National Labor Relations Board v. exercise of their cf. respondent Railway 85 L.Ed. 240, 262, News 197, 231, 930, 854, representatives Board’s Id., Company, Board’s A.L.R. National Labor Relations manner with its N. 58 5 952. Consolidated Edison Labor 241, Shipbuilding 50 S.Ct. Cir., & to S.Ct. O. R. —; 59 S.Ct. Order, 59 S.Ct. to desist 599; S. S. 60 S.Ct. Metallurgical Corp., order 61 S.Ct. bargain Jan. 33 F.2d Relations Board v. 571, Board’s right Board’s Co. v. Clerks, 8 N.L.R.B. 427, 490, 499, 6, 1941, 206, properly 82 & from inter 203, collectively to self-or 13, L.Ed. Dry employees, Order, 74 L.Ed. Brother 83 281 Order, 15. Board, 84 L. 85 L. 61 S. L.Ed. 83 L.Ed. Dock U.S. 831, own 866, 303 re ^[5] dominated, with, a interfered and contributed there held that Court cases.16 those Plans, expressed support to representa and had bargain with refusal to 'mere Company’semployees against an animus Section violation employees, in tives of supported might findings consti the by are though S.W.O.C. These Act, 8(5) of evidence. Labor relations substantial interference technical tute a Corporation’s long 8(1), did subsidiaries have Section bargaining violation emanat- forbidding subject policy entire uniform been to a an order justify Plans, practice ing Support labor from it. type of unfair ly different unions, opposition has been committed to other employer which the when the policy. with the essence threatened, viz., interference new, unions, etc., pamphlet distributed guranteed a Plans employees join form or Company was entitled of such no evidence There was Section 7.

’ Employees in Plants “Representation interference, union domination. ofor Corporation.” must be On order the Bethlehem Steel Board’s held that Court type chart entitled: “same cover a inside acts of unlawful limited to Representation employer “Chart Employees Illustrative acts which as the or class” Corpo- rec of the Bethlehem Steel expressly The Court had committed. Companies.” Subsidiary When acts which “Having found the ration ognized that McClintic-Marshall, merged practice the now the unfair constitute a practice petitioner, first subsidi- became restrain is free to * * * ary Corporation petitioner acts unlawful like or related other violations, subsidiary’s prevent president distributed being purpose indicated a leaflet a containing the future is facsimile of which threat Grace, similarity or relation letter to him E. G. of their because Corporation petitioner, president the Board has acts unlawful those by the em This letter said: committed “I desire call to have been such. found to advantages past.” your That is what attention certain now ployer your organization sub- done here. available sidiary of Bethlehem Corporation. Steel part contend that Petitioners Bethlehem, period years, over a has de- order its terms would ex Board’s veloped program of industrial relations every plant and of the Com works tend many plans embracing for the économic bet- States, and throughout the United pany employee. Among terment these As understand the invalid. we is therefore order, plans provide a common meeting limited the ten named its effect adjustment ground questions for the af- express opinion plants.17 We ** * employee’s fecting the work. might properly whether question * * * pleasure is * extend Company’s extended ** privileges to the McClintic-Mar- plants. organization, shall on the same basis as III. enjoyed other members now *8 Corporation petitioner, The family.” Accordingly, Bethlehem McClin- properties, operates physical contends President tic-Marshall’s said to em- its is, events, all in Board’s order advantages ployees: “New con- working Though it. the is a valid wholly-owned protection and financial are now ditions subsidiary Corpora of the employees of McClin- available large tion, both extent have Corporation, as communicated tic-Marshall officers, responsibil Corporation’s same ity organization Eugene letter from to our on those facts. turn Section does Grace, of Bethlehem President Steel G. Act, 152(2), 29 U.S.C.A. de 2(2) § subsidiary As a Corporation. “employer” “any person including fines Corporation, Steel McClintic- Bethlehem employer. interest of an acting in the ” * * employees * are entitled to a series Marshall The Board found Cor developed which have been suc- of benefits poration, Company, as well as the 657; order, Express 16 Board’s 18 N.L.R.B. F.2d No. Since decision case, 46. Cf. National Labor Relations has as as Court enforced order Manufacturing v. Reed & Prince findings narrow, broad, based Cir., April 2, 1941, Co., Westinghouse F.2d 1 118 874. Elec- those now before us. 17 Mfg. Cf. National Relations Rela- & v. National Labor tric Co. Bay Co., (Curtis American Oil Inc. tions March S.Ct. Cir., Plant), affirming, Cir., —, 114 F.2d 85 L.Ed. subsidiaries, ployees Corporation’s Bethle- companies cessfully “ * * * dis Anything that years. These which said: period of family over a hem imperil the Employees present our will turbs condition include: Plan privileges * * * Undoubtedly you have Plan interests of all. Relief Representation * * * have professional seen labor leaders Corporation will assume The * * * campaign to unionize publicly announced a administration cost of entire industry. employees steel entirely the Cor- financed Plan Pension * * * * * * should We believe that no worker Saving Stock poration anyone or required pay tribute to Plan.” Ownership any organization right to work. for the Beth- Corporation petitioner, in its * * * through industry issued Review, the subtitle which carries lehem American Iron and Institute the Steel state Employees of News for Bulletin “A reprinted ment in this number of the Re Companies of the Beth- Subsidiary management firmly view. Our believes in the repeatedly Corporation”, has lehem Steel expressed in They views statement. employees that represented to those express policies controlled have Corporation’s pol- part are a Plans relationships dealings our many Review, issue of icy. The first years. your The effectiveness of existing statement, over 1924, begins April, Plans, Representation proper for the set President,” Grace, signature “E. G. questions tlement of arising all between Bethlehem Steel Cor- officers “The you management through Companies Subsidiary poration and its years uninterrupted operation out of direct some means long felt the need of outstanding, speak and the results employees with their communication * * * you themselves. We will assist could be general interest which facts of every way present proven continue everyone brought to the attention dealing prob method of with our mutual Corporation’s Corporation.” Beth- lems.” The Institute which the statement September 25, 1933, lehem Review president, Corporation’s on behalf of its years ago Bethlehem start- “Fifteen states: management, adopted thus and commended Representation Emplees’ Plan. ed its employees Company, includ in effect in various Today Plan is following language: ed over “The manufacturing, ship operating in steel units employees whelming majority of the building, mining, and McClintic-Marshall.” Industry recently participated Steel in an Progress A Years’ booklet entitled “Ten representa nual elections their own Human Relations —A Review Some plans representatives elected Accomplishments under the Bethlehem Plan bargaining. for collective The elections was, Representation” Employee accord- conducted them page, title “Distributed at 1928 pur selves secret One of the ballot. employee rep- joint conferences of annual poses campaign of the announced is to over representa- management resentatives representatives plans those throw Corporation.” Bethlehem Steel tives of Industry Steel elected. The is recov so heading “Em- same contains a This booklet years depression six ering from Policy” ployment followed “This is the huge losses, and the are now Corporation.” policy of Bethlehem Steel receive beginning to of in the benefits Corporation’s pri- operations. Any interruption Although the conduct creased passage seriously of the National Labor will in or to the forward movement obviously Act could not violate and their jure Relations families and *9 Act, goes dependent upon Industry, in- conduct to show that that all businesses management, specifi- endanger the welfare of the coun tervention and will relations, Corpo- drive, cally try. announced labor The with its accom strife, agitation ration’s subsidiaries was an established industrial panying Corporation practice. passed interruption.” The Act was In threatens the Re 3, 1936, March, 1937, Grace, 5, president July July 1935. On the Beth- lor view Grace, printed letter Corporation, lehem Review said to of the Corporation, president Employees’ Rep- to the em- :18 subsidiaries “The News Bethlehem Review was Steel ^[18] The snbiitle Corporation.” Employees this number Since “A bulletin Bethlehem Corpora- tended. tion is a petitioner, physical properties, subsidiaries, holding obviously company including which persons operates in-

650 Savings also that a Vacation Plan and were established Plans which resentation Plan, Ownership as well as the ago and Stock twenty years con- plants nearly in our Employees’ Representation, Plans of ever-increasing effec- operate tinue 15, put been into effect in all the subsidiaries19. January Review for In the tiveness.” opinion In Cor- 1938,Grace, president the Cor- our the evidence again as in the poration’s habitual intervention sub- poration, said to the justified the know, Company’s labor relations you great : we take sidiaries “As Corporation was feel, finding that the fact that Board in pride, justly in the Company’sdealings responsible accepted for the nearly years ago prin- 20 we Mayor of much Pinkertons and the ciple bargaining the town; of collective which Johns- irrespective of is valid today. application that but the order In the discussed years finding. principle during those dealt that we have you Representatives through with you whom Inc., Company, v. National In Gannett Em- your have elected under Plans of - 1940, Board, 9, Labor Relations Dec. ployees’ Representation questions on all -, 937, App.D.C. 118 F.2d on which the having wages, to do with hours and work- relies, Corporation held that court For last conditions. several holding there was no evidence that the cor long-established months method of affirmatively poration participated had you subject dealing with has practices subsidiary; the unfair its hearings the National Rela- before Labor merely failed record indicated had it defending tions Board. The itself, powers “to assert its corrective after the expense, against and at considerable event.” The contrast with the facts here charge, believe to be an unfounded what we made Here, is obvious. as National Labor Re Organizing the Steel Workers Lund, Cir., 815, lations Board v. 103 F.2d Committee, is dominat- distinguished case, which we Gannett ing your bargaining Plans. It is collective (in sole stockholder this case the Cor your put regrettable being Plans are personally poration) interfered with union expense defending to like hear- those interfered, ization. Because the stock independence type ings their “employer” within the defini holder is bargaining has been ef- which subject Board’s Act many years.” them fect under order.20 short, Corporation, long over a actively supported period, the Plans and IV. join actively opposed efforts of the men to only order is directed organizations. thereby against but domination, against also interference, Company’s the restraint, etc., successors, officers, agents, assigns. own. From 1935 its object to the inclusion of “suc Corporation Petitioners hearing, the time assigns.” Court 8(1) cessors of Sections persistent violator enforced repeatedly orders of that the It follows Board’s .'8(2)of the Act. include term.21 Board “ refrain directing it to from similar order * * * sought strife apparent- Petitioners valid. violations object legis less an is no averted Corporation pays concede ly n entire contract, death, when Plan, solicitude lative Pension and the en- cost of a brings change about tof operation of law expense of a Relief administrative tire employing An subsidiaries; ownership agency.”22 employees.of 'Plan, for the , 303 U.S. sCompany v. used tion, ration, 115 20 Pennsylvania Plans In Bethlehem Cf. A.L.R. a Plan Ltd., Bethlehem another National 261, Cir., Bethlehem here v. v. 307; substantially 58 National 114 F.2d National involved. wholly-owned subsidiary S.Ct. Greyhound Lines, Labor Steel Shipbuilding Consolidated Shipbuilding Corpo 571, Labor Relations Corporation, Relations Board identical with 82 L.Ed. was found Relations Corpora Edison Inc., 831 Link-Belt Inc., 85 L.Ed. lations Ed. 126. v. Dock 877; National Labor Board, Colten, Ct. ^[22] Newport *10 358, National e.g. 2 4, Co., Cir., Board v. 305 U.S. 6 National 85 Cir., Company, 883. 308 U.S. 104 F.2d L.Ed. enforcing News Labor Relations 105 Hopwood Retinning Co., Cf. National 197, Labor Relations —, F.2d Shipbuilding 302, Jan. 59 S.Ct. Relations enforcing 8 N.L.R.B. 179, 60 S.Ct. 303. 183. Labor Re 206, Board v. 12 N.L.R.B. & 61 S. Dry L.

651 sharp cross examina- titioners describe as reorgan permitted, be employer cannot tion: Board’s nullify the transfer, ization or new necessary start make it Bloom) I think order Examiner “Q. Trial (By owner new against the proceedings conditions general the you have told us course, in order, is not were The mills Saturday business.23 when the that after interpreted, bind tended, not be reasonably and will familiar you closed. Were it, who week, notice no persons following who have conditions general petitione go- in concert Saturday acted have that say beginning with Perhaps following rs.24 week? A. ing until the fairly so. V. reopened? “Q. the mills A. When were they did contend that Petitioners remember, now, min- wait a That I don’t largely on hearing, fair not have ute, place approximately, I but I can Bloom was Trial Examiner ground that place exactly. can’t example of prejudiced. As an biased newspaper ap- “Q. you— If A. The ad. applications complain bias, they Thursday. peared McDonald, one subpoenas directed to “Q. Thursday— mean The You A. officer, They were denied. an S.W.O.C. protest’ ad. ‘We dates, question regarding him wished agree and terms scope, duration “Q. Thursday following You mean the 1, 1937, January into since entered ments closing of the mills? A. I think that and the United States it, S.W.O.C. between have to refer— I would of its Corporation subsidiaries. Steel “Q. assuming Thursday. I am it was . require produce him sought to They also Yes. A. Later, themselves. documents mean, assuming “Q. I Thurs- supplied petitioners’ counsel with counsel mind, day; with that in when did the mills documents, accept petitioners’ counsel Thursday, reopen? Perhaps A. it was late evidence, offered them ed them Friday, not, can’t, would perhaps it was I them. As Examiner excluded Saturday, maybe just it was I can’t tell. found, agreements ir these were things “Q. were relevant; Corpo How dur- the United Steel State.s Johnstown period, from the ration, subsidiaries, S.W.O.C., ing time of clos- its ing reopen- of the mills time of the hearing trial. A agreements not on were right.” the mills? A. All a refusal to sum is not made unfair in order that mon a witness he colloquy, foregoing peti- The questions.25 Though the asked irrelevant complain, immediately tioners followed attorneys apply its Board did not own by this: subpoenas applications for must rule all, “Trial Examiner Bloom: That proved, of the facts to specify the nature you. Anything further ? thank is shown to no unfairness Nothing “Mr. Shawe: further. supervisory Board’s resulted. petitioners’ Moore “Mr. [of counsel]: it, agents power its own enables irre over No. rule, prevent spective such a obstruc right, “Trial Examiner Bloom: All part. thank on their tive tactics very much. You are you excused.” say Petitioners the Trial object particularly badgered Petitioners to the their witnesses and Examiner sharp “cross examination” the witness cross Wil- subjected them to examination. part of the record of liams. charge. docs not sustain this record complain example includes pe- colloquy in full one what be- quote We 41 Donald, 165 U.S. tioners joined S.Ct. 58 S.Ct. privity ard Education 23 City L.Ed. Cf. persons with the refer, Federal Trade Comm. v. Stand 113, 648, Norwalk, 82 L.Ed. Society, and Chase the reversed who parties L.Ed. 141. 107, 110, 291 802 U.S. U.S. to which National Bank 17 S.Ct. decrees suit. 112, 119, Scott v. sort of peti 262, en 330 U.S. Ass’n v. 9 Ed. 1402; 889; contra, 18-20. 738, U.S.C. Tit. 28, Section ^[25] 24 Cf. 38 Stat. Cir., Cf. North Whittier Friedrich, 383, Relations National 109 F.2d National Labor 28 U.S.C.A. 632, Inland Inc., 60 S.Ct. Labor Board, Cir., 76, Steel 83, § Cir., Relations Board v. Relations certiorari denied Heights Co. v. National F.2d 84 L.Ed. F.2d Citrus *11 Examiner, witness, rejected questions tween Mr. asked Examiner petitioners, counsel substi petitioners’ Broun counsel: for and framed tutes, petitioners urge showing the this as “Trial Examiner Bloom: What were against them. But when Examiner’s bias you circumstances under which saw rejected asked questions Examiner minutes, please? substi counsel for the and framed “The right Witness: I on sat the other tutes, urge show petitioners this also as side secretary when he was writ- ing against petitioners. We are his bias ing them. “he then told that associated himself “Trial Examiner Bloom: I see. prosecu attorney for Board in the Examiner, Broun: * * * “Mr. Mr. I would like taking tion of the case Board’s you develop matter, to have I didn’t behalf of over the examination on cross know present Mr. Williams at attorney for lat when meeting. difficulty.” Petition ter found himself in comparable complaints. Well, “Trial It Examiner Bloom: ers make other it states examiner, top. just at the as it here an the function judge, trial recognized is the function of a Broun: I didn’t look “Mr. the min- fully clearly see de that facts are utes, fact, a matter of glad I would be required veloped. idly sit He is myself you develop go have ahead. meaningless permit rec a confused long Examiner Bloom: “Trial As as I spirit If the and conduct ord to be made. might it, started I as well finish there are throughout this case were of the Examiner points. just a few error, administrative reversible few " Very well, Broun: “Mr. sir.” proceedings could withstand judicial few questioning alleged Some the Exam- manifestations feel attack. The iner, petitioners Examiner, object, pe which now ing part 11,000 likewise undertaken and carried on with have culled a record of titioners petitioners’ approval They pages, peti counsel. did are mild indeed.25b harm; undisputed testimony, tioners for no complain questions Petitioners such unquestioned adduced with propriety, con “Why you remarks as did care if the clusively proved the Board’s case. There not?”; particular men voted “What af suggestion that the Examiner committed yours?” fair was it “This is sec man any gross breach decorum. The mere retary of Plan and doesn’t even know existence and reflection feeling kept Plan”;

who the minutes of the “He course of trial25c does disqualify pre possibly accurately.” couldn’t know that siding call officer or for reversal.25d It does They complain that after decision in not constitute “bias and prejudice.” case, Peti Greyhound the Examiner ex charge tioners’ of bias and prejudice is with pressed the view time and expense out foundation. might by discovering be saved whether or Greyhound not the Bethlehem Plan is also afterthought. If substantially Plan identical. He did thought the Examiner question.25a to decide not assume When prejudiced they should, biased or and doubt- 25a clear, think, long is made This we necessarily course of a trial are not quoted colloquy iu note of3 prejudicial, dissent- or reversible when “reversal opinion ing promote justice.” herein. would not the ends of 25b Socony-Vacuum seldom Men conduct themselves United Co., v. States Oil long provocative throughout a 150, 239, 240, hear- U.S. 60 S.Ct. approximation with so close an to uni- L.Ed. 1129. temper. good form fairness In the 25d “Judges cannot be forbidden to feel colloquy course of mentioned in the sympathy party or aversion for one or the petitioners’ preceding note, example, expressions feeling other. Mild are as disgraceful counsel said: “It thing is a most feeling hard to avoid as the itself.” Whit Examiner will allow stuff — McLean, App.D.C. —, aker reply as this.” Examiner’s F.2d 596. great you Moore, “The tides “Mr. since think was: currents en- gulf outrageous things men, the rest do me to allow like turn aside in pass going you course, that, judges by.” specifically, am to ask their Cardozo, you Greyhound opinion read The Nature the Judicial Process, the United States Court?” 25c “highly improper” Even statements government counsel

653 subpoenas, (b) Petitioners that to issue certain would, and demanded said so less Representa- sought Employees’ to ask the appoint different examiner. Board during the series of about tives at the Cambria Plant a They no such contention raised designed whether promptly appealed questions, 150 to elicit they hearing, although being (or, refusal conscious Examiner’s the witnesses were Board from the to the By put it, influenced, re- petitioners were) subpoenas to above. referred coerced, make, strained, with, they or dom- interfered the contention later raising stipulated charge negligence effect, by petitioners. inated It was be- an unwarranted Examiner that tween counsel and the against their trial counsel. neg- would have answered in the witnesses complain of the extent Petitioners structure, organization, ative. Since the Board itself of the serv which the availed support of the Plans ensure process of con ices of subordinates in Act, and violate the Company dominance sidering reaching conclu case and irrelevant, testimony would have been petition alleges Board sion. The object (c) following Petitioners rul- consider, ap judicially weigh “did not Examiner, quote we ing of the which decision, praise making the evidence” in record, with reference to Cambria but relied conclusions of fact and law testimony by strike: “Certain was adduced subordinates, and that general Board to the effect that no vio- given opportunity inspect no or ar strike, no during lence occurred against gue conclusions. The Board’s these lines, place picket took on the disorders answer neither nor denies al admits these apparent thrown. stones were legations, ground on the ir testimony twenty-five wit- from the of some beyond scope relevant and judicial Respondents produced nesses [the inquiry.26 pre Petitioners’ contention was present petitioners] testimony of- way, rejected, sented the same fered the Board does accurately re- Corp., Limited, Bethlehem Shipbuilding v. flect the facts. I find aas fact that vio- National Labor Relations Board.27 There during strike, lence did occur are other cases to like effect.28 The Act disorder, there was that stones were thrown requires only hearing, before the Board Board, picket on the lines. The on this designated agent Board, or an state of the record cannot find as a fact findings by supported which are violence, was no no disorder by evidence. It is not the function of a during opinion the strike. my it would “probe processes” court the mental time, a needless waste officer “in reaching administrative considerable his gave expense persons concerned, if hearing conclusions he to all which 29 required.” the law purpose, no useful to have further testi- mony concerning VI. the fact that violence oc- strike, Petitioners have during moved30 for curred and I according- adduce, leave to evidence, ly testimony additional further along bar such line.” items excluded Board, turn, the Examiner and found “that the ex- Board, (a) agreements The S.W.O.C. apprehension with istence violence and the United Corporation States Steel newspaper violence induced reports its subsidiaries above, we have dealt with of violence strikes at plants other steel in connection with the Examiner’s refusal were two leading factors National here Re 103 said; ner. Mills, Inc., agraphs allege that reliance administrative not act in a sider all 28 26 27 Cir., The Board lations 1 F.2d Cupples Company purported findings do “The 14 Labor Relations 953, 114 F.2d and 20 of the judicial go beyond showing evidence, Cir., allegations Board v. assistance”; members of Board did does, however, 106 F.2d 930, did not itself make quasijudicial Manufacturers Botany where petition, fact, the Board National itself con deny 265, 266; Worsted and did petition 8 proper court man Cir., par Labor v. ville Inland Steel Co. v. National Labor Be 252; Ed. Lane Cotton Mills lations lations National Labor Relations denied, 568. Coleman Lumber Morgan ^[29] 30 Under 477, 160(e), Befining National Labor Relations Board v. Belations petition Board, Board, urged S.Ct Section U.S. 29 U.S.O.A. Co. National Labor 7 773, United for certiorari Act, Cir., 568, Co., Cir., similar contention. v. 10(e) Co., Cir., U.S.C. Tit. 60 S.Ct. 9 105 F.2d States, 5 § 160(e). L.Ed. 1129. the National 98 F.2d 81, 246, 251, 304 U.S. 108 F.2d v. Louis- Court Biles Sec Be- 16; L, *13 petitioners’ employees, at izations of in the Citizens’ Committee” formation of 8(2) that violence of National not clear violation Section of the It is Johnstown. Act, consequence Even if it was Labor Relations in in relevant, and the strike was relevant. no in dis- refusal admit basis the case for an order of the Examiner’s establishment; testimony his dis- is no my within in was and view cumulative injure petitioners.- (d) the respect desist basis in record for a cease and cretion and did sup- in members of order of sought Petitioners ask contribution port labor em- Committee, manager organizations and of of the Citizens’ ; plant, ployees, and manager 8(2) in of of the Cambria violation Section assistant for their con- I think there is evidence of questions calling of no substantial series self-organ- rights Citizens’ Com- interference clusions as to whether the Company, bargaining with the ization and collective em- mittee connected was ployees, through the benefit contribution to the acted at the behest or for Johns- through sur- any business trans- town Citizens’ Committee or Company, or veillance, in Company, 8(1); violation of Section actions connections with assuming it. evidence of domina- financial contributions from substantial other than interference, tion was rele- is not that the evidence case, in violation of clear Sec- 8(2) any 8(1), my opinion did not pres- its exclusion in In vant. expressly ent order injure petitioners, for the Board is nevertheless too broad. find that induced refused to I participated the formation tire Citi- Subpoena the Examiner and Bias oe prejudicial We find no zens’ Committee. Requirements rulings. No any Examiner’s error procedural entire case had incident Bias the examiner. The examiner effect result conceivable presides hearing who at a Board leave adduce the case. The motion for by rulings determination of the issues and additional denied. admissibility evidence makes as to evidence up for the consideration of the record other conten- have considered the We Board, report who intermediate his petitioners, it is of the but not nec- tions gives Board in guidance to the essary proceedings to discuss them. The case, judicial acts decision regard conducted with careful capacity. Oakley As- As was stated v. the law. Petitioners’ fairness and of defiance 1850, 547, 549, and reiter- pinwall, 3 N.Y. Wagner as stated in Act the law Naimark, People 1913, App. 154 ated in v. of the Court plain decisions 763, 418, 420, 760, N.Y.S. “the Div. 139 pro- The Board’s order clearly shown. justice first idea in the administration remedy and will be only lawful vides necessarily judge . is that must . . enforced. partiality. from all bias and be free He ordered. So party, judge both arbiter and cannot be cause.” the same A trial advocate STEPHENS, (dissent- Associate Justice judicial is not a biased officer in conform- ing). process. ity Turney Ohio, with due v. my opinion the order of the Board 47 S.Ct. L.Ed. 273 U.S. 71 the cause remand- set aside and should be 1256; Whitaker Mc- 50 A.L.R. hearing. think the hear- new ed Lean, 1941,-App.D.C.-, 596. F.2d examiner, bias of the ing was vitiated Morgan States, 1938, And v. United see requirements by the Board’s concern- 773,999, 1, 58 S.Ct. 82 L.Ed. 1129. U.S. prejudicial subpoenas, and that error record discloses the following con- peti- denial to committed the conduct cerning examiner right to of the adduce certain tes- tioners hearing this case: charges, timony in defense Board’s findings defectively and method (1) Extent examination of hearing interrogated Even fair : examiner framed. if and the witnesses about necessary of all peti- relevant tes- the witnesses called admission for the 40% timony findings properly approx- drawn His examination be as- covered tioners. is, assuming, pages record, imately including case can sumed— properly be decided on this think or more in the examination record—I some 20 petitioners’ there was no substantial witnesses evidence of each Stanton Campbell, domination or interference the for- and some 75 in examination. organ- petitioners’

mation or administration of witness Much VVilliams. the ex- Board that was in nature contention questioning of this petitioners’ wit- questioning In contrast with aminer’s cross-examination. not, except necessary by in- lack isolated nesses was made the examiner did part the Board’s stances, competency witnesses for on the question Relations refrained Cf. instances he counsel. National and in such Dehydrated Food Washington The examiner’s Board v. from cross-examination. Cir., petitioners’ Company, witnesses F.2d questioning of *14 end of cross-exam- at occurred often ination Improper The examiner (2) questions: or after one more re- (frequently witnesses extensively who cross-examined cross-examinations) by the counsel Board’s petitioner oí the were did apparent that the latter —after it was the Cambria concerning provisions oi further. At times examine not desire to despite the fact operation, Plan and ¡he interrupted cross-examination examiner admitted that most of witnesses petitioners’ counsel for witnesses of the knowledge did not technical the examination the Board and continued Plan, despite provisions interrupted direct examina- himself. He eligible not fact that some of them were petitioners for the to in- tion terpose counsel participate organization in the Cambria pursued He cross-examination. and that none had testified under direct not been questioning iiue concerning examination the matters as to during for the Board by counsel pursued the examiner was cross-examining ¡he suggest- He latter’s cross-examination. apparently The them. examiner was at- possible of cross-examination ed a avenue tempting to demonstrate Plan adopt- promptly to counsel for the satisfactory work as a would bargaining The examiner byed such counsel. conduct- questions method. The lengthy searching examination of aed following direct examiner examination ¡he petitioners’ witness Stanton in an ob- frequently for petitioners counsel far impair the credibility of his effort to vious testimony scope exceeded of the direct examina- put light more favorable and to tion, beyond and in one instance went upon the of the Governor of Penn- action issues case. Often the examiner’s sylvania ordering a shut-down sought testimony, questions example, inadmissible for Cambria Plant after the strike Johnstown non-expert when asked a he wit- end. achieve had failed to aminer made a The ex- if he considered the Plan of Em- ness ployees’ effort his cross- similar Representation at the Cambria petitioners’ examination of witness Obviously Plant a labor union. such a Nicely. question could be answered in factual as- such improper— course only expert, pect legal an aspect only necessary indeed it is at times ex- an—for Again, or courts. judge aminer amine, to examine cross-ex- questions, asked lay examiner of a witness he even on his own mo- petitioners, concerning for the the legal get call It is his duty witnesses. provisions Plan, effect of the Cambria the case. His' truth of own exam- at despite the fact the Plan itself was may in some instances ination certaining aid in as- in evidence—therefore the examiner and But this the truth. alone should could legal Board and numerous determine its meaning— n objective. his He should be restraint exercise with hypothetical questions call- authority his conduct an ex- opinion witness’ concerning va- must amination himself. He advo- be rious states of facts which had never ex- side the other. cate the one He must This sought isted. examination put in- only, judge, partisan. never a non-expert the record interpretation Montgomery &Ward Co. v. National La- of a written document. one instance Board, Cir., 1939, bor Relations 103 F.2d attempted get the examiner witness to represented The testimony in his supply a word which would hearing its examiner before by sev- legal petitioners’ prejudicial of its own to the eral members staff. There case.1 1 During thereupon the course of examination examiner took over the cross- Ryan, petitioners, one called as follows: examination testified that “Trial Examiner witness men in the mill Bloom: What was the had talked the Cambria Plant about? about discussion Well, against they all one “The Witness: Fetzko whom discrimination wanted charged. George [Fetzko] after know what intend- the strike had been

.656 to make petitioners against ob- he rules the whom Often counsel for the liged purpose of ruling exam- record of the for the interpose objections appeal. then questions the examiner was iner’s pass being obliged to position During petition- cross-examination of the questions very propriety of the Campbell, ers’ witness counsel asking. which he himself was unsigned ar- Board offered in evidence rulings: ex- (3) Discrimination clipped page of a from the editorial ticle petition- aminer discriminated between the newspaper. author was Johnstown not Board in of cross-ex- ers amination produced by Board to counsel for the by permitting counsel for the article, the examiner stat- but identify beyond scope di- go Board to alleged he “satisfied” that the ed that confining petition- rect examination but Andrews, author, had in fact written one ers’ counsel to the limits of the direct The it, evi- received it in the examiner put examiner forbade the in- petitioners. *15 objection the over dence proof to record written offers of with pe- the effort counsel for the a later Yet ' respect general lawless- to violence matter dur- titioners to introduce similar strike, refusing

ness at even the was ing presentation of the Board’s case Johnstown permit subject to a final offer on to this During his cross-examina- not successful: exhibit, apparently be marked as an thus Jordan, coun- tion of the Board’s witness attempting deny petitioners the the petitioners the offered in evidence sel for perfect a foundation for review of the (parts had newspaper article of which ruling testimony that the offered was in- read record counsel for into the been say admissible. I do ruling Board) not the which had written the Jor- himself, (as point itself because bore part incorrect I out in least dan and which topic necessarily portions was) subject II that it as evidences the same matter on judge bias. A or examiner make above mentioned editorial a the article at- Andrews, mistaken on ruling admissibility the of evi- ap- tributed and which had convicting without peared newspaper dence himself of unfair- in the same the An- fairly ness. But he deny party cannot editorial. drews Nevertheless the exam- strike, ed to do if come out trial on Tke examiner then stated that a “fairly elapsed” whether he would stick the men or with substantial time between stick with the O.I.O.— time the when the witness said the what “Mr. Ford [counsel for examiner Board] the t claimed he had said the I Could have that? time when the made witness the first “(The reporter repeated ques- only regard the last statement in that recorded forth.) reporter set hearing. above the official Repeat “Trial Examiner Bloom: Whether or not the witness said in the answer, please. first instance what the examiner claimed reporter “(The repeated said, the last an- had he the incident illustrates forth.) set swer as above effort of the examiner to assist' prosecution “Trial Examiner Bloom: You don’t re- Board in the of its case. If company’? saying, say ‘the call the witness did what the examiner said, [counsel Board]: Shawe “Mr. for the claimed quently had subse- he witness saying You don’t recall men whether clear that he had George say it, for, response would stick with the men— intended to to a men, question Witness: “The Stick with the of counsel for the Board as company. anything with whether men had ever said “sticking” (By Shawe) company, about with “Q. Mr. The men never responded, anything sticking that? A. “About said about About witness with sticking company, company, If, hand, no.” no.” the other say Later, witness what exam- did after redirect examination on said, subject iner claimed he the examiner different pleted, matter had been com- went further than did trial examiners the examiner referred to the fore- Montgomery going Inland Steel stated that it was his recollec- Ward cases referred to in the text tion that the witness had said that topic. There the examiners this trial matter discussed was whether Fetzko kept out of In this matters the record. company would “stick with the or stick incident, attempting the examiner apparent purpose was men.” The with the prejudicial add matter record prejudice examiner was appeared Company petitioner by which would not otherwise implying regarded therein. op- its interests posed to their own. true, findings one coun- article as rested iner, objection by the Board’s Moreover, Citizens’ al- of the Board with sel, this article. excluded Committee, subject is the of discus when ad- stated he though the examiner topic it was re- sion in VII below.2 the Andrews article mitted simply that Andrews had to show ceived (4) Prejudging the case: Before say, mere- (that is statements made the principal com- case for proof ly as fact that the statements plete on the facts the examiner abetted and proof truth), of their were made and not as joined counsel for the con- Board in report exam- yet in the intermediate tending National Labor Relations proof of facts iner used this article as Pennsylvania Lines, Greyhound Board v. it, and the Board’s decision contained 303 U.S. 82 L.Ed. S.Ct. examiner’s both the did likewise. Thus during 115 A.L.R. decided hearsay ig- limitation rule progress hearing, was determinative noteworthy up- It is nored. further colloquy of the instant case. I set out margin.3 suggest on the faith of the of the Andrews in the I contents do not bargaining. Now, found “that existence method of collective The Board apprehension why respondents vio of violence want know by newspaper reports notify don’t lence induced the Su- plants preme in strikes at other steel Court has outlawed violence all those com- pany leading They told were two of the factors unions. them it le- gal. Now, Greyhound since the decision formation Committee Citizens’ *16 explanation finding, respondents duty I think the ....” of this owe a to all employees notify their said: to them that foregoing employee representation plans these ac- “It evident from the is are illegal by the Citizens’ and have been count the activities outlawed the Su- that, premo prime Court function was Committee that, the United States.. organization vilifying petition- [counsel Mr. Moore union for say, Examiner, engendering public hostility posi- I op- ers] : Mr. that is tively misleading. position false and the strikers. The Citizens’ Mr. Shawe: The Government tell Committee considered that it could best will objectives by directing them. achieve its its at- Supreme against organization Mr. Moore: The tack by ending Court has union plan possible. illegal, not that decided is there the strike as soon as nothing Greyhound perhaps pungently is in the was most ex- Case that “This says pressed February it is. II. G. Andrews on Mr. Shawe: I like after the Citizens’ Com- would to read from months Greyhound active, in Case. mittee had been Table,’ “The Round appearing a column edi- on the comes, Mr. Moore: When the time we pago the Johnstown torial Democrat. argue Greyhound Case, will but we states, alia: The column inter putting evidence, are now in we not “ very hasn’t much ‘There testi- arguing now. mony concerning fact tiic Citizens’ Mr. Shawe: I would like to read this organized purpose for Committee was Supreme from the Court decision— breaking the strike and for no other object Mr. Moore: 1 to it. purpose. Bethlehem’s Mr. Evans was provisions Mr. Shawe: “There is no in any misapprehension under never as to Employees’ tho Associations made for purposes the actual for the com- meetings members, pro- nor was That mittee was formed. there were at whereby employees cedure established least some members of the committee might representatives instruct their who what knew were about must be whereby representatives might these dis- granted. job hand, taken for on reports information seminate —” standpoint, from the Citizens’ Committee petition- [counsel Mr. Broun for tho breaking was and tho strike ers] : Examiner— Mr. resumption of work the mills. The respond- academic members of the committee did Mr. Shawe: I would like for talking right any provi- tho about the me constitutional ents show if there are Employees’ Representation However, of the men to work. sions permits whoops didn’t amount Plan which two their Hades ” meet, unless the allows strike was broken.’ problems? Why, [counsel Mr. Shawe meet discuss their the Board]: working Examiner, Mr. this man has been also for the mill evidence years respondents twenty-eight this record that in- I bet he meeting formed their a Em- attended Em- never ployees’ legal ployees’ Representation Representation Plan. Plan awas say examination, do not proper- and the like. I may not examiner judge or that a malevo- examiner case Court Supreme ly that a suggest counsel especial- lent; not partisanship did and his vitally upon issues may bear decision rough ly certainly he itself sarcastic evidence hearing; but involved in the witnesses, as did that decision is treatment that such a not decide should National v. in Inland Steel Co. has heard examiners on the facts before he controlling Cir., Relations all the evidence. Ward & Co. Montgomery F.2d and in I conclude that the order of the Board Board, cited Labor Relations National the ex-

was vitiated the unfairness of above, quote both of which I below. from I bear mind burden aminer. examiner in this case was But examiner, especially where —as success, for the ac- partisan a anxious lengthy, hearing case—a ill feel- instant development, aiding tively between counsel for the ing is exhibited case, regret obliged Board’s I am respective parties, and where the factual conclude. complex aspect of the case is and the tes- ex- documentary contends even if the volumi- The Board timony evidence biased, easy was waived his bias nous. an examiner aminer object through proceeding petitioners failure to maintain his prej- composure accomplish showing of actual all times and to absence of at are, consistency ruling. think, These full I bear in mind contentions udice. Objection supportable. an examiner also that has —must have— to the bias of the broad discretion manner examiner was conducting hearing, extent of cross- the earliest time that it could made to you going (By Shawe) Q. Mr. Have at- I am not to sit ever bere for another meeting Employees’ 24,000 pages tended under the six months and take of tes- Representation Plan, timony point may Mr. Cover? going completely Mr. Moore: When are we decided argument get start down Court. *17 your right, job the basis— Mr. That’s Moore: it is outrageous. Mr. It Shawe: is to rule we will—when I have con- by Mr. Moore: The statements made cluded— absolutely every counsel are in childish Trial Examiner Bloom: If the re- spondents’ sense. counsel care to answer some anything questions going them, If Mr. Shawe: is childish it I which am to ask respondents they they may is for to this out- continue them. answer If don’t rage prolonging this suit. them, to answer don’t have to care disgraceful now, Mr. Moore: It is a most that is obvious. All I answer want thing is, respect, you Examiner that an will allow stuff in what since to know Greyhound this. decision of the have read the I Mr. submit opinion, Shawe: you I since familiar assume February handed down on Court decision take Plan —we will the Cambria case like blanket. 28th covers this in ma- Plan —I would like to what know Moore, you respects Trial Examiner Bloom: Mr. terial conceive the Cambria you outrageous it think is for me since from the in in Plan to differ Plan issue things that, going like I am Greyhound to allow to Case? you specifically, you ask have read place, Mr. Moore: I the first have opinion Greyhound States United Plan in the not read Gres'hound Supreme Court? it, Case, had it. If had I haven’t I had have, I Mr. Moore: sir. opinion going express to an not I am way you or the in Trial Examiner one so far that Bloom: Would tell until I the Plan— know what the dif- wherein is concerned me are, upon am but when I know Mr. Moore: I not ferences what called are, argue going then I will be able to the case differences now I not am my whether, mind, say in is I I studied find out to. the Plan and I know any application think, in this whatever. the facts case I and I Greyhound moment, say bearing I not seen it from have Case has At the no upon ease, this whatever. what is stated facts case bunk, compared right, all and this is Trial Examiner Bloom: All we Grey- judgment, say my will find out. in this did the Mr. Moore: decides case. So I am not called hound Case argue my Meyers case. Case decide this case now. No, Bloom: I don’t Examiner Trial Examiner Trial Bloom: At same Meyers time, did. Case I am the in think this case and Examiner might willing, who land anyone Steel Co. v. who be National Labor Relations re- power, ordering correct cited above: wit, examiner, another hearing before argues though “Tlie Board the crit- even filing of at the Board the time justi- icism directed Examiner at Trial be exceptions intermedi- examiner’s yet fied, order be should not set aside be- cause petitioner prove has failed to case legal in report. requirement ate The prejudiced, was favorable evidence at objection made proceedings shall be to it was kept say from the record. ... To or otherwise of an asserted error time prejudiced petitioner was because waived, ex- give judge or trial is the unfair and biased be manner ease tried Trial purely is Examiner, opportunity aminer, he, case as the page matter speculation.” [109 F.2d at .J com- error of its at time correct the Board further defends the order But the thus a retrial. mission and save pointing out that the examination of wit- require futile doing of a does not law nesses the trial examiner covered but thing. A examiner cannot correct biased portion a small of the record —on a basis bias is cure for liis own bias. There evidence, pages excluding documentary On — except rehearing officer. before fair think, also, some This contention Appeals 5%. subject, the Circuit Court this judi- merit. without Once bias exists Montgomery Eighth Circuit said in officer, hearings cial him before are vitiat- Relations Labor Ward & Co. v. National ed no during matter how short the time Board, cited above: happened which the bias to disclose itself. called to "... These matters were Subpoena requirements. The rules of exceptions Attention of filed the Board II, (Article 21) Section effect They were report intermediate of the examiner. recognized hearing pro- nor rectified instance. at time in this case injustice way We see no which the done applications vided in for sub- righted hearing except this character be can poenas : setting in en- the Board aside order remanding a new tirety the case to “Such applications shall subpoenas] Ffor hearing another examiner a deter- timely before and shall specify the name the wit- upon the record to be mination the Board ness and the nature he proved by facts hearing. delay new nec- upon such him, specify and must documents, pro- regrettable hearing a new but avoid- essary to duction of partic- with such desired, justify delay cannot a tolerance of vio- ularity ance as will enable them identified for rights Regula- fundamental in the administra- lation purposes production.” [Rules justice.” pages [108 157.] F.2d Series tions, 1930] amended, April 27, Italics supplied] T discerningly remarked National applied examiner requirement Washington De- Relations Board v. *18 respect subpoena of a duces tecum and a- above, hydrated Company, Food cited that: subpoena ad to one McDon- testificandum ald, that an official may truly respondent “It be said who was of the Steel Work- objection no to such conduct of the strenuous Committee, Organizing ers hereafter during the course of hear Trial Examiner convenience referred to as S.W.O.C. and objection ing, always nec may not be but person likely therefore be a not to will- of essary where it would be avail. -especially no counsel to voluntary ‘failure ... pe- to a Furthermore, be witness object feeling due to may well have been only require- not And was titioners. might antagonize course Exam that that specification of the ment of nature of the Cupples the detriment of their clients.’ to iner proved facts enforced to be exam- Co. Mfrs. v. National Relations 8 Board, precedent 100, 1069F.2d iner as a condition 113.” to the issu- Cir., subpoenas, ance of the but also the exam- As the contention that there was to subpoena declined to issue the to Mc- iner showing prejudice: is a showing of There he, Donald for the reason that iner, the exam- in the use the examiner prejudice sought not “think did the matters of the Andrews article above the Board proven particularly be relevant these require not But the law does described. ruling by The proceedings.” the examiner prejudice objective demonstration of actual Moreover, the Board. was sustained judge a from the bias examiner. requirement subpoenas should state prejudice, itself because due bias is proved the nature the facts to be Amendment to process clause Fifth unilaterally, is, applied against pe- guarantees hearing fair Constitution titioners, subpoenas not hearing can no fair before and there issued the instance of the Board itself. biased officer. The law docs not speculate bias,, consequences once it right every is in both citizen civil subject On shown. it was in In- said and criminal cases to have compulsory is process witnesses proved necessary for the attendance of facts to has the Anglo-American effect of essential feature of the compelling such a either party legal (3d rely upon system. Wigmore, Evidence voluntary witnesses or to disclose Amendment to the Board in ed.1940) 2190-1. Sixth advance strategy and §§ plans preserves to the for the expressly Constitution his conduct of defense. A civil right in cases. And both lawsuit or criminal is hearing of course not compulsory right game, certainly and criminal cases the but it controversy. is concept process For one which inheres in the Board thus is to obtain advance preserved per- knowledge to all process party of due law case of a trial on Cf. before sons under the Fifth Amendment. party can have when 45, 1932, Alabama, 53 no case, Powell U.S. advance knowledge of the Board’s v. contrary elementary 84 A.L.R. 527. So is principles L.Ed. S.Ct. fair ap- every person duty play. absolute Under the National Labor Relations pear matters give testimony within Act the on Board is only judge, it is also subpoenaed knowledge prosecutor. party his signs when the com- appear plaint cannot refuse witness himself charging practices unfair evidence testify ground through then prosecutes its counsel sought immaterial or irrelevant. of him is the case before its examiner and itself. States, 1906, perpetuate Nelson 201 U.S. order United testimony prevent or to It is surprise L.Ed. 26 S.Ct parties to save the time of right process, like course true that the tribunal unnecessary eliminating issues rights, guaranteed the Constitu- discovery of evidence in advance of trial is tion, conditions permitted absolute. Reasonable civil proceedings many rights. constitutional A can be attached to states and Federal Rules of Civil requirement example familiar is the Procedure for the District Courts of the appearing in payment persons not United (Rules 34), States 28 U.S. forma fee a condition of pauperis a moderate 723c, C.A. following section but is al- trial, require- jury to a parties lowed to both to the suit. jury for a be made sea- ment that demand To attach as precedent a condition sonably in advance of the date trial. obtaining process a showing of the rele- requirements These of fee seasonable vancy testimony sought put is to made, respectively, in order to demand are issuance subpoenas within the discretion expense assist the state in meeting of of the officer issuing or Board because-—(cid:127) trials, jury serve the convenience of especially and this is true in cases where jury. applica- both court and Seasonable issues are as broad as in the type instant process issuance of for the be re- case—whether testimony is relevant purpose quired, again, avoiding question. often a close point out later States, delay trials. Neufield v. United opinion in this testimony offered —1941, App.D.C.-, 118 F.2d 375. And relevant; of McDonald was but because requiring specification the condition of doc- the examiner and the thought it subpoena uments duces tecum was not not, process were denied protection unreasonable conveni- *19 against McDonald, and thus denied the ence the custodian documents. right of proper part presenting a of their But no conditions be can attached to a defense to the charges. Board’s right constitutional defeat will or materially require application limit it. And to state- unilateral the rules subpoenas also, of the nature of a testimony my ment witness’ to with in or opinion, the nature of documents as a indefensible. There condition is no more precedent subpoena proposition to a obtaining Anglo-American elementary will instances many process, defeat the to than that the itself law Government its especially where prosecution a witness own probably its tribunals of cases hostile. or their Parties counsel seeking against the citizen shall be on terms always evidence are not equality law; able to with the citizen before know the applies nature of supposedly testimony available and this not only to substantive but first proposed procedural without to the talking wit- also to rules. In Inland Steel ness, and not be able to with him talk Co. National Labor Relations may compelled above, unless his attendance by can be cited the Seventh Circuit Court of Moreover, process. require ap- Appeals, party requirement a to referring to plying for application a subpoena subpoenas to disclose nature that an for Board order therefore conclude that the of the the nature state by party must made only by un- Board not witness, was vitiated by the said: proved to facts be “ by re- fairness examiner but also placed of the side one was .a burden . . ¡the mat- other in the as to not did exist quirements therefore, subpoenas, and that concerning obtaining The situation witnesses. ter of no matter inconvenience what Petitioner, aptly to in order thus: be stated set aside and delay, or order should be required present subpoena, ito was obtain examiner had before another hearing new application no- opponent therefor by prove expected wit- to what subpoena require- tice as and in of the the absence subpoenaed. Thus, it was ness desired jus- The essentials ments mentioned. (the prosecu- Board discretion of the within the sake of ex- foregone tice can not be for process party) tor, when determine if not a pediency. con- the one to be issue in favor of should page 19.] [109 F.2d at demned.” II requirement unwar- held the The court Adduce Evidence Motion to ranted, part a basis for reversal and in charge to the part As a its defense (1) hearing. fair denial of and interference domination subpoena require- defends the The Board of the formation and administration Cam- by but asserting such ments petitioners sought bria Plan to ask prejudice as a re- no showing was questions series of each of a number so far as the of them. It is true that sult Employees’ Representatives including concerned, subpoena duces tecum was also one who General was Chairman obtained. But to documents require otherwise Plant, at the Cambria one who was Body also put prejudice showing of would Body, Secretary the General subpoena in im- for a party applying Secretary. one who was a former questions These he un- would be possible situation. Often testi- were intended to adduce prejudice unless he could able to show mony or the effect that domination ascertain thereby the witness obtain the nature of his interference occurred under Plan. testimony; often he By questions the the first of these obtain the witness able to would petitioners sought prove that the witness point process. This same was without any way taking, was influenced Inland Co. v. the Board in Steel by taking, in refraining re- action Board, and Labor Relations National employ- to the terms or lating conditions disposed of follows: employees- relating ment to the —or “ argued by . Tt is further . . formation or amendment Plan or to complaint petitioner’s merit be- without operation, its administration or or relating showing cause there is no that evidence favora- self-organization to the argument begs to it was excluded. This ble question. purpose bargaining collectively for the considering We are not now ex- protection, for other mutual aid or or to the petitioner prejudiced, to which tent but was, procedure, deprived whether such engaging by concerted ac- right, procedure a substantial or whether purposes, bargaining tivities such placed employed disadvantage it at a in contrast employeesthrough rep- collectively such opponent.” page [109 with its F.2d 19.] choosing by any of their resentatives own — urged facts, It is further one of different as the fact such conditions attached to the issuance the witness was at paid sub- time poenas designed prevent petitioners, and not “obstruc- the Plan or else, tive tactics” and other abuse spent someone Board’s time conferring subpoena power parties, and that it is or with not with other Em- necessary apply Representatives ployees’ conditions representa- or with agents Board’s because management, the Board ample tives of the on matters relat- supervisory power prevent improper employment con- the witness or *20 by duct argument anyone them. This is the familiar else. are set out There in the mar- king wrong. can do no gin It has other not facts which were alluded to Anglo-American with favor By met in questions.4 questions in the first 126 courts. by Company These facts were: Bethlehem Steel time and by by not the Plan or someone for else any 1. That the witness was at time by spent working in time him on nomina- paid by Company Bethlehem Steel and elections. tions and by by not the Plan or someone for else spent by attending meetings Company time him in That Bethlehem and Steel 3. held or under the Plan. the Plan someone else furnished charge paid any a dinner 2. That to those at- the witness at without who choos- through representatives of their own prove sought to ISO ground knew, ing. questions, To these or witness one whom peti- a conclusion called for representativa of thought, was a objections witness, examiner sustained ca- supervisory in a tioners or was acting by the Board. way for them, any interfered made counsel pacity for ever

with, restrained, coerced or dominated erroneous. State ruling I think tak- taking, refraining or witness motive, intent, action mind, reason for of con- relating to the terms or ing, any action like, of substan- when as matter employees or employment of the lay ditions of issue, aby testified can tive law be or amendment of formation relating knowledge the sub- possessed of on witness ject, its administration or to the Cambria Plan of division though there is some and the self-or- operation, relating or or testimony under authority, such better purpose for ganization of the objectionable upon theory view mu- or for other bargaining collectively “usurps fact the function” of the trier of to the protection, or relating tual aid or the ultimate issue in the case. employees in concerted engaging (3d Wigmore, ed.1940) Evidence §§ purposes, or the bar- 1917-29; for such state activities and see id. intent, And the 1963. § mind, motive, action reason for such collectively gaining Company paid 11. That Bethlehem Steel Conferences and the Annual tended voting lists for use nomina- for time furnished tions and elections held under at and other the witness spent the Plan there. any year. any paid at witness was 4. That Company Company That and 12. Bethlehem Steel Bethlehem Steel time paid and not the Plan or else for someone else Plan or someone transportation any spent by for and in connection with labor in him connec- time setting up voting places with the him under the Plan. taken action representatives man- the Plant within for and That nominations 5. Company any agement held under Bethlehem Steel elections Plan in any present year. any at Annual at time were any meeting Company That Bethlehem 13. Steel Commit- or Conference any Committee, tee, and not the Plan the General or someone at or else Joint mimeographed paid Body, time or for mim- the Plan. under eographing meetings meetings Body minutes held That General 6. under the Plan. the various committees and of any property time Company at held on were Plan 14. That Bethlehem Steel Company any Steel without Bethlehem of charge the Plan or at and not someone else stenographer Plan. paid for time of time meetings Body meetings General a clerk took That or who notes at 7. under the committees under the Plan of the various held writing up used them in prop- any meetings. at time held on minutes Plan were of such Company erty Company in- Steel That Bethlehem Bethlehem 15. Steel property. permitted any off such at time minutes of meet- stead Company through ings Bethlehem Steel delivered 8. That inter- any delivery plant Plan someone at not the or else time at service the Cambria provided or more Plant. one rooms use headquarters of Plan. meetings 16. That minutes of held un- headquarters any 9. That the Plan posted der the Plan were at time property located on were Bethlehem boards the Cambria bulletin Plant. Company prop- instead of off such Steel erty. Company 17. That Bethlehem Steel any printed not the Plan at time or paid printing schedules any printing 10. That at time meetings to held under the Plan. notices, typewriting of ballots other That 18.. Bethlehem Steel typewritten printed or material use Plan not the or someone at else with nominations elec- connection printed the time Plan. held under the Plan was tions done expense Bethlehem Steel That Bethlehem Steel Plan someone not of the else— Plan not the someone fur- else stationery that all materials that supplies the fact other nished all holding with the used connection used the Plan. that were and elections in nominations 20. That nominations and elections *21 by year any furnished were the Plan under were at time held by property Plan the or someone else. and on the Bethlehem Steel held property. such instead off

663 person be Treasurer 251 particular like of a of' S.W.O.C. Exhibit No. may and the purported testimony bargaining the be by to only established not agreement testimony the between the Car persons but also S.W.O.C. and other that negie (1910) Corporation. peti see Note person Illinois himself. And Steel Objection seq. L.R.A.,N.S., 367, et tioners asserted the Board in National 372 23 made to this given testimony, Republic when Labor Relations class Steel v. that, himself, Company, 1938, 219,5 ground the had N.L.R.B. char person the agreement known mind can be of that state of acterized the an as signing since own his importance cannot him, possible the steel only his falsification “event historic to industry,” Golden, refuted, foundation. had Clinton quoted sound and without be per supra, Regional 1965. Such an Wigmore, op. cit. Director of and S.W.O.C. § compe- weight, signed charge not to to son case, instant objection goes who objection agreement that such a to tency. Similarly, as referred having an judge his as con pur person bargaining be accurate the “standard collective cannot weight to alone. tract” goes Exhibit No. 252 state of mind S.W.O.C. own like person, ported agreement mind of to be between “The state of body, fact is a to and Gen state or condition of United Workers Automobile it Corporation fact proved any when eral and to be terms like Motors case, per- and the agreement in a with the substantially an issue identical relevant to sought directly petitioners thereto.” 251. The may testify Exhibit No. son himself execution, 312, prove And cf. Crawford date 335. McDonald the § Am.Jur. States, 1909, duration, terms, scope, provisions 212 U.S. and other v. United 465, agreements 15 Ann.Cas. 392. amend of each of these 29 S.Ct. Under this L.Ed. principle supplements a witness or general ments modifications or thereof, influence on application meaning to the existence and the testify as 610-1, applied provisions 704. Interna- construed his mind. § C.J. Parmer, 1909, agreements; parties 58 Tex. and the tional Land Co. 196; proce sought Grever v. Civ.App. petitioners 123 S.W. to show N.E. provided 829. Plans similar Taylor, 53 Ohio St. dure for in the was Employees’ case, that under these the instant in essential whether elements In wrongfully influenced refused to re agreements. The examiner Representatives persons matters evidence and refused ceive exhibits in was in issue questions, subpoena McDonald. The referred issue and inter- charge upon domination ruling two under the Board affirmed this first, administra- upon the formation grounds: theory ference with gist of this Plan. tion of the the agreements Cambria contents and the testi state of the will issue What was mony was: of McDonald were irrelevant to the Employees’ Representatives issue in instant case domination —was petitioners, of the subjection petitioners, will and interference since topic point out under was not? IV Carnegie Corporation Illinois Steel Corporation “domination” “interfer- below the General Motors were not National Labor Relations Act case; second, ence” in the parties instant corruption overriding of the upon theory is meant the Board consid provisions will. ering Plans Plans a whole and in light of the That error excluding testi- origin light history prejudicial mony cannot I think be interference, simi long course of and that The Board introduced doubted. evidence provisions larity of the Plans prove domination actual intended Carnegie provisions Illinois petitioners Plan. The the Cambria Corporation or General Motors Cor rebut it Steel poration agreements would he of little partial (2) charge defense to the Board did exclude the two value. and interference domination testimony of McDonald or the exhibits organizations comprised in the Plans the would ground that collateral issues attempted to introduce evi raised. dence exhibits marked identification sought ruling Nos. 251 also to examiner’s obtain I think subpoena of a issuance thereof were errone- ad Board’s confirmation testificandum McDonald, David of exclusion— ground one the first Secretary- As to ous. J. pages 243, See *22 66á if, sought petitioners’ the case prove, to petitioners concerning as the violence. The attempted given objected ruling counsel Republic case had and Board in’the its Steel to Carnegie proof. Illinois make a imprimatur Steel written offer of The ex- to Corpora- permit aminer Corporation and Motors would not even this to be General if, petitioners agreements, go tion and marked or to into the record. In sev- show, provisions and sought hearing, to eral other instances during further agreements es- practices petitioners examiner forbade the intro- under such to provisions in and testimony general as the duce sentially the same intended show Plans, ap- then the practices and extreme and vi- the proval violence in Johnstown Carnegie cinity. rulings Board to the given by the were con- examiner’s Corporation and General Mo- firmed an offer Illinois the Board. shown Steel As proof printed constituted Corporation agreements appendix to the mo- in an tors approval adduce, expert of the Plans petitioners effect intended relevant application as standard was a and their call witnesses to theré show thus tended to bargaining agreements complete and breakdown in and order law against charge them. vicinity. the Board’s confute The items vio- Johnstown was not of exclusion ground sought The second lence proved were assaults testimony the offered because types, trespasses meritorious of various batteries on merely have shown of McDonald property, would and other dynamiting, to, agreements referred automobiles, shooting, structure throw- overturning objection application. This missiles, also their ing dows, but stones breaking and other win- admissibility. The weight, not to went one man of all of his stripping intended having introduced evidence Board night eject- clothes in the of the middle procedure prove Plans and the ing street, public him from an automobile into interfered with dominated and vandalism, thereunder general together comprised organizations the labor adequate police protection. an absence of The Plans, of the exhibits and of of the exclusion ruling apparently examiner was he had testimony of McDonald was denial upon already ground petitioners to rebut the mind, determined in his own and would case, prejudicial and was hence er- Board’s recommend a finding ror. there had violence in He Johnstown. complaint paragraph of the the did IS so recommend and (3) did so petitioners, through charged find. The was that reasoning apparently officers, representatives agents and finding violence favor of the con- had, called the strike of during petitioners tention of the that there was Plant, the Cambria S.W.O.C. at Johns- violence—the Board having originally con- town, Pennsylvania, engendered, expressed the contrary tended to further testi- —made hostility publicized opposition subject unnecessary. on the mony leaders, S.W.O.C., organizers and mem- bers; against petitioners ruling introduced evidence This the Board my and the Board that this done the examiner was in view er prove intended roneous for reason petitioners through the formation and ac- that it failed to dis tinguish the issue as to the between mere of Citizens’ Committee tivities town. Johns- petition- fact of and the issue as to ex To rebut this evidence violence testimony generality peti introduce tent and thereof. This the ers endeavored to desired, right, general extreme violence tioners and had a to show showing prove vicinity during period in rebuttal tending Johnstown of certain formation and testimony When activities Citizens’ strike. petitioners’ response the natural been elicited from the witness Committee were general the effect that there had been citizens to the extreme and Lawrence to violence enforcement, Johnstown, civil disorder at the trial and breakdown law

some interrupted rather than to the influence petit and ruled that no examiner evidence would be received in the ioners.6 Board introduced further Since ev identify rulings assailants, ex- was not able bis Peculiarities aspect aminer in of the case for that reason tbe examiner struck employee Stein, testimony illustrated: out all of bis One refused petitioners, and witness for the allow counsel tbe to make described argument opposition direct examination an an ing. attack made to that rul- way purpose testimony on him while his tbe to work. Since of tbe appeared merely that he cross-examination was to show tbe and sev- extent

(J65 any take ultimately, through any any time charge, committee at the prove dence to purpose or below, found action or do for the topic anything VII out in point as I designed to charge, the intent of helping the with against petitioners [or the dis- as Company was testimony help] Bethlehem Steel offered of the exclusion the interest tinguished any business from other prejudicial. property or owner located whether the evidence rebuttal of Johns- (4) In further any elsewhere?”; ac- taking “In town or charge in its Board under the introduced refraining or in anything in doing or peti- the complaint, of the paragraph 15 anything doing action or taking any from members as produced witnesses tioners the you, a member of did as representatives Johnstown the Citizens’ Committee its Executive or of Citizens’ Committee them petitioner and asked Company of the Committee, purpose aid- ever act testimony elicit questions designed to ing, or Steel Bethlehem helping benefiting accessory connec- effect there was Corporation Company or Bethlehem Steel the Citi- petitioners and tion between the distinguished other interest or any from as Objections to some zens’ Committee. owner located in other whether property ex- were sustained questions these or elsewhere?” examiner’s The called ground aminer Johnstown rulings by the Board. confirmed Such were conclusion. Some an inadmissible questions permissible, as com- so far were rulings ground were techni- made on concerned, petency al- was rule example, question within For cally correct. subtopic topic luded this to in (1) there connection in where- any was asked: “Was pointed testimony out Company that the any Bethlehem way Steel between intent, mind, motive, state of witness Corporation or Steel Bethlehem like, for action an in- reason not Citizens’ Whether was Committee?” conclusion. admissible The examiner did conclusion to such a connection against any questions, not evi- rule of fact drawn the trier proper, upon I have above indicated were concerning dence the activities of Com- that the not ground answers mittee, or trans- were with- concerning contacts thereof, knowledge of the witness. or the absence actions with By the is- petitioners. inference therefrom testimony sought to be elicited connection accessory sue would as to questions is- these was relevant under the determined. accessory between sue of connection many petitioners questions But did seek testi- Citizens’ Committee and Committee, mony activities of the rulings as to the its activities. Therefore the were prejudicial to its contacts or transactions or the petitioners denying thereof, petitioners. opportunity absence to rebut the evidence intro- against “Did the or Thus: Citizens’ them. The ultimately Committee duced Committee, Executive for the acting Citi- that: found Committee, any acting zens’ or official “ implement- . . . was thus Committee, any the Citizens’ have business ing strengthening agency which was seek- organiza- transactions to defeat the efforts of the union Bethlehem Steel Com- destroy organization by tion and to creat- Corporation?”; pany or Bethlehem Steel ing hostility toward it. Represen- “Did [Management’s Evans Mr. “ . . . tried to utilize the Elli- tative at Cambria Plant or Mr. ] apparent impartiality of the Citizens’ Commit- manager general cott Cambria [the interfering tee as a means of with the self-or- ganization and concerted Representative of Beth- activities of its em- Plant] ployees. ...” lehem Steel Bethlehem Steel Corporation any part time take defends its action of any transaction business that was the examiner in of the foregoing transacted Citizens’ Committee or pointing rulings out that in its decision the Executive Committee?” The answers “We do not respond- find that the stated: questions improperly to such excluded [petitioners] ents participated induced or competency far so was concerned. formation of Citizens’ Commit- Again, examiner question excluded an- this tee.” But the real evades questions following: aspect rejected swer as the to such case. The testi- mony “Did the directly merely Citizens’ Committee offered to defend erity per- operated the violence to fix and should to exclude testimony. responsibility identity therefor, sonal assailants witness’ was immaterial against charge approximate- November within thus ly participated induced or the formation one month after the court denied *24 Committee, par- supplement. also and motion Citizens’ but charge ticularly against to defend think, therefore, I the order of the petitioners had actuated the activities Board should be set aside because of the the Committee after its formation. pre- denial to petitioners right of a sent evidence material to their defense of respect rulings of the examiner charges, rehearing Board’s and that a by Board con- their confirmation should be ordered with directions to admit evidence, admissibility it is cerning the testimony erroneously therein the excluded Labor to be that the National commented present hearing. in the provides proceedings Relations Act that in pre- before the Board “the rules of evidence Ill equity not in courts of shall vailing law Findings Form oe the ) The controlling.” 10(b) be rec- (Section 10(c) requires of the Section Act opinion ord evi- with hearsay filled findings Board to state of fact. I think the dence, beyond scope cross-examination decision the Board does not comply with direct, of the and other matter admitted in requirements Supreme of the Court evidence, sup- violation of rules fact, respect findings court in of this port of Board’s case. This tois be con- accordingly I think that its form should application trasted with the of the strict approval not have the court. against petitioners— rules of evidence charges, decision is an intermixture of evi- sometimes with technical (as correctness dence, inference, argument, opinion, re- subtopic I comment above in this (4) of findings citals facts and underlying topic II) incorrectly. and at other times If ultimate facts. It further rendered con- the rules of evidence to be relaxed fusing failure almost to distin- wholly proceedings of an tri- administrative guish Plans, between although the several Board, bunal such as the the relaxation respect the evidence with them most of equal. should in fairness be The Board testimony limited and there is except adjective requirements should not lower with to one them. require- up aid its own case put again them ments concerning findings, form of the effect of out of the keeping record Supreme stated Court in United charged evidence party offered Chicago, Milwaukee, States v. Paul St. & violation of the Act. does 10(b) Section Co., 1935, 499, Pacific Railroad 294 U.S. purport not to apply to the case Board’s 462, 1023, 55 S.Ct. L.Ed. 79 United States only. worthy It is of note in this connec- Railroad, 1935, v. Baltimore & Ohio 293 although the examiner excluded 454, 465, 268, 587, U.S. 55 S.Ct. L.Ed. 79 the inadmissible conclusions of the wit- 1931, States, and Florida v. United 282 U.S. nesses which just to, I have alluded he 194, 119, 291, L.Ed. 51 S.Ct. 75 and stated nevertheless, point I, topic I out in per- Saginaw court Broadcasting this mitted counsel for the Board to cross-ex- Federal v. Communications Com- lay amine witnesses as to the meaning 1938, mission, App.D.C. 282, 68 554, 96 F.2d provisions Plans, and thus to ask 1938, certiorari denied Gross Saginaw v. questions them to determine of law. Co., 613, Broadcasting 72, 305 U.S. 59 S.Ct. objection 391, the mo- L.Ed. 83 and in Tri-State Broad- tion to timely not, adduce filed is casting Company v. Federal Communica- think, 7, 1940, Commission, well taken. 1938, On October App.D.C. 292, this tions 68 court denied the motion 564, F.2d are not purpose. formalistic in supplement the record. contrary, The nature and On the as said Mr. Justice purpose motion, Cardozo, of that and the allegations for the speaking Court petition upon Milwaukee, review which it Chicago, United States v. St. was based Co., were such that if the supra: motion to Paul Railroad & Pacific “We supplement was sustained the order of the must what a decision know means before duty Board must have set been aside the the say becomes ours to whether it is again held over hearing wrong.” before And as court said Saginaw case, which event to adduce motion Broadcasting would the re- unnecessary. It quirement findings therefore in terms possible file the motion to adduce un- of basic ultimate “is . . . both facts supple- technicality. til after action contrary, motion far On the against The motion ment. was filed on it is adduce to insure Star rneth- Chamber Although, be ad- to shall reason. said in National justice ods, certain to make Pennsylvania law.” Labor Relations Board to facts according ministered Lines, 1938, Greyhound instant U.S. were made findings as Such 82 L.Ed. A.L.R. in National 58 S.Ct. inferences are to condemned case were Products, the trier Thompson drawn courts, Board v. Relations Inc., fact and the inferences Cir., F.2d where inferences. nevertheless be reasoned must And to court said: tribunal reviewing is the duty finding is not of facts tho “The are, the case is see that otherwise mingled proper state- therein form. *25 pri opinion. expressions of law. “The according not decided witnesses ments of No reference should nor evidence he made to the presented mary for our determina question finding injected into ultimate discussion findings or not the of the tion is whether upon rests its order. the Board facts support not arc Board find arbitrary record and of the Statement a clean-cut There should be capricious.” Drawn Union incorporating tho therein facts without ultimate reasoning by Board which tho or the evidence arrived at Labor Relations Steel National Co. v. finding. If desires to the Board Cir., 1940, 587, Board, 589. Un 109F.2d 3 any part emphasize evidence or discuss findings sup der the Federal rule must be give findings, do it should for its or its reason evidence, ported and sub opinion substantial memorandum or so in the form of incorporated into, or con- be not which should is than a scintilla evidence “more stantial and special finding with, [97 of faets.” nected suspicion of than a do more create must page 13.] P.2d fact to be established.” existence re- be findings should proper I think Labor Relations Board Colum National v. quired the Board before a decision in Co., 1939,306 Stamping Enameling bian & this court. 501, 292, 300, L.Ed. 660. 59 S.Ct. 83 U.S. In IV Company Na v. Edison Consolidated Principles Proof and Review Board, 1938, 305 Labor Relations tional topics I have foregoing In the indicated 330, 197, 229, U.S. 59 L.Ed. S.Ct 83 206, ought opinion the be case not my 126, put it Court thus: present record but should be decided on the statute, providing "... ‘the rehearing Board a returned to the findings support- facts, Board as to if But, findings. properly at the ed cast stated by evidence, conclusive,’ sup- shall be means ported by Washington, substantial outset, my further if evidence. Y. that even view & M. v. Coach Go. National Labor Relations proper hearing, testimony fair admission of [19371 301 TJ.S. 57 S.Ct. defense, petitioners’ support and Substantial L.Ed. evidence is more form findings proper be assumed-—as- than a mere scintilla. means such relevant might accept evidence as a reasonable mind is, present suming, a basis record adequate support [Citing a au- conclusion. case on its merits— consideration . thorities] . . findings foundation for the still is no flexibility . desirable “. . in administra- proceed Board. And order of the go procedure justify does tive not so far as to my out reasons for this now to set view. orders having without a basis in ra- evidence probative so, necessary tional force. I think ...” doing But before principles certain well state established cases, are course There the instant the determination of such cases governing such, which, case one sub- because the judicial instant case and review as the undisputed, facts are sidiary the function thereof: of fact of the trier is limited second step determining charges determining wheth- In or not above mentioned whether admitted proved, is, determining subsidiary er facts the from case, reasonably fact in ultimate facts to be inferred. questions of a a trier of determination, steps: one, safeguard findings integrity two takes To fact from evidence, inference, arrived at consideration of the ultimate fact subsidiary case; principles or facts in the established certain with underlying law other, dependability determination of infer- the the from such facts of reference to be whether the facts An inference to- reasonable question (1) ultimate ences: evidence, And, all the charged have been established. un- be warranted from must guaranteed reasonably system of inferable from der law our otherwise fact might Constitution, subsidiary group or facts in- single facts must be a fact be proven or totality the evidence and ultimate consistent reached from facts, in Na- subsidiary facts. As facts arbi- conceded said subsidiary from assumption Pa- trarily conjecture Relations Board Union tional Labor v. Inc., F.2d process contrary reason, Stages, Cir., according but cific interpreted the mean- where the court tric Power Relations Co. v. National Labor Board, Cir., 1938, 10(e) (4) of the National A Section 93 F.2d 985. Act, findings may proven that “the fact providing be inferred Relations of the supported facts, unimpeached if fact or as to facts where un evidence, shall be conclusive”: testimony contradicted consistent with such proven fact or facts but inconsistent lan- “But construed this the courts have not inferred, sought the fact ord. the rec guage acceptance findings compelling 'as part accepting Pennsylvania arrived at ithe evidence Railroad Co. v. Cham convincing totally disregarding other evidence." berlain, Administratrix, supra; Cupples Co. short, may ignore of fact a trier National Labor Relations Manufacturers v. part equally Board, two supra;9 If (2) of the evidence.7 Foote Bros. Gear & Ma inferences probable Corporation inconsistent chine but National Labor Rela facts, finding Cir., 1940, the same tions drawn from 114 F.2d 611.10 be based either reasonably proposition cannot This phrased fact follows in them; situation the evidence is Pennsylvania in such a Railroad case: Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. equivocal. precluded “And the desired inference is Chamberlain, Administratrix, 288 U. *26 respondent’s right the further recovery reason that of 391, ;8 Cupples 333, L.Ed. 819 S. 53 77 S.Ct. depends upon par- the existence of a Labor Rela- proven National ticular fact which must be Co. Manufacturers v. inferred from facts, permissible and this is not in the face of Board, Cir., 1939, F.2d 100. As tions 106 8 i positive the timony and otherwise uneontradicted tes- Cupples Co. case: illustrated unimpeached witnesses consistent actually welcomed evidence that “The with timony sought proved, the facts from which tes- independent organization affirmatively appears of an union its it that the fact employees other, preferred and made haste to such a union to to be inferred did not exist. ... A recognize the Associa- fact, by rebuttable inference of as said bargaining representative for tion as the sole court in the Wabash [Wabash Railroad case R. employees, Tar, Cir., all of basis for the and is not a sufficient factual its 1905, 932, Co. v. De 8 935, 141 F. 4 finding interference, L.R.A.,N.S., domination 352], necessarily yield ‘must support. that, This for the reason while And, credible evidence of the actual occurrence.’ hypothesis is with the George such evidence that independent consistent as stated Pac. in court Missouri v. the formation and administration of the [1923, Mo-App. 668, Co. . . R. . 213 with, 674, union 729, 732], was interfered domi- 251 S.W. ‘It is well settled Company, supported plaintiff’s nated upon it where case is based infer- contrary hypothesis, inferences, inconsistent with the upon ence or the case must fail supports page proof [106 undisputed therefore neither.” F.2d at facts inconsistent with such 114.] page 340, inferences.’ ...” [288 U. S. at page 394, 53 S.Ct at 77 L.Ed. 819.] may (3) Where two inferences different facts, undisputed topic It is true as commented be drawn from in which II that probable under the National is the more one must Labor which Relations Act drawn. the rules of evidence be National Labor Relations Board in prevailing courts Co., 332, 1939, are Mfg. not to be Sands 306 U.S. 59 law in controlling the hearings 508, 682; conducted Appalachian L.Ed. Elec- S.Ct. 83 Board. But the rules of 7 necessity In National Labor Relations Board v. whom rests the of sus- Thompson taining Products, Inc., Cir., 1938, against 6 one of these inferences respect other, F.2d 97 the court said before he is entitled to recov- [citing 10(e) of Section the Act: “It means er page 339, authorities].” 288 U.S. at weighing page 393, takes the one the evidence 53 at S.Ct. 77 L.Ed. presented all the facts into consideration inferences, 9 de to him and all reasonable The court there stated: “evidence merely grounds and conclusions drawn ductions to be which furnishes for sus- and, considering in their picion conjecture proves them therefrom nothing, other, entirety ar Board, and relation to each jury, . . . like disregard at a testimony fixed conviction. . . Tes rives . the uncontradicted timony unimpeached is the material out of raw and credible witnesses.” and, truth, 105.) (106 page construct unless all we F.2d at weighed totality, errors will re- 10 The court said that case: “In great injustices wrought.” suit and be reaching conclusion we our wish make 8 “We, said: In this case the Court (c) . statement clear . . A therefore, belonging have case to that sup may afford which alone port substantial proven give of cases where support facts finding may class fact lose its equal inconsistent to each of two weight entirely in the face of uncontra event, inferences; neither in which dieted facts inconsistent with it. judgment, being established, as a them page 622.) (114 F.2d at ...” against party go law, must matter

669 phrase necessary tion. or will, covers the abuse of relation are logic reasoning opportunity corrupt so as to or override adjudi- type of accomplishment appraise and it difficult con- is no more system of law under our guaranteed cation duct tion in connection the selec- sort with Board, applied representatives must purposes for the of this applications findings. Act than relation to well-known fact, reaching its Con- trier fraud, of the law duress and La- National Company v. Edison solidated undue influence.” Board, U.S. 305 Relations bor pains to set the fore- I out 126; Labor National L.Ed. S.Ct. principles settled going so well —which Cir., Co., 4 Abell Board v. A. S. Relations ordinarily their would iteration Rela- 951; National F.2d supererogation opinion it is my —because Co., Cir., Gas & Board v. Bell Oil tions application recognition lack due Manufac- 406; Cupples Co. F.2d wrongly instant case of them that the Board, Labor Relations National turers v. decided the Board its merits on Company v. Magnolia Petroleum supra; present record. Cir., Labor Relations National V 1940, 112 F.2d 545. Domination Inteiwerenoe mind, borne is further to be think is no lawful foundation the instant case the merits of considering ultimate finding record, present “inter- that the words on the dominated interfered “coercion,” ference,” “restraint,” and “dom- the formation and administration ination,” a statute as used in employees, organizations in contra- Act, have an es- Relations Labor meaning. National think 8(2) vention Act. I Section said the Su- As tablished that there is therefore no warrant for the Court, through speaking Chief preme *27 Jus- order to cease and desist domination from Hughes, in Rail- Texas & New Orleans tice and interference and no warrant for the or- Railway of Brotherhood Company v. road der of disestablishment. Clerks, 548, 1930, Steamship 281 U.S. & 1034, 568, 427, concerning 74 L.Ed. 50 S.Ct. subsidiary The facts from inference “interference,” of words the meaning which the Board’s ultimate finding must be Railway in the and “coercion” “influence” justified They largely dispute. without 1926, et of U.S.C.A. 151 Labor 45 § Act topics, origin, relate to structure, main three seq., Labor Relations of which National operation of and the Plans. outgrowth, an and which Act is Origin The Plans. Plans at of provided employees carriers and their of Bethlehem, Steelton, Maryland, and Leba designated representatives “shall be into the re non Plants came existence as in- respective parties . . . without proceeding of a before Labor sult Board, the War terference, influence, exercised or coercion agency during of the Government self-organization party either over 1918, 31, July War that Board World I. On representatives designation of or other”: system of a of col found that the absence lective at the bargaining Bethlehem Plant productive respect had been of among unrest cer Congress “The intent of is clear prohibited. employees, tain and made a of ‘In to the sort terference’ with finding conduct of and ‘coer freedom action system be such Plant. The should at instituted concepts refer to well cion' understood of petitioner Company therefore moaning ‘influence’ in law. of word set about and formulating introducing not gathered this be clause the context. Virginia only into the Bethlehem Plant but also into Tennessee, Noscitur a sociis. 728, U.S. use of the word S.Ct. 37 L.Ed. 537. The named, plan other above its Plants of not to be taken as interdict representation employees’ to serve intended ing' the normal relations and innocent communi bargaining. a method of collective as the advice and assistance of With friendly part which are a all cations course, inter employer employee. L. Mackenzie albeit between W. plainly pres in this ‘Influence’ context means ng11 Ki had been Minister of Labor who power authority sure, use of the of ei Minister, of Canada and is Prime now party induce ther action the other in der ‘self-organizn- Company prepared plan and, a form of ogation calls what statute uty Minister of Labour Editor President of Ontario, William Minister of Labour of Lyon General Reform 912-14; Labour Mackenzie engaged upon Gazette, Canada, 1908-11; Canada, King, Dep- Association .1900-08; in- vestigation 1914-37; lished lying manity auspices Industrial —A author of of Rockefeller Study of industrial Reconstruction,” “Industry Principles relations Eonndation, under- under pub- Hu- ballots, details, posters, 1918, and on 1, posted the follow- prior to October 1918, Bethlehem, Maryland, 9, en October he a bulletin issued ing notice titled statement Steelton, “A the workers and Lebanon Plants: purposes Company Bethlehem Steel employees of this all “Effective October the War Labor Board tonnage Award[12] turn, plant hourly, contract paid piecework rates, time shop on a basis of plans be for the will election eight hours and half time on excess work carry principles of committees to out the any day. provided bargaining ways provide and means is also “It desired purposes The bulletin award.” stated bringing meeting man- before (cid:127)of of the award in as follows : part to be working agement problems affecting con- their ¡to company accomplish ditions, this the employees give “1. voice in a direct To system employee rep- proposes to establish determining working conditions. consisting representatives elected resentation bargaining provide “2. mutual To method of on various committees serve repre- chosen between 'the working conditions. to deal with shop groups. sentatives and craft system general principles of this “The ready provide for conferences “3. To means immediately developed, and will submit- management on all mat- between employees.” ted to the affecting ters interests. common dis- same month During agency prompt provide ad- “4. To for the justment may arise be- Mary- employees at the of all differences that among tributed land, management, tween ei- Steelton, copies and Lebanon Plants groups ther or individuals.” “Representa- printed booklet entitled of a Employees of Bethlehem in Plants held tion of Board then elections on the Plant Corporation” way containing property practical form the most Steel —as suggested. during Prior November plan holding thus and Novem- October them — plan became effective supervision ber of form of Board Representation Employees’ as the Plan examiner. Plants, and elections each of these three After the Armistice of November Employees’ held Representatives were wrote Mr. Grace a letter to the War in each of such Plants. thereunder requesting examiners prepared just de- plan form so as to allow the withdrawn however, not, pre- at this time scribed was proceed with the installation *28 petitioner Company to the em- sented plan. was in Mackenzie This letter King reasons ployees Bethlehem Plant for at the terms: the following terms in the following were stated .which 27, “November the War by representative of Labor Board “Gentlemen:— charge administering the find- of Board’s your Examiners “On the 19th of November 31, July of 1918: finding applicable to our Machine announced Shop employees at This we un- Bethlehem. are opinion divergence considerable of devel- “A adopt, preceded as it was the cessa- able to Company hand, oped on the between one consequent hostilities, cancel- tion of with the Labor the staff the War Board on greater part of, on, the lation our or restrictions type shop other, what elec- with reference to on which orders these were en- requirements fulfilled the Board’s tions back-pay August gaged. As to to 1st findings. interchanges of view After a series change program, date of munitions we subject, and conferences between the on this Chief Administrator Grace you willing, are as we have to before stated [Eugene G.] and Mr. September (in 13th) our letter of and the War [president Company], Bethlehem Navy Departments, pay to over to the em- finally plan which the decided 'that it was departure ployees increase covered involving perfecting, as it did a compensation in the form for the additional to us multiplicity and much of committees detail of purpose. pres- organization, ent, waived for had best be problems “In which confront simple view of us im- craft committees elected being (our force four mediajtely machinists, at Bethlehem times electricians and European up- at the outbreak of the as much as War), classes of most two insistent desirability suggest grievances.” presentation we with- their on a your drawing at Examiners which are still our Company petitioner agreed. To this permitting proceed plant, us to to make thus 1918, representative adjustments 9, necessary rearrangements to October Prior working peace- new forces meet the of our Bethlehem, gone had the Board who of Pennsylvania, competitive conditions, and also to time enable finding to administer prac- proceed installation us tical, 1918, prepared plan for the elec July plan comprehensive, permanent em- committees, (providing tion of including representation form ployees’ for collective system bargaining 12By finding of a collective “award” is meant plant. July the Bethlehem directed the institu- opera- maintained, thinking apparently bargaining) tion at our other now successful Plants. away with collec- intended to do “Respectfully, bargaining. tive Board’s letter “President agreed charged Company, having that the Labor Board War “National system to the installation of a of collective “Washington, D. G.” satisfactory the Board bargaining Board Labor the War December On which the condition of the establishment of H. signed William letter in a answered during remained at work Manly, Chairmen Basil M. Taft and Joint system. War, repudiate wished now Mr. Grace’s Board, stating for the the letter And asserted that as a matter of apply the refusal amounted letter good part faith on the on No- examiner finding (announced bargaining the collective Government ground that on the 1918)13 vember hostilities had system be maintained. terms f should o insisting ceased, printed letter be this bargaining margin.14 On collective means of then Company, tions finding Bethlehem Steel record. is not in the This tasks, the workmen remained at apparently clas- a determination and, informed, greatly Shop among we are em- increased Machine sifications ployees, production supplies rates, over hourly war what and revi- minimum prior according had been rates, the intervention piece sion of Determining of the Board. Procedure for “Methods of You, agreed Making personally, to the installa- Rates and Classifications system bargaining tion of a Adjustments,” 2 of No. Bulletin Other the War Board, satisfactory supervision and under the Labor November Board’s examiners. Stipulated Exhibit No. 12. repudiate system You now wish to Board Labor National War bargaining, of collective and ask that the Washington Board’s examiners be withdrawn. Your 6, 1918. December Company asked and received assist- President, Grace, securing Mr. E. G. ance increased Company, compensation Navy from the Bethlehem Steel War and Bethlehem, Departments Pa. to meet increase South whatever wages brought about the ap- Sir:— You Board’s award. without now Board has War The National plication us announce the annulment 27th, your letter of Nov. considered has directed findings ground of the Board’s on the to make Chairmen the Joint hostilities certain ceased following reply of the en- on behalf the tire Board: being your war contracts are can- findings celled. Tho of tho do letter, opinion, in our amounts Your you require your continue in em- findings apply *29 the Na- the of to a refusal any ployment man are whose services no respect its Labor Board or to tional War longer needed because of the cancella- ground authority, on the that hostilities Board, tion of war contracts. The how- ceased. have ever, good faith, require you carry out, does officially that, ruled so far It has been findings up- of Board concerned, authority is as this Board your employees on basis of which powers continue unabated un- are to and til the President the ratification work, to remain at consented and thus proclaimed formally production profits maintained peace treaties. of tho your Company. of by your Company presents This action question good a of is This faith of importance grave of to the a situation your Company and Government July when the outcome of Last Nation. itself. If the award of tho Board should balance, hanging up- in tho war was your repudiated, now be workmen would representation of officials of the on every right they to feel that have had Department that conditions in the War Bethlehem imposed grossly upon deceived and been Company gravely Steel were by your Company, tho War Labor prosecution endangering successful other officials of the troops order that our of the war prevailed upon who them Government to guns might and am- left short not be on work remain at assurance that munition, Board Labor exerted War justly dealt with. be would keep every resource to therefore, must, Company insist at We Steel work Bethlehem bargaining machinery production. Relying al- collective maximum to secure per- bring ready be maintained Board established the War function, adjustment equitable the other mitted to of condi- about answered, Grace December Mr. pany away princi- to do with misinterpreted intended stating that the Board ple letter is set out thereof. His collec- toward the attitude of the be- margin.15 then held Conferences thought that the Corn- bargaining if tive fully and to findings bers nominated carried out he presided to be se- promptly. be over chairman Secretary representing by and any lected in the find- matters If there are arrange- plain you ings of ment is this War. deem to which peace change suitable for inequitable conditions. is con- because particulars many ap- you ditions, proper In plan other examiners’ will be unacceptable. rehearing, ply unworkable Board for to the proposed plan originally given and which your attention. motion bewill favorably re- we has been most enclose Very yours, truly of our ceived (Signed) H. TAFT WM. operation plants and is successful (Signed) M. MANLY BASIL there. Joint Chairmen your Board, findings the other As to Steel Bethlehem to us to be a clear under- there seems you standing expressed by Bethlehem, Pa. letter our South your September 13th, letters 12, 1918 December E. G. Grace Departments Navy cor- and our War and President respondence them. and interviews with :—Sirs change attempting un- We are not Replying your of December letter good derstanding faith If least. Gth; atti- our mistaken are —You employees requires a re- our bargaining. We toward tude have adjustment wages up definitely adopted have it. now We abandonment the Government muni- plants. Shop representatives Committees in all our quite program, ready tions we are to take secret chosen bal- are up the matter under the un- terms of this by the em- lot in elections conducted derstanding, compensation which calls copy you printed ployees. enclose We Departments. to us Employees “Representation expect compensation We cannot from Corpora- Steel Bethlehem Plants Departments Government to take care arrangement in effect which is the tion” resulting peace of or deficit time from except plants in all our Steel Bethlehem competitive operations upon which we large aggregate as —as the Beth- entering, consequently are now we plant. hope to extend the lehem We wages, feel that future nec- or schedules principles bargaining of collective affecting essarily same, should beyond any scope functions committee longer subject of Governmental attempted large has been regulation. country. in this scale or- The cancellations Government system As committee at Bethle- rapid extensive ders have that so and so agreement hem, my which'you refer practically all our work for the war represented by following quotation program finished. We have not on my September 13th, letter hand what would amounted two at the I loft the Board time as a production weeks work rate of position:— formal statement of our the cessation of before were then hostilities. We ready provide for a “We now making more material in war bargaining represen- and labor collective tation any year day *30 than we in before by arrangement an in accordance the do not under- war. We to be wish principles your the with declared meaning advantage stood as to take Board, the details of which I been wages. this situation reduce real- We Chaney. Examiner over with areWe readjustment ize the the that which ready for the first elections and that so country gradually should faces bo made may be no doubt as to their fair- lowering slowly and that the and present prefer supervised them ness we to have wages preced- scale should be authority your and direction.” under possible by a in ed far reduction repudiated this We have in re- n prices of commodities. intend the do We delayed spect. Your examiners the elec- meeting re- share toward the full our changed contemplated plan and the tions sponsibilities places em- which this on longer recognizable, until it is no nor is ployers. instance, practical. the it For supervision been said in the course examiners Much has there has Board, proceedings your and on the before formed a committee mediation been purpose bringing (not about conciliation fact for and of three members production joined proceedings, employees) by these relative be three mem- repre- negotiate with Company that should Board Labor tween the War committeemen, employees’ that Company. Bethlehem is, At a confer- sentatives of representatives Cravath, had been employees’ who February ence Paul D. on Board craft selected under the War Labor Company, made counsel for a state- plan, agreeing a mu- effect, a things, other with view among ment to the satisfactory bar- removing plan progress tually “real has made in opinion gaining. differences misunderstandings seem have Certain drafting a Company arose developed Board between the War Labor between rep- by employees’ appointed Company” out of committee Bethlehem Steel were and these differences 27; and resentatives of November Mr. Grace’s letter submitted on behalf latter War that: disposition Repre- April, about 1919. “It been the of Bethlehem Board has not ¡the finding's your disregard nor to Boaid drafting Company, the sentatives of signing advantage take the armistice meetings at held the Board committee and gave to you the assurances which it withdraw from As differences discussed. these were period. contrary, during war On the Company say Company com- drafting a and the it rec- authorizes me to result ognizes loyal coop- you form, entitled to its agreement mittee reached on through carrying important eration in the two and sub- plan bargaining of collective findings your measures with which dealt. meeting Board, which at mitted it to inauguration plan of an effective “First: The manage- bargaining ap- April 11, on to receive voted for collective ment and between the doing employees, and, second, prove concerning report this form of (lone of all can to secure from the War report plan. The stated: ¡the Navy procure- Departments, other departments Government, allow- ment accompanying plan “The . was mu- . . compensation to cover such additional ance agreed tually by excep- parties, may necessary give Bethlehem by your tion of minor details which were added by your pay recommended find- the retroactive Board], [of Section the War Labor ings. plan, substance, “Said is a modification “At no time since the armistice has it been plans cases, other effect in some volun- purpose of the any way Grace and his associates Mr. tary by through and others installed to withdraw these commitments. board. ti reports “Xour therefore Section in its judgment good company Cravath, by After this statement Mr. Mr. demonstrated counsel, Cravath, faith stated its Mr. Taft then said: February 4 last.” through “Mr. Grace Mr. Cravath has been proposed minor additions Board conferring with the has now made a accepted by employees’ drafting statement of the intention the Bethlehem Company dealing put with its men to in a Company, committee and bargaining system full and fair collective ac Plan effect May went into 1919. The suggestions cordance with the of the Board and printed, caused Plan to be already every hope the elections had. I have ¡that later through printed caused he go company hopes this will as the says going put through, spirit it that it is it all among distributed and if and when does so full of at the setting Bethlehem Plant a booklet present justify purpose, it will a full with together forth Plan names ¡the drawal of statements made with ref me representatives employees’ who had glad erence to Mr. Grace. shall be then to say misunderstanding' there has been and to signed The War Labor it. Board went out my withdraw former criticism of Mr. Grace.[16]” August, existence January, recognition After this conditional agreement mutual between the good faith of the been made and Temporary Rules Commit- Board, agreed the War Labor appointed tee Employees’ Repre- letter We should not refer statements wo have not that our ence to these believing quiescence. be known and would bo the best answer. tion of the Bethlehem, might silence facts otherwise the facts would matters which a careful Very respectfully, will not bear this publicly denied, your published taken now out. the eventually examina- for ac- except refer- These and Messrs. Wm. H. Taft Washington, the Board of National War Labor Joint These Mr. Taft Chairmen, statements D. C. February 4, appear minutes of in the and B. M. *31 by Mr. Cravath Manly,

E G GRACE President

67á Company, Subsidiary pre- Companies, Ef- and sentatives a revision of the Plan was 1, 1918,” meeting fective pared negotiated was October and this was submitted Company between representatives and by the Representatives approved Cambria Steel and the had of the who January 1920. This became them by been for that elected all of the substance the Bethlehem Plan down purpose; below, and after amendment of amendments of referred to existence, into came Maryland, Cambria Plan it thus like it essentials in its was approved was the War Labor Board. by by Plans devised Steelton and Lebanon like King, and Plan Mackenzie Cambria Lackawanna, The and Rankin Leetsdale approval which of the War direct acquisition Plans were after the established appear below. Labor Board will 10, 1922,by Company peti- on October tioner of the Lackawanna Plant after Plant of the Plan at Cambria acquisition February by Company petitioner was in effect at the Company petitioner affiliate17 of the acquired Company that Plant on time the Works. The Leetsdale and Rankin Con- 30, 1923, and it existence came into March established after centrator Plan was the Plant manner: In following March, 1929, Concentrator became by Plant operated Cambria Steel being separate operated by manufacturing unit subsidiary the Midvale Septem- Company aas petitioner. Company an affiliate18 of the Company. Steel Ordnance On After the and the Lackawanna Plant Leets- suggested to the the Plan was ber employees acquired, Plant, dale Rankin posted Works were a notice at the after the became such Concentrator Plant Board Directors and authorized separate unit, President, a pany manufacturing Com- as follows : signed reading petitioner Plant, at the Lackawanna Company and Ordnance “Midvale Steel and the above referred affiliates Company Steel “Cambria Leetsdale and Rankin and at Works Mid- “The Board of Directors Officers Plant, to the em- Company, Concentrator submitted vale and Ordnance Cambria Steel Subsidiary Company Companies, rec- Steel ployees at the Plants and various Works prosperity ognizing Companies of their the fact mentioned, plan employees’ form inseparably up with the bound representation provisions which contained general employes, propose, with welfare their employes, co-operation and assent of itheir largely based already on those of Plans the and plan interests, mutual to establish for their existence, wit, Maryland, Steelton, representation employes, will Lebanon and Bethlehem Plans. Sometimes govern all relations between the Com- hereafter without and sometimes modification with employes. panies and their history Companies past accepted plan em- “The these has form remarkably disputes free their ployees through designated their repre- due, sincerely wage-earners, believed, by voting in the first sentatives and nomina- always dealing which it been the the fair held tions elections thereunder. Management aim all mat- of the maintain in affecting Company the relation of ters Although they the Plans. Structure of employes. their stated, there separately are not classes are two “'ty/'e recognize wage-earners Plans, provisions each collectively bargain employers, employes hereby invite all organic principles to meet with the those we which relate to respective Companies officers of their organization labor considering, adopt- purpose practicable, and if prin- and those ciples have to do with representation plan employes, the relations between governing thoroughly democratic and entire- which shall ly Companies, from interference free organization peti- labor agent thereof. official tioner, stipulation griev- including every hoped , employe respond “It will adjustment and collective bargaining ance invitation, and meet ito with the officers of organic provisions procedures. Spirit dealing fair helpfulness. mutual usually found in are those the con- Plans mutual “For convenience of officers and organization. stitution of a Accord- employes, meetings per these are called as sched- them, represented employees are ing to attached ule hereto. organization government Dinkey, “A. C. Representatives, Employees’ elected “President” Plan, privilege limited to Rep- voting being then known those em- the “Plan of Employees ployees have been on the resentation of Midvale who Steel Steel days immediately Company, preced- payroll sixty Cambria Ordnance Corporation. Mines McClintie-Marshall Bethlehem Construction

Company. Representatives not, regularly may ing election, and who neither an except upon position Body have the any supervisory hold nor invitation of the General Committee,' power or dis- or hiring meetings. attend such to recommend Employees’ employees. of charging expressly Each of the Plans states that possess Representatives themselves must way representation thereunder “shall in voters, stipulated and qualifications for against any employee discriminate because adult qualification being of additional race, of abridge or creed or or conflict sex employed American Com- citizens his or with her to be- belong or not year; they chosen in for are pany one long any fraternity, society, lawful union employees secret conducted balloting other organization.” And Plan fur- each regulations prescribed a Rules tinder provides ther if any Employees’ Rep- Repre- composed Employees’ Committee of resentative deems himself discriminated respect balloting of sentatives. against any he may reason of action provide: Plans representative capacity, taken in his hy stages he take the successive matter he elections shall secret “Nominations and ballot influ- as to avoid undue and so conducted manager, the Plant to the General Joint any ence whatsoever, with manner or interference voters Appeals, president on Committee prevent fraud in the and Company, Department and to counting casting or of ballots.” Labor Secretary the State or to the Employees’ Representatives The tenure of States, case United which compose Collectively year. is one they the decision rendered is to be final and bind- Repre- (or General Committee Body ing. assembly sentatives as thereof called express provisions The Plans contain no Plans). Representation some meetings general employees for dis- for the basis proportional, in the latter on reports hearing cussions or for from Representative speci- Employees’ for a one Representatives and the instruction number fied number of —the Representatives, provisions and contain no pro- different Plants. varying applications membership, member- prescribe visions of the Plans in detail a ship cards, or dues. Membership results Repre- method to be followed recalling employee. an becoming filling sentatives and in vacancies. provisions Those Employees’ After the annual election the Plans gov- which Representatives, Body bargaining General holds an ern relations be- organization meeting employees’ and tween the organization elects officers and These and the Company Committees. Committees the and in the aggregate consti- jurisdictions thereof, taking agreement the Cambria tute between typical, Plan arc respect as follows : the Finance with pro- to the Committee, which deals with the cedure to meeting bargaining. be followed Un- expenses organization; of the labor agreement der Committees are Joint composed taking Committee, up. They No. 1 acts in Standing which set — rules, means, respect ways typical and and the Cambria Plan as the members —of elections; 1, 2, 3, 4, 2 Standing conduct the No. and Standing Nos. Com- Committee, jurisdiction having wages, up over organization mittees set under the labor piece work, Plans, tonnage aspect together and schedules, equal bonus with hours, employment Management’s Regular and ; Repre- working conditions number Committee, Standing No. 3 Representatives The two sets of con- sentatives. pensions relief, cerns itself these equal with and ath- on Committees have vot- Joint recreation, prevention power. letics safety and Committees are Joint accidents; No. 4 Standing known as the No. 1 (the Commit- Committee Joint tee, employees’ dealing transportation, with on Rules), Committee the No. 2 Joint housing, Committee, domestic economies the No. living Commit- Joint Joint conditions, Committee, tee, health sanitation, works No. 4 No. Joint publications, education and (the continuous em- Committee General S Com- Joint Joint ployment industry; Appeals). condition Their the mittee function is to Committee, No. Standing attempt consider discuss to reach occu- pied respect all other falling agreement matters with- matters of mutual scope of the above. Company, Plans de- interest provisions regular special tail and re- severally meetings spectively subject of the General Body deal matter com- They provide thereunder. Committee Nos. that mitted 5 Commit- *33 676 on Representatives aspect of on Committee organization tees under the labor Joint method Appeals addition to this agree. the Plans. grievances, with individual dealing regular provision for The Plans make adjustment matters provide for Plans Commit special meetings of the Joint general. employees in interest to the Company shall They tees. appoint provide may ini- be such matters Consideration of Repre Special Management’s Body, any Com- tiated the General but sentative shall no vote whose who it has first submitted (provided mittee management in touch duty it is to keep the mat- Body) to the General matter ters are then Representatives and Employees’ with appropriate to the referred negotiations represent management the man- ultimately Committee Joint Representatives. He Employees’ with such is meeting, Company. agement of the to attend Committee authorized Joint only The Plans invited. of the Na- but when to the enactment Prior provision an conference for annual

make Act tional Labor a two-thirds vote Relations Representatives Employees’ and of of all (one-half on Rules Committee Joint (cid:127) representatives management.19 The above, membership, as stated of whose representation em equal principle of Management’s Representa- comprised of ployees management on committees for the Em- tives), majority concurrent bargaining agreed was Management’s Representatives and ployees’ Company during Labor conference, War the an 'annual Representatives at after place conferences took After necessary to amend Plan. receipt Board of the letter Presi by the amended each Plan was passage of the Act Bethlehem Com dent E. G. Grace provide might be amendments 12, 1918, pany dated referred December adopted by a two-thirds of the General vote above.20 Body except (i) amendments would — change procedure griev- materially procedure specifically Plans outline adjustment, (ii) might prevent the ance grievances. adjustment An in- fair method of as a operating Plan selecting representatives employee dividual unable to obtain satis- all factory pre- adjustment grievance his bargain- as a fair of collective and ing, method may first sented his immediate foreman might or (iii) materially increase the up then second take superintendent matter with Company’s obligations under the Plan. department, his third Special Management’s Representative, April Prior to the decision on manager. of National Relations fourth with the Plant he does Board v. If Jones Laughlin Corporation, stage, not obtain relief fourth he & Steel then, through Employees’ Repre- his 81 L.Ed. 108 A.L. may U.S. 57 S.Ct. sentative, require the to be in which the held matter referred Court R. Appeals. to the Labor Relations Act constitu General Committee National Joint tionally applicable Ap- type this General Committee on to the If peals business Joint satisfactory effect a Company petitioner, fails to settlement the Plans uniform employee, aggrieved ly provisions then contained Com- Com obligating president pay Employees’ pany pany Representatives notified and the arbitration, presi- spent meetings, defray referred to if time at Plan matter and to majority Employees’ expenses.21 necessary dent and a Plan Shortly there Stipulated provision par- un- Exhibit This deleted first Plan, February, 1938, agraph provides: the Bethlehem “I. Bar- der Collective gaining: present amendment. 1. Local boards at con- together Referring one stituted should be eliminated conferences “Thereafter, stipulations De- Chairman from the War states: repre- partment and there should be substituted were held between conferences general con- representa- therefor a small committee Board and sentatives taining equal employer number an under- tives employee representatives. employee standing at em- arrived which was ‘Sug- representatives by the to be entitled selected bodied a memorandum already among Adjustment Looking gestions elected from committees Toward (Italics supplied) photostatic Award’, their number.” the Bethlehem necessarily occupied which, copy “For draft’ shall time marked ‘Final through regular or attendance actual herein admitted evidence pur- meetings special Stipulated held or conferences Exhibit marked 16.” *34 Plans, ments, except together copies Rankin the the of minutes after each of the Plan, meetings of certain in evidence to prescribe so as to admitted was amended supplement stipula de payments schedules; these two such Company the make per develop only origin, history the expenses “to the extent tions as to fray such of the effect the ment of the Plans which are to mitted law.” discuss manner topic things the close of under VI. that as of among these amendments making operated in hearing are out the existing themselves set the Plans The amendments respects substantially all in ac not so material margin.22 the The Rankin Plan was provisions; respective amended, Company the their advised cordance with but the by counsel Representatives stipulation that and a into under entered Committee of parties that, showing of except permitted to the certain the Plan extent law, petitioner durixig payments any employees Company no to the make of would Plan, spare had amount of Employees’ Representative working under hours the the expense time therein.23 to stated would incident defray discharge the duties Employees’ of of the (2) the case con- appearing The facts Representatives under Plan. operation cerning the of the Plan Cambria respect operation Company of the the Plans and the con- conduct duct They comprise them. thereto are few. Company with to in sub- the following; stance and effect Except (1) printed certain insofar as ma- copies employee terial work, the Bethlehem a new (including When came he publications foreman, Review certain other was given copy aby Plan more below) referred particularly Employees’ Repre- introduced department which reference made to the Plans sentative of the he in which was concerning work, some of and evidence Repre- them and was informed that posting distribution or of that at material sentative had elected a secret ballot at may he, various Plants con- election employee, Works and that would opportunity sidered to be evidence the Plans have regarding vote at next election Plan, other than the evi- if employed Cambria he only had at that time been dence operation sixty days. in the case regarding explained The foreman Plans following: employee such is the adopted the documents Company provisions themselves in of the as a far obtaining, pos- Plan as means so contained; Plans are large schedules griev- plant, personal sible in a close rela- agree- tionship ances handled under each employees, of the with its and in order Employees’ Plan, Repre- Plan; VII, paragraph 9, suant to the tor and § of the sentatives shall receive the Com- and Rankin Leetsdale Plans. payment pany permitted by law, commensurate with subject “To the extent respective average earnings, Employees’ Representatives shaE be en approval majority of a entire titled to receive from the membership necessarily occupied through of the Committee on Rules time actual Management’s Special Represent- regular special and the meetings at attendance VII, paragraph pursuant ative.” § Cam- or conferences held to the Plan Lackawanna, Maryland, Lebanon, payment bria, commensurate with their re Plans; para- spective VII, average earnings.” § Concentrator graph Steelton, Bethlehem, permitted “. . .To the extent Leetsdale, Rankin Plans. defray law the shall such ex- penses necessarily “The Joint shall Committee on Rules incident arrange place places discharge suitable duties under Plan sub- meetings ject approval Body majority [or General of a Representatives, membership Committee entire of the Committee on may Management’s Special and of Rules be] case the several Com- Representative.” mittees and Joint Committees held, defray shaE Included within items of evidence expenses necessarily concerning as are incident mentioned the record discharge Plan, copies duties Plans are of certain letters hav subject majority approval of a reference to the amendments membership entire changes the Committee provisions Management’s Special Rules Leetsdale Plan. letters These re VII, paragraph Representative.” explained § fer the 1937 amendments Cambria, Bethlehem, Lackawanna, topic description in this above under the Maryland, Plans; Steelton, and Lebanon Plans, and, structure VH, paragraph stated, of the Coneentra- § I discuss the manner topic making VI. them ot Relations, Review Progress Human A of the em- clear idea have a might that it Bethle- Accomplishments Some Under The foreman ployees’ conditions. working Representation,” Employee Plan might hem he take employee told the also *35 aby and employees, also which he distributed to matter up any foreman with his “Message” “Message” employees. The to that the adjustment, and required thought was in the terms: following such a taking provided a means Plan impressed the higher. The .foreman matter “A MESSAGE Plan was that the employee idea with Employees: “To Our handling union, purpose of get join you for the merely to their “In their effort to organizers saying-— I. the O. O. was a medium grievances, but rather you join in order to union —that must their employees management and bringing the your job; hold together, told him Com- and closer union, join a their —that there is rush to up suggestions from you sign welcome pany would before had better therefore late; too employees the betterment Plant responsible officials want —that Government conditions. and working union; join you to their and of each The elected chairman Com- your Employees’ Representation Plan Joint i—that provide legal a usually Plan effective meth- a or mittee the Cambria does bargaining man- with the od collective Manage- superintendent. Company agement. Special Representative often ment’s statements; by “Do not such false be deceived Employees’ present, by invitation is no in there truth them. Employees’ Representation meetings and Representatives Committee Plan “Your does bargain- legal collective constitute a method of meetings Body. There has the General past ing it over and the effectiveness of management no interference reflecting years many record, is a matter of of, or the holding transacting with good been attained with- conditions which have day’s through meetings, no out the loss of wages at, business Committee strikes or disorder. meetings by Manage- attendance at such government law “There or rule of except upon invita- Representatives ment’s join you your requires to a union or surrender ifco prior nor thereafter to 1935 tion. Neither representa- individually through your rights, tives, or Representatives ever Management’s have directly negotiate management with the to proposed or employment. opposed amendment Outsiders all conditions past nothing necessary has not been have happened Body. — favorably by the General acted on necessary them now. make to transfer of There been no has your is no doubt in “To make sure that another, promo- department or one employment pol- regarding Company’s minds again prin- icy, ciples. its fundamental state supervisory positions, we will tion to on account They are: activities. bargaining join pay employee or tribute has to “1 —No (3) Facts in appearing the case concern- job get any organization or hold a with operation of all of the Company. (that Plans this depend upon Employment us does not is, both the Plan the others) “2 — Cambria non-membership membership organiza- in and the conduct of the with re- Company tion. spect are the following: thereto belong belong right “3 —The personal any organization is an individual cooperated for the Company Counsel n guaranteed by the Federal Constitution which preparation form amendments Company recognized as a funda- this and is contributions Representation your principle mental Company support to the of the various Plan. job topic holding of a discuss this in Plans. VI. “é —Advancement in or the Company depends mer- on individual with this since the various times At installation of efficiency length it, service. Plans, both the Plan Cambria many Company in and for believes “5 —This others, praised has them bargaining years practiced true collective has representatives. freely you your accomplishments the employees, chosen to do so. will continue contrasted Plans and their advan- principles fundamental American “These are tages advantages with the claimed of out- your yourselves, which, the interests side unions with the disadvantages stockholders, public, families, this our steadfastly outside unions as described by the Company. adhere. will STEEL COMPANY “BETHLEHEM This was done means of statements in “January : 15, 1937.” Review, paper published Bethlehem Corporation pages of the booklet “Ten petitioner first two distributed petitioner Relations” con- Progress Human employees, to its Years’ following material:24 statements in booklet “Ten entitled tained Years’ following terms: The booklet was “inscribed” ployers tribution and economically; ployees ployees jectives, well as fellow workers. fairly ple intimate toward stockholders and efficiency joined laying bo translated into a pect siderations: ist that which make this who ployees quires in ness to ity 70,000 “THE cess of their cant so far as it is am! desires as human which takes into account two plants have fully and mortar. ture in American Plan of of machines. realized involved alized on the dustry icy covering man Plan have principles adopted rated in Bethlehem’s lars and walls are “Bethlehem’s “Employees “It “The same ten “It was ten “This production the market for today and foundation. that work beings. brought justifies join together changes generally in the and employees. with the the have since built depends HUMAN SIDE play their this and quantity structure by employers in knowledge in an Employee Representation between employees continuing based on grown foundation a better expect justly employees fair with new joint First, employees enough, however, mutual all This the faith and distribution and in a at three part of possible Its cornerstone economy wages. industrial and for its policy years ago management undertaking a attitude is reflected in more in order to attain a industry. into is built not efforts. Bethlehem industry’s products years as applies business of in ^[*] the activities and ^[*] ^[*] understanding production; fair will second, public, plants. responsibility purchasing power human relations employers beings their friends practical working policy and the and a human cooperative ^[*] in ^[*] ^[*] right the success On the toward each other and wisely OF OUR have witnessed broad, enlightened sound business produce efficiently company consideration ^[*] # # a new kind its industry dealing management It that employees. production formulation company are all benefited Employees will has pioneers. to a success Bethlehem ten fundamental con- relations that is men. and reasonable needs stands only management, largely men, employers that part attitude who treat that the Bethlehem steel and it is true also come be satisfied with its em- years of efforts of their to do so. was BUSINESS for the partners firmly upon to the not all this be and employees, more period which upon to he re- and dis- properly of their agencies It must alize that that willing- inaugu- Its of ago merely of em- princi- signifi- its ob- plants to ex- struc- of all brick those qual- them the than foundation part suc- and and this oh! pol- em- em- ihe pil- the hu- ex- re- in- in they tained Grace Years’ tween Additional material contained in “Ten tions and independence ployees phasized tunity ists between the that tions in Employee Representation began utilized and death. say denced in their sincere and enthusiastic which has been made in this eventful decade reciprocal spirit hem’s was first the business, faithful, efficient service. pends upon common employment, does the Plan since able wants right cooperation luis achieved such notable success. is ployee Representation.’ sired. inaugurated ance of the features extent at least of ulations and to “ *36 “Third, good, “After “What are these interests in “ “Fourth, “Second, “These “It “First, fitting ‘Not ‘The management age. employee may purchase sense of it is with a real are all to our grown to see satisfied is which their assistance and advice human said pay ready employees Progress are concerned? What are in interesting under which men are asked broad, only industry stockholders and the interests relief in case the first elections in 1918 President presenting “Faith four to a at inaugurated the Bethlehem Steel provision against accident, laid ten engaged. in a a constructive manner. Not alone out of it would be deserving employees this relations, to do its through voice in the has the a letter to provide job of stockholder’s very large opportunity constructive features which have factors, degree which the feels that management safe in Each will in Human Relations” em- time itself, steady jointly to note reach the years provided settlement lasting payment physical a channel saving, representation tribute to the men whose ” permit? They of have been reared part the management, that cooperation ago extent the need and it now has an determining Other,” enterprise review the hope employees that when the management employees questions in the Plan of Em- success it extent pillars and and when employees: of fair home management acquire management interest Corporation responsibility working realized. so through grievances uninterrupted welcomes its management operate. pensions the reason- far that condi- success ownership, of Bethle- wages plan employees in which expressed have evi- financial concern: progress must sickness Plan work. as the are accept- in is, on the oppor- condi- Plan been reg- be- em- but but the ex- de- de- at- re- in of It “Progress great company joint stool been a decade endeavor in progress organization employees of men which Bethlehem have con- working together generous for a common interest tributed a share both to corporate been upbuilding recorded the last decade results and to the Corporation. policy employee-manage- Bethlehem Steel Real sound only measured achievement can be ment relations. plants represented terms of modernized widen- “To men who have employees accomplishment but also in terms during markets of co- in this undertakings years operative past grate- all ten which benefit booklet is engaged fully this business. who inscribed.” you you er every way assure will assist we representation and keynote employees’ present proven continue the uninter- accomplishment; stressed dealing problems, method of mutual with our wages which rupted employment fair and of best we will use our resources to the your protect you ability safety conditions accomplished, families our interference, from intimidation coercion prevention Plants, meth- including accident source. ' medical aid, ods, safety first instruction GRACE, “E. G. care; and referred to benefits “President.” in sav- through assistance and their families fore- The statement referred age security (pen- old acquisition, ing, home through the going, as been issued having sickness, accident ownership, sions), stock Institute, American Iron Steel the Beth- issue of benefits. The death the following terms: contained of July lehem Review “Security Employment,” THE “TO PUBLIC AND THE EMPLOYEES entitled bulletin IN THE INDUSTRY: STEEL reading thus: campaign “A to unionize the OF EMPLOYMENT “SECURITY Industry Steel has been announced. Employees: “To public “In order that agree your am sure we all welfare “I Industry position the Steel know your communi- that of families drive, Indus- the face of threatened in try *37 you depends upon uninter- ties in which live through Amer- statement the makes this any- rupted operation plants, and that of our Iron Steel Institute. ican and present thing imperil will disturbs our condition organizations not and connected “Persons Undoubtedly you all. the of interests Industry charge the have taken professional labor leaders bave have seen campaign. campaign publicly unionize the announced a to many disturbing are “There indications industry. employeesof the steel promoters campaign employ the the of will enjoyed industry employees the “The long in have employees coercion and in intimidation of the during peace of times when era industrial Industry and foment strikes. unions have dominated other industries objective campaign “The is the ‘closed may be However de- with strife. torn shop,’ one not prohibits any- employment purpose scribed, unionization real Industry union member. The Steel shop’ campaign on all to ‘closed force the oppose any attempt compel to em- will its industry employees employees to com- in the steel and thus ployees join pay to union or to tribute for industry pel you to in all and other right to work. join pay to a union in order that and dues employee Industry “No to Steel has your jobs. you may We that no hold believe join job. any organization get to or hold required pay worker should to tribute to Employment Industry depend does in anyone work, any organization or to for the to any upon membership organization. nonmembership in depends indi- Advancement “Realizing obligation employees, merit and effort. These are fundamen- its vidual Industry principles public, tal American which the owners and to the after care- steadfastly phases adhere. will ful ened all threat- consideration Industry principles industry through drive, “The believes Steel issued bargaining, of collective and in the state- effect Iron and Steel Institute American industry. throughout reprinted in this number of the ment REVIEW. firmly management overwhelming majority in believes the views Our “The the em- express expressed They recently partici- that statement. ployees Industry in the Steel dealings policies rep- pated controlled our have in annual under their elections own many years. relationships plans representa- their elected resentation Repre- your existing bargaining. “The effectiveness of elections tives Plans, proper employees for the settlement of sentation all conducted themselves arising any you questions purposes between secret One of tbe ballot. management throughout years campaign unin- those is to overthrow announced operation outstanding, terrupted representatives plans has been so elected. and the recovering speak Industry themselves. results is unnec- from six “The Steel essary are They huge losses, depression years employees review in detail them here. Experience beginning all us. known has tbe well now receive question Any operations. that no can arise between inter- us shown increased benefits of adjusted. seriously equitably ruption There have movement will cannot the forward jobs strikes, injure employees no all been no strife or loss of families and their Industry, time, dependent dues fines. tbe businesses will country. employees endanger am convinced that know “I tbe welfare of anyone accompany- problems drive, than else better can its own announced “Tbe strife, agitation ing and that no outsiders can deal with threatens them for industrial know effectively intelligently problems interruption.

those as Industry employees themselves. its resources will use can “The Steel employees ability prvtect addressing you have, its I I do best of “In have intimidation, any change thought you coercion from their families our and desire maintaining relationships you present and to aid them violence or that will be mis- and bargaining you appeal interference by any free be made collective from led campaign. My purpose source. rath- in the announced AND STEEL “AMERICAN IRON grievances thousands and differences as INSTITUTE.” hours, wages, and other condi working dated tions. Bethlehem Review In an issue en- after the September published Annually, years beginning with (cid:127) Re- Industrial of the National actment respectively originated, the which the Plans year, the the same Act in covery participated large ma- June Mr. statement following jorities elections con- nominations and Grace: purpose for the ducted under the Plans Employees’ Representatives. The electing adminis- “The Plan become vital onr business .... election tration of ballots contained a statement possibly agency take the outside could “No following effect: Employees’ Representation Plan, place of our “By using approves destroying this ballot voter that all-essential direct con- without tact holding relationship necessary so to insure the Nominations Election posted possible working as stated in the Election the best and liv- notice of this Employees’ issued Committee on Rules conditions . ... “ plan Employees’ Representation Meeting requirements under the . . . expresses Representation Employees’ at this Plant and Plan the desire to be N.I.R.A. our represented represen- bargaining for collective to servo as the medium of continues and the by purposes just urge past. it has in the all stated tation the notice Em ployees’ Representatives employees to use continue to full the elected under presenting [26]” Plan. of the Plan for their needs facilities and views. ...” elections were conducted secret ballot in such manner toas avoid interfer- policy The announced ence with the voter and as to see to it that since installation of the Plans has been in none of the entitled to vote was bargaining favor of collective and self-or deprived of an opportunity to if vote he de- ganization employees. *38 sired to do so. employees discriminated against its membership activity. for union or The contentions the Board concerning charge dismissed its of discriminat domination and The Board interference. operated ion.25 The Plans have as effective contends that the finding of fact— ultimate bargaining agencies as shown the ad petitioners the that dominated inter- and justment, employees, the satisfactory to fered the formation administra- and charged paragraph employees The Board in had mote certain of their in the complaint Johnstown, join they of its that at event that assist should Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, charge and at and S.W.O.C. This is not discussed Sparrows Point, Maryland, report from about in the briefs. In his intermediate July 1, 1936, down to the date the the made examiner no mention of the complaint August 26, charge, issuance the and the Board made no subsidi- petitioners discharged, ary finding the laid had or ultimate of fact or conclu- employees, respect off and refused to reinstate sion in law of it and made no and had demoted and transferred em ployees mention of it in the course its deci- jobs involving pay Therefore, although less and sion. there is no working conditions, part dismissal, less charge desirable formal must this of the against having bad employees disregard- other discriminated acts taken be joining assisting S.W. ed the Board. is an This additional engaging O.C. in concerted activities illustration of the defective form of the employees purposes findings. with other for the Board’s It should not nec- bargaining essary of collective mutual to make a detailed search to de- protection. aid and The Board also termine action what if the Board has charged paragraph complaint 14 of its respect charge. taken in of a The Board that the had maintained arms respect should state its action of each plants in their and hired and utilized the charges. of its police guards of men as services 26The nominations ballot contained the intention and effect of interfer similarly ing with, restraining coercing statement: worded “The voter their by using approves holding rights this ballot the in the exercise of the guaranteed of the Nominations and Election as stat Labor Rela the National posted charge ed in the notice issued the dis Act. This was also tions Employees’ Committee on Rules missed. Employees’ Representation charge paragraph Plan of A was made in 11 of expresses Plant, complaint petitioners, at that those elected shall this his desire from that the represent July 1, him the time on or about bargaining complaint, and for the other the issuance of discharge, lay purposes off, stated the notice.” threatened to de- Plants; em- of these three their elections organizations of the Employees’ held Representatives were inference ployees reasonable —follows facts, set thereunder Plants. in each subsidiary which I from structure, and above, origin, out toas facts can be agree I cannot that these the conduct operation the Plans support said an inference reasonably' to petitioner concerning them. originated Maryland, Plans them- subdivide Board’s contentions Steelton, ref- and Lebanon Plants without selves as follows: employees. It erence to the wishes as- origin Plans. In (1) The equal from could with reason be inferred single case, pect Board makes its desired the such facts that that argument, wit, the fact posted notice Plans referred peti- originated with Plans distributed. described booklets upon were proves they tioner equivocal. Only The facts are forced therefore Board’s put employees. the brief, As assumption that the did that because the contention such Plans be established can wish and installed in “formulated Plans were they suggested, fact dis- were plants reference ten without each of the effective, tributed, as above set and became employees, the Plans wishes forth, reason- foundation very the creatures of outset were upon able were forced inference Company.” employees. respect of these three details, as to such Plans record is silent the Plans were formu- assertion Em- manner of election of concerning reference lated and installed without ployees’ Representatives and the manner begs question. employees' wishes Plans, as indi- might making effective respect cer- is, my opinion, in And it employees towards cate the attitude of the support in the without tain of undisputed Plans adoption. Plans The burden the of the others facts, as to proof upon by them. refuted petitioners. The silence record can- Bethlehem, at the Plans So far as place of not take the evidence. Steelton, Plants and Lebanon Maryland, proba- In its contentions concerning concerned, undisputed facts set Plans, origin tive effect ex- they came into forth above show particularizes charge Board of the *39 its proceed- a result of immediate istence as the by a asserting Bethlehem Plan that 1918, Labor Board in the ing before War agreed by form of Plan the War Labor the that Board directed installation of that put that Board was into effect but after the system a Beth- bargaining the in agreed dissolution of that Board the Plan proposed Plant and ideas the to be lehem superseded rejected by “by was the Plan in, objectives of, the contained by the Board.” distortion the facts Only system, acquiesced and that the Company origin concerning the the Bethlehem proceeded carry and jectives such ideas ob- omitting all by Plan to consider of them effect, only respect into with can such a statement countenance. Plant concerning to the Bethlehem Under fair of the consideration whole the Board’s direction had been specifically aspect plan the facts in this the case the made, respect Maryland, also of the but in up Steelton, originally drawn the Lebanon that advice of Plants. All the record shows as the details “rejected,” of installation Mackenzie was not King it was Steelton, Maryland, postponed Lebanon into effect going waived and by following: the A notice of an emergency Plants is Octo- the on account of posted Company, was by summary, ber the undisputed the situation. facts, In prin- that the general respect

which it was stated set forth above in of the system employees’ Plans, ciples representa- aof origin of that: The Plan the show working adopted tion to deal with conditions having ultimately the Plant Bethlehem developed,they be negotiations would “submitted to the result of into effect as went Copies employees.” printed the Company, book- the em- between Bethlehem “Representation Employees let representatives, entitled who ployees’ had been se- Corpora- in tion,” of the Bethlehem Steel Plants the War Labor lected under Board craft plan through committee, the containing form of plan, drafting thus acting itself, suggested among were distributed the em- the Labor and that and War plan This became ployees. negotiated, effective as minor the' Plan thus with addi- Employees’Representation accepted Plan of by in each was proposed tions Leetsdale, respect Lackawanna, committee employees’ drafting ap- Rankin, and Concentrator As Plans: dis- and was May on pears above, stipulated all facts that Company in a tributed booklet show that submitted to there was employees’ representatives names employees at and Works the various Plants it, employees signed all the among who plan employee representation forma a revi- There was Bethlehem Plant. provisions largely based containing agreement January, sion mutual Bethlehem, Mary- those of the Plans at Temporary Company and between land, Steelton, Plants, Lebanon and that appointed by the Em- Rules Committee sometimes with and sometimes without revision, it Representatives. This ployees’ accepted by the modification this form was true, the War followed the dissolution of employees through designated repre- their August, But there Labor Board in by voting sentatives and in the first nomina- record indicate that this nothing tions and elections held thereunder. Here altered the Plan ac- materially revision again, respect Maryland, -as Steel- 1, 1919; revised, and, cepted May ton, Plans, Lebanon record is silent Mary- like the its essentials Plan desig- as to the manner of selecting Plans, land, Steelton, and Lebanon representatives nated and as to the manner original Bethle- form of the followed the they accepted Again in which the Plans. King. plan Mackenzie devised hem barrenness of record cannot Plan, including «the Bethlehem Since thus evidentially fruitful. Only as- 1920,became effec- January, revision of sumption in these Plants repre- action of tive the result adopt did not desire to Plans but were employees and their com- sentatives compelled so nevertheless do Com- mittees, reasonably concluded cannot pany petitioner origin can a coercive upon foisted the em- the Plan was these Plans be out. snelled wishes, ployees consulting un- without Thus the statement the Board’s brief employees’ representatives less these were the Plans were and in- formulated upon unwilling forced em- themselves stalled without reference wishes ployees. The facts refute that —since these from the outset representatives were selected under Company, creatures find- auspices of the War Board. It ing the Board that the domi- to conclude would affront reason nated and interfered with the formation of plan unwill- Board forced the craft Plans, justifica- are seen to be without employees through representatives un- true, except tion. fairly have been selected. It will noted Plan in Bethelehem of which drafting concerning employees’ drafting partici- of the facts the statement committee pated, actually the Plans were not origin of Bethlehem Plan original drafted form Company, good faith the Bethlehem *40 they accepted the that em- by respect of the continuation after the Armi- ployees through representatives rather than principle bargain- stice the of collective by direct But the circumstance that vote. questioned ing, Labor War Board’s is, agreement one to an party drafted it of December letter was vindicated more, the without no evidence that by April 11, the Board its meeting at party accept forced to it. was And the fact employees through that repre- the acted As the Again directly predi- Cambria Plan: the rather than sentatives is no stipulated facts refute the finding the for an inference cate that the Plans were Plan, They Board. show that after them. Nothing forced in the Na- suggested being employees to the by a tional Relations Act Labor forbids em- posted right wage recognizing ployees through notice agents, act rather than bargain collectively inviting directly, agreement earners into an entering with plan representation adoption employer concerning adoption of a by interference Company, organization system free from of labor form negotiated between the bargaining. contrary, Cambria Steel collective On representatives Company and expressly of its presupposes through em- Act action ployees who had elected representatives. been all of may it If inferred that be employees purpose, Bethlehem, and that origin after of the Plans at the approved Steelton, an amendment it was Maryland, War and Lebanon Plants Board. Labor iniquitous peti- the Company because proposed ments, which, tioner employees, noted, it them to the to be relate would aspect equal solely organization with ease that the be reasoned to the labor position specifically would have Plans. more below I discuss defying contention direction War of the Board with proposed if it had not them. The the provisions concerning Plans Plans, facts origin concerning amendments. scrutinized, are, when dispassionately my (b) urged by It is ab- the Board that the opinion, unproductive reasonable in- sence in the provisions Plans of for initia- ference that the Plans came into being fees, dues, cards, application of, pressure upon, corruption result of provisions employees for meetings of the Indeed, employees. my will of the body departments, as a or by or for meet- view, the reasonably inference drawn 'be with, of, ings for discussion instruction from the concerning facts as a whole representatives, supports finding origin of the is that derived Plans and interference the ad- domination cooperative from a endeavor the com- ministration of the Plans. absence panies employees put into effect provisions Only these if the is colorless. employee wholesome organization and col- employees fact were that the desired lective bargaining ideas. provisions not, but could either because of (2) The structure of the Plans. The employer pressure or because of restriction argument of the Board structure amendments, of the Plans themselves on reasonably supports the Plans finding Plans, embody them in the would the find- through them have ing warranted. But the record does not dominated and interfered the adminis- Again, predi- show to be the fact. employees’ tration of the organiza- cate necessary Board’s conclusion ' tions, specifica- itself into several divides supplied by assumption. cannot be There Plans, tions : is no evidence that for lack of fees, dues, cards, application initiation (a) provi- contends operate. were unable to Prior Employees’ Rep- sions in the Plans limiting expenses amendments of employees resentatives to and thus exclud- defrayed by peti- Plans were representation persons employees ; tioner since then they have been borne organizations persons or by not em- themselves. It is not reason- Employees’ ployees, Repre- requiring ably provi- inferable from absence sentatives to adult citizens of the United meetings sions for the Plans did not employed by Company petitioner States operation lend themselves to free em- from year, 'for one evidences domination and in- ployer domination. of the fact view provisions my terference. These are in under each Plan were opinion respect. colorless in such There is particular plant concentrated at a and re- nothing inherently coercive of the will of community sided in the same —which provisions in such looked at apparent record —and had there- alone. Indeed it say would seem absurd to opportunity fore natural for discussion with just Employees’ Repre- because an each other and for consultation with their sentative is adult American citizen em- representatives, employees may ployed petitioner for a provisions meetings felt for formal unneces- year, represent qualified he is not the em- sary. readily It is least inferable from ployees. if Only been shown provisions meetings the absence of for such *41 employees in the case that evidence employees regard did not them as provisions desired to alter such in the Plans they necessary as it desired is that them. permit representation so as to by persons aspect equivocal In this evidence is by organizations employees per- not or therefore not substantial. employees, by minors, not or aliens or sons prevented argues provi- petitioners by (c) by but or for provisions equality of the Plans sions of the Plans of member- themselves from alteration, ship voting power such could it be Com- accomplishing Joint domination concluded there mittees evidence and interfer- reasonably domi- by the administra- nation or But ence interference. no evi- with view, prevention, predi- my tion of Plans. item in dence of such such a case, on the of rea- contrary domination the Board’s cate for an inference to cannot and interfer- supplied by assumption. provisions sonably proving domination be ence, probably oppo- an do not forbid such lends itself more the Plans amend- Manage- Employees’ Representatives and ordinary case all In the conclusion. site management does Representatives, bargaining ment’s collective done at can types of the three agents have a or voice committees between negotiations amend- question. Such respec of amendments employer, employees and chosen materially (i) would ments those which and at discussions carry on tively, is to the ad- provided for change procedure as far agreement. So reach an tempt might pre- grievances, (ii) or employee justment of independence of effectiveness operating as fair a method a Plan from concerned, arrangement vent bargaining collec- and of representatives equality selecting for Committee the Plans Joint materially might bargaining, (iii) tive provides power voting membership and upon the imposed obligation increase the em result a superior method. As a Company by a dif Plan. in adjusting real have a voice ployees policies. The Act determining ferences which on amendments limitation employees shall require not does change procedure for materially would power in preponderance voting have a or which grievances adjustment of more conferences bargaining obligation collective im- might materially increase have such employer to permits the is, think, clearly than it upon posed requires is the Act preponderance. a What requires proper Act Nothing a one. in the membership independence. Equality employees employers to submit to either ac Committees power on voting grievances or given adjusting method of a Joint for both em independence complishes they have con- given obligation unless a objects employer. The ployees and thereto; they if follows that sented Committee tie votes a obligation, a one method consented to Joint inability to Equally may action. block have no change therein would unilateral any collec action in agreement block reach force. re The Act conference.27 bargaining tive might prevent amendments which As to does bargaining, quires faith but good a method of as fair operating a Plan from agreements. The reaching require body representatives the whole selecting equal representation principle Joint method of collec- employees or a fair employers employees and Committees an amendment were bargaining: tive If Labor Board. recognized by the War proposed description mentioned in I have This fair thought might result method the Plans. structure of above Representatives or a Employees’ selecting bargaining, fair method of the Board that the asserted It is (d) not, view, bound under the my dominate would of structure as matter Plans except accept an amendment the Act to .the administration interfere with Although court. through the direction organizations because un- employees’ labor in the self- may not interfere employer provisions Company has a their der employees, he has of his organization amendment of the Plans. As voice certain asked deal when with description of the to be by the structure shown represent Plans, who assume them they provided, after those provided the Act a vote of two-thirds of manner amendment he is to representatives whom deal (or membership Body of the General entire fairly represent them. As said Representatives, shall as the Committee Gardner, Judge, in Hamilton-Brown under some of Circuit assembly thereof called Relations National Labor Plans), except Co. v. as concerns amend- Shoe Board, Cir., 104F.2d types, are not “We are three to he ments arbitrary that it would be approved of unfair, view until Com- effective Joint keeping and not either the Rules. leaves mittee on This Act, spirit require fit, letter or see free to amend Plans employer and its Company participation, far conduct without so through agency amendments, types negotiations except three re- all to, fairly majority of the em- representing are concerned. But since on the ferred *42 fair equal ployees.” is And as to methods of col- on Rules there Committee Joint bargaining, employer power obviously as representation and lective voting between forth, 27 set a tie do tbe Plans above vote It is to be tie votes noted Appeals may necessarily be a Joint Committee not action all re- block president appears spects Plans, for, the Com- to the of referred under the as pany. description of the structure of from the 686 types required by amendments action But proper interest them. has a Rules, employees is this Committee on the result of Board contends Joint as must under restraint Company be said to have judgment of the to make is and effect have That final criterion. restraint will is fair a to what If despite continued amendments. 1935 not, supportable contention. think, a argument This there is the em- because no by opinion fails between a difference proposed any Company arise evidence that amendments ployees should employees prior afterwards) disagreement (or point, that to respect a 1935 of such petitioner. opposed Company by courts were party to the either could taken be that, prior question whether But even assumed if it be for determination not free employees were changes, result 1935 proposed amendment would not they could would under because representatives who Plans the selection consent, em- still alter without represent them majority fairly collective it cannot concluded that ployees reasonably fair method of be and in a as agreement employees the four have become free in not bargaining view—in years the amendments case would between objectives. intervening and its a whole decision. of 1935 and the date the Board’s judgment for a de- declaratory orthodox be parties In of the strict enforcement rights of interested view claring the there- Act the liberal right, or attitude of a the absence contract —the Plans, construing Act, of, the courts in the amend- including under employers, frequency against put proposed strikes it provisions, such a ment Or, opposed and assumes putting oth- is to realities unin- into effect. amendment erwise, type telligence part of the proposed on the an amendment of this they employer are not free. by employees, contended contend that now if fair, not would not be effective because argues that the (f) Plans do a present dispute meaning as organization “severably” not a labor set up is contract —because what the contract agreement bargaining. for collective depend upon whether or would pointed discussion of But out effective as it.28 part amendment structure, regarded is if substance rather proposed that a amend- If a court concluded up than do set form the Plans labor or- rep- would result selection ment independent separate ganization with represent the fairly resentatives who would distinguished (as Committees fair collective and in a method of as well as a collective Committees) Joint bargaining prevent bargaining, the could organization labor system. A that a contract the amendment. fact “any of the Act is 2(5) or- under Section application contains a term kind, or-any ganization agency require interpretation court cannot plan, committee or employee representation be finally it. condemn It noted with employees participate and in which provisions respect the amendment purpose, part, or in in whole exists is no Plans that there evidence in case employers . dealing . . It .” petitioner opposed ever possible say on the seems to facts me not proposed any amendment the structure of Plans concerning changes or after the either before organization up set they do not provisions. the amendment to be And seen within that definition. description of the that, structure suggested also from the (e) the Board up do set provisions of the Plans even if the amendment of 1935 Committees. still, prior bargaining system in since proper, all Joint 3, Declaratory Judgment March as such.” reviewable Act The Federal 1911, 231, 274d, immediately provides, per as added Act of § far c. so

Act 955; 512, “(1) Stat. June c. tinent: eases actual contro August 1935, versy except Act c. amended tax Federal § 49 Stat. U.S.C.A. es courts United shall States 400(1). power upon petition, declaration, § complaint, appropriate plead or other accepted functions of de- One of rights legal ings declare re claratory judgment is to statutes afford party petition interested lations opportunity determination declaration, such whether rights liabilities contracts. prayed, relief is or further could Declaratory Judgments Borchard, See declaration shall have the force and- 405; p. (1934) § Am.Jur. judgment a final effect or decree *43 publications he requires that there para which I discuss in Nothing Act below organizations graph topic labor of this (e) separate (in charters connection with systems, or bargaining another contention the re and for collective Board which a lates single charter both to all requires Plans), in of the the that follow bargain- ing stipulated : a collective the organization grievances labor schedules Plans, each shall provisions together handled under each system the of the ing copies meetings separately minutes of stated. certain supplement admitted in evidence to these re- in Board contends (g) Finally, schedules; stipulation to the effect that that spect sub- Plans structure hearing, as of existing of the the close provisions of the identity stantial operated Plans respects in all material sub scheme of single evidences a various Plans respec in their stantially accordance with petitioner to dominate provisions; stipulation tive show of the the administration interfere with working that during employees. organizations all of its labor spare hours had the amount of time stated demonstrates Plans Examination of evidence, therein.29 This on contrary detail, al- in they not identical are of reasonably supporting an inference same in substantially are though they domination and interference with ad ob have the provisions which the essential employees’ ministration of the labor or organization and a labor ject forming ganizations at the Plants other than the bargaining. collective means providing Plant, reasonably Cambria supports only far evi- equivocal so as is identity But this an inference of freedom from interference. and interference domination dence of Plans, The structure of the as just I have support an said to it can be concerned. If pointed out, shows they domination, constitute a single scheme of of a inference organization labor which fulfills defini support be said equal reason it can with tion system Act' of collective and the em- inference that operate bargaining calculated to so sincerely as Plants were ployees various express employees. will of embodying interested cooperatively stipulation effect of the oper the Plans ideas wholesome Plans of the each ated respects in all substantially material organization and a labor for the creation accordance respective with their provisions agency which had bargaining a collective is, therefore, they operated as a of the War lawful direction source organization labor and that commented As has been Board. bargaining they express did equivocal above, will evidence of the employees. And -the effect of the stipula substantial. tion is further that the operated Plans with Board on the attack of Thus out against discrimination any employee be in- supporting as of the Plans structure cause his belonging or not belonging interference domination ference of union or other organization, employees’ labor without the administration opinion against my the discrimination organizations Employees’ fails. Repre they con- Plans shows that structure sentatives account of their as activities fulfills organization which stitute a such, that nominations and elections were system of col- of the Act and a the definition conducted themselves in operate so bargaining calculated lective prescribed accordance with the rules express the will as Rules, their Committee on with only such bargaining. with such connection management assistance might the Plans and operation (3) requested Committee, by that they petitioner rela- conduct were conducted secret ballot in such finding of them. manner as avoid interference with voters Plans all of the other than the so far as prevent fraud in casting concerned, oper- Plan Cambria ballots —for each counting of of the Plans and the conduct ation of the Plans provided against such discrimination and spell inter- Company with them for nominations provided so rest, elections ference, except copies insofar must other conducted. of the Bethlehem Review certain operation list items do with Plans or 29 I omit ref con- Company petitioner stipulations duct of tlie as to ori re- erence to gin, development spect history, them. Plans for the reason have not *44 688' (d) holding The Board claims that Board 'The contention con- nominations and at Cambria operation elections Plan of the Cambria respect Company property Plant and with ballot in Company petitioner duct of interference, by the boxes and booths furnished of it evidence domination that, this is specifica- evidences coercion. following I think divides itself into the equal be equivocal reason item. It can tions : practical it a matter inferred was urges fact that that the (a) The Board 16,000 employees. As convenience Representatives Special Management’s craft stated above the War Labor tim,e time to Plan from under the Cambria plan Plant at the Bethlehem election distin meetings (as attended Committees was held. thus evidences guished Committees) from Joint upon is based coercion. This contention (e) contended the Board It is partial is without of the facts. statement Company’s the Plans concerning statements provisions of the dispute that under the “Message,” “Ten in outside unions be such at Plan there was to Cambria Relations” and Progress Years’ in Human invitation, and there except tendance the Bethlehem Review evidence domination shows that the facts nothing is which and interference organiza- with the labor Representatives ever Special Management’s employees. tions is This contention except up meeting attended Committee made only in Cambria considered, is this on invitation. When Plans, respect of Plan but also in the other said is colorless. As the fact attendance stipulated since it matter was was this Railroad Com in Orleans Texas & New Ex- distributed at the other Plants also. Railway Steam Brotherhood of & pany v. which, publications, in amination of these Clerks, 1930, 281 U.S. 50 S. ship order that the character the statements 427, 1034, which Ct. 74 L.Ed. seen, I have set forth therein made IV, quoted pre topic in the Act does not in of facts some detail statement innocent vent normal relations and topic, the material con- discloses that employer and em between communications expression employer tained them is an ployee reasonable should re which men opinion. There is in the National nothing gard proper. than otherwise expressly for- Relations Act expressions opinion employers bids the Board that the (b) It asserted disputes, concerning the labor merits of new intro- manner like. organizations labor such If at the Plant duced to Plan Cambria expressions are forbidden Act iniqui- the foremen above is as described category because are within pressure upon can This item evidence tous. by the interference denounced coercion only by assumption Moreover, con- Act. if the Act should be point issue. the will very overriding If employers strued forbid to ex- proved, were otherwise themselves, press short statements of of course for foreman to inform an then such nature statements under such employee the Plan would concerning corrupt will circumstances as override and interfer- to domination introduce him employees, of their or of statements will operated lawfully, ence. But if the Plan character, of a defamatory Act would employees concerning new then to inform run afoul of the First Amendment Therefore, the would itself be lawful. fore- the Constitution. Court proves nothing. action alone men’s Alabama, 1940, 88, 60 Thornhill 310 U.S. v. holding attacks the (c) an- 1093, 84 L.Ed. Carlson S.Ct. Repre- Management’s nual conferences California, U.S. 60 S.Ct. Employees’ Representatives sentatives and made clear em- L.Ed. evidencing Plant as domina- the Cambria express ployees free themselves are con- interference. tion and absence of conferences, disputes through equal cerning it could with co- merits handbills, peaceful contended that the distribution mak- gency be peaceful cooperate bargain- speeches, picketing, refusing relationships. expressions holding The cir- that such ing activities Court view equivocal, by employees protected by thus First palpably cumstance protection no substantial constitutes evi- Amendment. therefore employers as well Moreover such conferences consti- extends dence. Amendment employees. As said Midland relations.

tute normal *45 689 rights qualified absolute, Rela- these Labor National are and not Products Co. v. Steel there are circumstances an an 800, 804: Cir., Board, F.2d 113 6 tions expression upon by policies view labor employer “ is within speech condemnation right is free . . . Unless constituting statute as employees, interference coer- by employers enjoyed as as -well situation, cion, present against and that futile, rights set guaranty is First Amendment background publicly opposition a declared basic fundamental is guaranteed it plant, Mr. Ford belong equally to the unionization of his the Constitution brings challenged publications wilhin ilio person.” every to ignore definition. We do not the view that Appeals Circuit Courts Several ‘any employer sort of influence exerted an not, and can upon employee, depending employ- Act does an ruled that his have very livelihood, may easily er for means be- employer an constitutionally, to forbid come undue in that it will coerce em- his em to express himself right ployee’s employer will in favor of what de- labor or of various merits ployees on against judgment.’ Virginian sires his better System express preferences be al., ganizations and R. Co. v. et 4 Federation No. 40 Cir., employer 84 holds the F.2d 641. This not over them, as he does long so tween suspect application practical forever and in National employees. his ride the will necessarily opinion must silence him whoso Pacific Union Relations v. Labor may informed, be the best no matter how hon- may 153; estly entertained, Cir., 1938, F.2d Inc., 99 his Stages, views or how 9 may truthful If his observations. the con- La National v. Company Box Continental cept employer’s opinion organ- that an labor Board, Cir., 113 F.2d 5 bor Relations organizers must, izations because of the National Products Co. v. 93; Midland Steel authority servant, nearly of master over al- ways prove coercive, Board, supra; National validity, Relations ever had it is Labor say, difficult now to view National La- Motor Com Ford Board v. Relations Labor adjudication Act, bor Relations as constitu- 905; National Cir., 114 F.2d pany, 6 tionally valid, its strict enforcement Na- Corporation, Falk Board v. Relations liberpl Labor Board, tional Labor Relations construing 383; Elec Cir., 1939, attitude of the courts it F.2d 102 so 7 Jefferson great best to effectuate its social and economic Relations National Labor v. tric purpose, concept still a sound is one. Board, Cir., 1939, 102 These F.2d 949. 7 longer The servant no has occasion to fear the right variously sustained courts authority master’s frown or threats of dis- express activities, crimination for union representatives: im- employer or his or ex an plied.” page [114 914.] F.2d general opinion employee press a that an publications The statements in the advantage it more to his would find the Board has interdicted in the instant ;30 to a union to read a statement to belong praise accomplish- case the Plans and their employees, shortly the conduct his before ments and contrast the Plans and their ad- election, forth the em setting a consent vantages advantages with the claimed including ployer’s points on various policy disadvantages outside unions and with the subject subjects normally several of outside unions described the Com- negotiation there where bar pany. anything I unable to see am cor- opposition gaining, expressing his rupting overriding nature in this mate- shop;31 say closed financial rial. And is no there evidence that the pub- men in the secretary of union that lications distributed under were such cir- “disgusted employer’s employ cumstances as would cause them to override their and “have lost all of in unionism” corrupt employees; the will of the ;32 express centive work” good do no contention that the statements employer’s preference defamatory or untrue. Therefore the local over outside In an union.33 National right petitioner had a to make Labor Relations v. Ford Motor Com it the statements that did and making pany Mr. Ford distributed to his em them an practice unfair labor ployees pamphlet containing his on views evidence think an interpre- thereof. refusing to labor. In sanction Board’s tation of Act which would hold the prac this was an labor finding that unfair making of such statements he unfair tice, Appeals said Circuit Court : practice or evidence thereof would in the National Labor “Nowhere Relations unconstitutional, render to that extent Act is there sanction an invasion of invasion of the of free speech guaranteed liberties to all citizens the First by the First guaranteed Amendment. urges however, Amendment. 32 Labor Relations Board National Midland Steel Products Co. v. Na Stages, Union Pacific Inc. tional Relations Board. Continental Box v. Nation- National Labor Relations Board v. Corporation. al Labor Relations Board. Falk only rangements, ruling are not direct but There has ap- Employees may Vir- means. indicate question by the Court. proval System by other The annual vot- ginian Federation conduct. Railway Co. v. Cir., 1936, conclu- F.2d Cir- not be instant case No. sive, persuasive Appeals but and therefore affirmed decision Court cuit of the *46 ignored. (D.C.E.D.Va.1935, District Court cannot Railway vio- F.Supp. had 621) the 11 significance It is of further distinct in circulating by Railway the Labor Act lated respect the case of domi- the issue under statement, signed by employees a among superintendent, that, despite nation and interference the the employees to the urging upon freedom Board’s from restrictions subject give consideration careful subpoenas, despite use of fact the bargaining, representation for collective operation the Plans been in sub- Railway preferred indicating years, Board, stantially twenty so the far independent asso- choose a certain them to other the Plants Plant than Cambria representative rather than ciation their concerned, many among are called from This of Labor. Federation American testify thousands of none to upon points in Vir- case affirmed coercion, acts of intimidation dis- Federation, System Railway Co. v. ginian by Company against crimination em- 515, 592, 1937, 81 L.Ed. S.Ct. 300 U.S. 57 ployees Employees’ Representatives. “It consti- Court decision 789. The pro- party well settled that if a fails dis- question on the ruling tutes no cussion.34 testimony duce the of an available witness cause, may on a material issue in testimony, presented, several contentions inferred that his if thus seen that the structure, party adverse fails origin, would be who Board—that Plans, together 192, call operation the witness.” 187. and the 20 § Am.Jur. 115, 55; Company petitioner 22 Jones, And 1 conduct of the see Evidence with the § C.J. them, and (4th ed.1938) domination relation to show far as the Cambria in So § concerned, with the by petitioners Plant is at which alone there interference 16,000 the labor employees, and administration were the Board formation called witnesses,35 employees fail, organizations of four testified one of whom — inspector 1937, told finding with them fails ultimate his him to vote subject, that his Board on lack of substan- another foreman had done the same 1935, support tial evidence. and two more testified that who paymaster respectively they and foreman insubstantiality of the Board’s case they could get had been told to vote before clear even more when the relied is upon facts testimony pay. But of these wit- support finding Board in by the of its flatly contradicted nesses was in- light are of other items in the viewed paymaster ques- spector, foremen and apparently of which the record did tion,36 and the Board in its decision ac- undisputed not take account. I refer to the cepted the contradictions true and made as respect policy petitioners continuous over a finding voting. of coercion period years twenty approximately points to no The Board other witnesses bargaining, collective favor of the absence testify coercion, acts called period during same of discrimination or discrimination the Com- intimidation pany against against employees on account of union ac- employees Employees’ Rep- tivities, accomplishment under the Plans at the Plant. resentatives More- Cambria uninterrupted employment and of whole- II, over, pointed topic I have out in conditions, some labor and the annual ex- testimony offered excluded pression employees, adop- since Representatives Employees’ Plans, approval of their tion of of the super- they subjected had never coer- that cion. same thereunder. Board voting elections one means of determin- vised employees’ satisfaction with labor or- Board’s order disestablishment. was no evidence substantial ganization ar- bargaining Since seq., es 34 Lewis There is the National under the title Volume H. Van Illinois XXXV, helpful Law Dusen, “Freedom of Review, December, review No. Jr. Relations pp. Speech Act,” cas- et Edgar ter). William (foremen), Louis Jose Rupert, Marley, Jaime, F. Midderhoff Michal Lawrence Houston George Singel M. McDowell Fetzko. Underwood, (inspector), (paymas- or of subsidiary findings the for- interference domination and based, questions Plans, only and administration mation first, ruled were the Board had for the order whether in the case there is no basis power under the Act disestablish an em- Disestablishment them. disestablishing ployees’ second, and, association whether Supreme Court which the a measure findings under the disestab- Board if power of the held within necessary Upon lishment was warranted. review policy of Act to effectuate legislative Act, history including, or restraint employeesfrom coercion free as known Texas Congress, New& self-organization will in of their and collective Orleans Railroad through repre- Brotherhood bargaining Clerks, 1930, Railway Steamship & choosing. National sentatives their own U.S. L.Ed. Pennsylvania 50 S.Ct. Board v. Labor Relations *47 261, disestablishment a local associa- 1938, which Lines, 58 Greyhound U.S. 303 appropriate preventing tion as an 831, 307; means 571, A.L.R. L.Ed. 115 Board v. S.Ct. 82 secured em- rights interference with Pacific Labor Relations National ployees Railway Labor under the Act of Lines, 1938, 272, Greyhound U.S. 58 303 upheld, held as 1926 was Court phrased in the L.Ed. 838. As S.Ct. question first that disestablishment was an case, employeesmust released from latter within the instrument the Board armamentarium of impulse employee’s “compulsions,” “the the meaning within Section which would organization most seek the Act, 10(c) of the Relations National Labor him” effectively represent set must free. directing any person the Board finds that when case, is if, instant there no in the But engaged an unfair labor has in impulse employees’ had evidence that the practice, cause “shall to be issue corrupted, coerced, then overridden or person requiring served on such order predicate for disestablishment factual person to cease and desist from such has failed. practice, take labor and to such af- unfair upon relied Board. authorities firmative action ... will effectuate principally relied in the nothing find cases I policies .” . As to this Act. . requires a upon by Board result which question, held that the second the Court which reach in this from that different findings made in the case the topic. cases are: National Labor Such sup- Board’s order of disestablishment Pennsylvania Grey Board v. Relations short, merely portable. Court held In above; Lines, National cited Labor hound law, that as a matter disestablishment is Newport Ship v. News Relations Board authority Board within the aas Dry Co., 1939, building & Dock 308 U.S. effectuating policies means of 219; 241, 60 Westing S.Ct. L.Ed. Act, where domination and in- and that Mfg. Electric house & National Co. La v. with the formation adminis- terference Board, Cir., 1940, bor Relations 657, 112 F.2d organizations occurred, of labor tration per affirmed curiam disestablishment warranted. Court Court, March S.Ct. not, findings did because the of domination cases, of these -. each dises L.Ed. tablishment In challenged, pass and interference were not employees’ the Board of an upon what constitutes domination and in- affirmed. association was case, Therefore terference. far as so concerned, National Relations is of holding actual no aid its Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines determining in whether in instant case Pennsylvania Greyhound found that the had the inference domination and interfer- Inc., Lines, Greyhound Manage- ence drawn Board from undis- affiliate, Company, engaged “had puted subsidiary ment in supportable. facts is is. practices interfering with, labor unfair remarked that the Court that the sub- true restraining, employees in coercing findings sidiary of fact sustained the ulti- guaranteed by 7, rights, exercise of Greyhound their finding mate the Lines and § they had dominated interfered Management engaged “had formation and administration of practices, by participa- active unfair employees, organization of their organization a labor Employees tion of the and administration Pennsylvania Association, Association Employees they to, Inc., Lines, Greyhound and had throughout history, contributed dominated support other to it in support they financial and violation financial had whose con- challenge ; 8(1), (2).” There with,, tributed had interfered § in¡ case either of these ultimate findings employees in the restrained and their coerced had, there- could have rights confirmed 7 different states37 and § exercise fore, con- organization, only opportunity for occasional a labor form for themselves through repre- representatives their or even collectively sulting bargain and to pro- employees, choosing.” in with some And fellow so sentatives of their own disseminating information the facts cedure for question whether discussing the representatives communicating of disestablish- the order found warranted representatives ment, emphasized that: the ideas of the Court essential, Management might have been whereas Greyhound Lines and case, employees under for or- instant where the project Company had initiated single company each in a employees under are concentrated Plan ganization of the community, plant all live domination, through officers same promot- consulta- opportunity is natural representatives been active Association, and for dissemina- between urging tion ing the repre- organization, and their of ideas between them join, in preparing details instant by-laws, over or- sentatives. Under the Plans presiding including the up taken electing employee being first grievance, case a after meetings ganization foreman, sub- employee’s in with is next an absence representatives; there was depart- superintendent provisions for by-laws of mitted to the the Association employed, procedure employee or for a meetings members ment *48 rep- stage, this whereby their and if fails in sub- employees instruct satisfaction could them; reports Management’s from be made to the or receive mission resentatives may Special Representative, could not be Plant then the by-laws grievances under the Employees’ through committee the appealed joint reviewing manager, and a then Representative em- joint to the Committee a submission unless was Joint representatives; management Appeals, finally, not if a settlement ployee and employer by-laws satisfactory employee, without consent effected there the change of president may precluded Company be notified required because amendment the was arbitration, if joint of the reviewing a two-thirds the matter be referred to vote repre- up president majority of the was made the equally committee which of Ap- management employee representatives; on the sentatives Committee on Joint present record peals agree. Again, on the only the Association functioned to settle merely in- the function to grievances, individual and on re- the Plans settle only also employees sought grievances but differences corded occasion when the dividual re- employees with wage representa- concerning the company groups increase work, consideration; hours, prevented spect wages, conditions of tives its and when no employees Further, there is here organized the and the like. certain of a local union, against other company A. F. of L. officials evidence of discrimination employees against against organizations employees and labor warned joining relationship same, discharge they respect them with if to the threatened and no evidence that surveillance car- join, kept meetings was should the union ried on in a manner an unfair constituting under surveillance. Finally, practice. labor under the Plans The material differences these between provisions case the the instant for amend- present items and the facts under consider- require no con- Company ments since 1935 ation are obvious: the instant In case the except respect categories sent of three aegis Plans initiated under the were which, I have concerning amendments of shown, 1918; Labor Board War had a Company not to be and Cambria Plans the em- Bethlehem consent, respect unless in bound without ployees duly representa- elected their own category of one a court otherwise ruled. Plans, adopting tives to respect act far the other Labor Relations Board v. and so Plans concerned In National representatives showing Newport Dry Shipbuilding there is no News & Dock adoption Board’s acted in of their order disestablishment who were Co. duly employees; employees’ organization, labor elected and the of known Employees’ organization Representative facts over as the Com- presiding show mittee, findings meetings by petitioners; officials ultimate based was Greyhound Pennsylvania in- case had dominated and the em- throughout ployees many scattered terfered formation and adminis- were appear appear but it does from the This does from the face record Supreme Court, the case. decision Committee, entire em- contributed be two-thirds had vote of tration representative committee, ployees’ but the support, and was financial to its dominating could amendment from findings prevent still at the time becoming by disapproving con- it with- Committee effective interfering days in fifteen (2) passage. Act. trary after 8(1) Section propriety The sole issue was as plan plain that the foregoing makes sub- order of disestablishment. Newport materially in the was case News not the sub- findings were fact sidiary instant different from case. but the ultimate controversy ject of serious Newport during all of the News case attacked findings were above stated period plan between the institution subsidiary justified by as not changes were in 1927 until the 1937 following findings. latter (and very up until the time was plan originally insti- effect: As was filed, complaint when the Board’s June was vested in tuted in administration 1937), had nothing repre- joint consisting five committees separate organization nature by sentatives elected independent which they over control. by management among five from chosen joint The entire was by administration employees; for the arbi- provision calling committees, and even after creation in operative only tration differences became 1937,of employees’ representative com- Company presi- upon concurrence finality respects mittee action was all dent; required plan ei- amendment of the subject to Company consent. In the instant ther of two-thirds of an affirmative vote separate case there has been a labor or- joint membership the full committee ganization the administration on rules or an all of the affirmative vote within control of the employees’ representatives representa- beginning. Newport Under the News management tives an annual confer- plan employees’ representatives were *49 ence; employees’ representatives the were paid by the Company for acting as such. compensation paid per year extra $100 There payment was no such extra in the acting a revision as such. Under Again, instant case. provi- the amendment plan placed in administration was in in sions the instant have case been free joint in general committee —instead of any proper from objection since 1935 when composed of two joint several committees — the National Labor Relations Act went into representatives elected the em- by to be effect, Newport whereas in the case News ployees department and an from each during ten-year the period whole of the equal management representa- number of up mentioned filing Board’s Company, appointed the tives ma- by the charges, plan the could amended in representatives jority con- of each class of any respect if disapproved the Company quorum; was also an ex- stituting a point the especially amendment. This was ecutive consisting committee five elected emphasized Supreme by the Court employees’ representatives repre- and five Newport News case. The Court said that finality management; sentatives of of ac- such control of the form and structure of general the committee joint was de- organization deprived employees the the pendent upon Company the the approval complete guaranteed the of action freedom president; plan required to amend the justified the Act the order of dises- general two-thirds entire joint vote the tablishment. The case therefore as decided upon the facts shown the record supports committee in and amendments were to become plan fundamentally disestablishment of a only upon effective approval of the Com- the different from the Plans instant case. pany president; compensation extra the paid employees’ representatives was opinion reduced that It is true the the Court annually. plan that, the hearing $60 was after a states Circuit again amended with the following Appeals, features that court had been ad- Court significant: placed Newport administration was plan a brief that the News vised employees’ representative an been amended by striking committee had out the ob- general joint was substituted for the upon restriction jectionable amendments committee and the committee had executive ex- that the lower court therefore con- isting form; finality under the 1931 prior that its existence was ac- cluded imma- representative tion taken employees’ the said Court terial. that the possible only Appeals committee was could not consider if the Com- Court pany agreed; fact, plan case decided on amendment the had the was employees organized true a local of the I. Board. O. C. record certified remarked later secured a charter. After the Su- nevertheless also that Court preme al- an Court in National Labor Relations did disclose such if the record Laughlin Corpora- disestab- Steel plan, the order of & teration of Jones tion, erroneous; above, cited had declared Act con- not be held lishment could stitutional, Westinghouse Company it- for ten existed organization where an and, way self decided that unlawful years plan was functioned and has through plant manager, announced to Representative Employees’ Committee “joint conference committee” under functioned, joint control vested had plan longer men, would no the effects management and support discontinued; it and that it would be be eliminated practice could not long plant entirely was manager free act that he stated employees rendered complete plan employees initiative, interested in upon their without what own adopted state- their business. plan. But This disestablishment of —that dictum, however, since it as- announcement was not made to ment, is but a Company. generally a fact which the existence of sumes organized then not be themselves had could considered Court stated “Independent” petitioned the deciding case is not union which the case. The instant recognition Board for as exclusive upon the basis dicta bar- be decided ^ upon agency attempted and also se- parties gaining to a decision Moreover, failing* recognition Company, dic- cure from the holdings. basis of actual however, recognition distinguishable obtain from either* is based facts tum complaint un- Board filed a charging case. the instant Under those in practices Company and fair labor facts assumed the dictum hearing specific findings- after a Newport had three News never case against of discrimination local'. Circuit C. I. O. hearing after free until findings These that: in a talk were between- Appeals adopt of or- form Court Company superintendent wished, president representation they ganization superintendent- of' the I. O. local C. amendment restriction because the it; forbade president job asked the whether was: the em- his in the instant case whereas important union; more than the the- to have such to him ployees free after fit, refused O. organization allow C. I. saw form concerned, local to use room- representation recreation far and so *50 organizer for upon an address a I. be- any amend- C. O. restriction were free of employee, although cause he was not an the- except in cate- ments to the Plans three “Independent” which, had been allowed to that- have use gories of as I amendments rooms; Company and other had demonstrated, require Company properly permit Also, refused to the use- is in C. I. O. local to part consent. the based dictum record, its in bulletin boards. The Board its deci- upon there the fact was that sion the also criticized the constitution of plan aspects the in all the beginning provided it “Independent” that an- because management in joint control vested of a committee- shown, governing officer or member has been This, have never as

men. I employee Company with- beginning an must from the the instant case: true in that, discharged, ipso he facto, the' result if separate organization labor has position on the governing his lost commit- solely of which the was administration Appeals- The tee. Circuit Court found employees through the control the within the, criticism, in this in material nothing Committee, distinguished from as Joint use of the refusal allow boards. bulletin Committee, action. other two did confirm the items of dis- Mfg. Electric & v. Westinghouse Co. In however, crimination, saying, they that Board the Labor Relations Com- National support the- be insufficient to Board’s would organized “plan” pany had except the order for decision the Su- up equally committees made governing Newport preme News case. Court representatives employees of the of elected upon case Commenting .that the Circuit employees” appointed “management and of Appeals theory that said the is Court Company’s Company. share in the that: management and direction was plan’s the “ . where . .in eases . unaf- . an . opin- apparently not detailed in the is—it large to the union seems filiated at as National Labor Relations ion—such the joint organ- of an evolved out earlier to have March some employer employees, Act forbids. In ization of the Boardl fact which the must be determined datum, of satis- it take as the absence contrary, factory the em- that evidence the facts in as each case it arises. None ap- company ployees suppose will that the Supreme decisions in the constitutes Court old, proves new, and that did the it the precedent. in my a binding view free not as that reason their choice substantial statute demands. How the Ship- urges The Board also Bethlehem say; upon is, really it us to fear building Corporation National may insist the Board how much evidence Cir., Relations 114 F.2d 930. change, public not de- did court make company in- here; That case is its similar to the clare; on facts did nor need we plain to make it make effort stant of domination case far as the issue so ‘Independent’ generally was that except that interference concerned — amendment, revision, the ‘Plan’ not a plan ” appear does of em- page 660.] [112 . E.2d at . . . ployees’ representation therein involved was short, Cir- the decision in gist aegis instituted under the of War I^ibor presumably, Appeals, and Court of cuit Board of But for the reasons which therefore, per decision curiam have caused me to reach the conclusion to it, was that affirming Court which I come in the instant case with the announcement since respect in- issue of domination and longer support and would that it would terference, persuasive. do not the case find “plan” was original discontinue the employees, representatives only to VI large, at than to rather Support Contribution on to the Plans might still think latter Company peti- The Board found that the I. “Independent” to the C. O. preferred support” tioner “has contributed might local, the Board insist therefore Employees’ Representation “Plans of its place take an election should before plants,” various a similar find- and it made cleared of ‘Inde- should be “the decks Corporation peti- path stood pendent’ because it tioner. no finding It made as to when such otherwise, Putting untrammeled choice.” began or ended. contribution Westinghouse failure case holds however, concluded, contributing “by all advise part of the support distinguished . . . the re- employees, [to from com- Plans] spondents [petitioners] have representatives, engaged the Company mittee and are practices unfair joined engaging labor as to whether indifferent meaning within the newly “Independent” or 8(2) formed Section (Italics Act.” supplied) local, paragraph sufficient to warrant dis- And I. C. O. order, 1(a) required The rationale of case establishment. petitioners to cease power and desist is that Board has therefore “from con- tributing support disestablishment, through the said Plans Em- an election before ployees’ Representation newly or to held to choose between two formed other la- organization employees.” bor organizations one of which suc- union, Board’s conclusions company and order ceeded unlawful to free were dated *51 August 14, employees 1939. of 8(2) mind of doubts to Section the of the Act employer practice may prefer not makes it an unfair labor their the “to whether organization, employer where the contribute financial or sup- successor other port employees any organization, to” the clearly has not announced to but further provides plain employer indifference. “an shall generally pro- its It is that that not be is so different its facts from hibited from permitting the case the to con- precedent. fer during instant case that it constitutes no with him working hours without pay.” of loss time or respect be commented to further of the three cases The facts of each above the discussed Board’s finding Supreme the are justified must be these: shortly that Court does them Until April 12, a lay assume to down touchstone after the date Supreme final or the for determination criterion the of issues Court decided National Labor Relations domination, Laughlin interference and Board v. Corpora- disestablish- & Steel Jones tion, above, Plans, or not Whether there is cited each of ment. domination the ap- pears description and interference with the the formation from their and struc- organizations topic V, provided of labor administration ture that Employees’ Representatives and if so whether or not should dises- receive “for time occupied necessarily through tablishment warranted as an effectuation actual attend- Act, policies special regular questions meetings are at of ance or con- 69 G law, help asked comply and . with . ferences held Plan . pursuant to necessary respect and average advice in payment with their commensurate be could changes, amendments so earnings,” that provided further that and signed by a reply made. a letter of Company “defray expenses as should such Company Management’s Representative, necessarily discharge of incident to the Act, 8(2) called attention duties the Plan.” to Section under In view of the Plans paragraphs and stipulation to those two in the case concerning Plans referred provided payments for the they which other than the Cambria Plan —that to, and operated provi- then stated: in accordance with their taken, sions—it be such paragraph (2) provisions “In view of Plans, payments expenses re- ,of re- I have Section of the Act necessary above, appear quoted provisions to be ferred it would ferred to in the were changed paragraphs those be that so as to two ... defrayed made and from the time of the strictly provi- bring them within provisions up of such until adoption time of (2) paragraph of Section 8 sions of such their amendment after shortly provisions that the Act. You will note prohibit paragraph (2) Plan, the em- April such do As to Cambria case, your ployer (that is, Bethlehem Steel that, dispute is without until after shortly (cid:127) conferring Company) with April 12, Company petitioner 1937: during working of time loss hours without omitted deduct from the of Em- pay employees. pay such Bethlehem Steel Com- comply willing pany is, therefore,

ployees’ Representatives with the the Cambria they your provisions extent that Plan to spent by Plant for time them in Plan ac- Employees’ pay require tivities, they engaged whether in con- regular Representatives under Plan Management’s Representatives ference working during wages hours time not; Representatives permitted use confer- shall Employees’ that performance Management ring with the Representatives meetings attend Plan subject, Plan, under their duties hours, during permitted employees working may regulations course, any rules and to take time to pay vote without loss published Labor Board. be made expenses hours, Plan which during permitted working “As to the the hold- pay, I I think cannot the Act ing of nominations and elections on Com- - believe do not I add that should will be found burdensome I believe pany property furnished voting booths employees and charge; boxes without ballot prepare pro- Com- you able will your amendment put provided, Plan pany charge, into without to be visions rooms expenses at a com- of such that will take care headquarters office in Company garage employee. per paratively I have small cost Plan, printed for the building and dis- inquiry been done as to what made some expense tributed at Company schedules among plans em- in effect under other companies ployees meetings and have been ad- dates of Body, for the General of other employee charge per un- vised that the total furnished the services' of to write clerk plans der some of the has been low as One up the minutes of the meetings Committee year. Dollar ’ meetings Body;38 the General your again carefully “I have read Plan of at an conference annual Em- between light Employees’ Representation Supreme ployees’ Representatives Management’s decision of the Court J. & L. discussions I have case sel coun- Representatives followed banquet, necessary believe will Company paid cost of banquet. you adopt amendments Plan than those to which I have referred April After when the you above, may strictly make it order Court decided in National Labor Relations provisions comply the Labor with the Re- Laughlin Board v. Corpora- Act. & lations Steel Jones you “It, however, well be that the Act was constitutionally ap- *52 Employees’ Representatives other it will think plicable such a to manufacturing business changes your to in advisable make some petitioners, as that the inquiries written provide Plan, instance, as, such for moneys by Treasurer by under the Plan and how held received the Company petitioner were paid may him .” out . . . employee Plans, officials from under the re- questing expressed information as to the the in effect re- accordance with views In Supreme explained Court decisions, including cent this as has been in letter and the Laughlin decision, description topic V, the upon & structure of their in the Jones inquiries These the Plans. stated all the other than Rankin that it Plans Plan was the desire of the as shortly provide amended that that the Plans were so as should be in contention was exercised to what There is no that the min produce written them. utes thus did an ac improper record that curate control operate. stopped defray cannot payments and That which Company make already by permitted ended. the extent expenses “only to was the Rankin Plan Although law.” VII amended, Company advised so formally TO COMMITTEE CONTBIBUTIONS CITIZENS’ under Representatives THE the Committee MáYOB per- TO OF except to the extent AND THE that Plan JOHNSTOWN dispute case that be- is without further law, no would make mitted 28, 1937, tween expenses. July Com- no further defray payments and June pany petitioner paid to a Commit- amendments, this state- Citizens’ and after After the $32,078.25, Johnstown, Pennsylvania, tee of respect of the ment Rankin Mayor paid July that on Plan, all contributions $4,372. Board’s decision The except law- ceased, as were the Plans Johnstown stated, respect of the Commit- the amend- Citizens’ after Plant ful. At Cambria tee, prime was that of “its function paid ments, the Plan organiza- vilifying the union O.W. space garage C.] [S. office headquarters building engendering public tion and hostility the use of a clerk and for opposition respect of to the stinkers.” In preparation of minutes. payments Citizens’Committee given advice The Board attacks decision was stated “The of “other printed letter a form above thus implementing strengthening This support.” 8(2). attack Section agency was to defeat the seeking not, think, opinion my sustainable. organization efforts of the union properly be construed to the Act cannot destroy organization creating hos- employer prohibit party collective tility toward it.” The made an ulti- Board that, bargaining agreement advising his mate Section finding violation Act, 8(1) Company, making he, “the employer, what above, payments has inter- described agreement. lawfully do under the may not with, restrained, fered and coerced em- its stated facts above show rights ployees guaran- in the exercise had, indirectly, Company petitioner con- teed the Act.” The deci- Section 7 support prior the Plans financial tributed particularize Board did sion their amendment time of Company, making manner in which payments under the Ran- discontinuation described, with, payments interfered Plan, sup- therefore do and the facts coerced restrained or rights in their kin port that the Com- finding self-oi-ganization, collective bar- support.” “has petitioner contributed guaranteed pany gaining and concerted activities support they do not the conclusion expressly of by But And the decision Section 7. engag- “are respond- do not stated: find that “We practices” by in unfair labor contribut- participated ents induced or ing [petitioners] Plans, support because con- in the formation the Citizens’ Commit- April shortly ceased after tribution 1937. tee.” Moreover, the facts show that the contribu- upon Board’s The facts which the state- faith, or in not covert bad but was justified tion was ments and must be in this finding obligations accordance with the of aspect are largely made the case dis- without prior their amendment. Plans Since pute A and are in substance follows: true, and since contribution was strike was called S. O. C. W. June promptly discontinued determination Cambria at the Plant Com- that the Act was con- by the Court pany petitioner at Plant Johnstown. applicable to stitutionally such a business partly partly is situated Johnstown petitioners, is in my boroughs. population there in adjoining predicate in the opinion boroughs case for cease these was at that Johnstown 125,000 persons, desist order in of contribution. approximately time bad 70,000 the contribution was not faith city itself. There were Since promptly 16,000 Plant, once employed discontinued at the Cambria settled, earnings no basis for two monthly in- of over and one- law *53 repeated. city might be ferring that And dollars. The and sur- half million dependent been no boroughs largely there has contribution were rounding since prior years two to Board’s for existence continuous than economic more present practice operation act or Plant. The residents and order against Johnstown, repre- which a cease and desist order can officials city member, minister in dent of of Beth Johnstown, who became a committee and who lawlessness under control. On Johnstown, by the Citizens’ Committee.” the idea of tarily violence and induced by zens not ployees residents Hotel. lice threatened with June the Governor of Committee, by beating erend work; employees The strike as such of the factors biles automobiles time in beaten ous erty Pennsylvania strike commenced June nois, martial accompanied by had reason to fear from lence. by hardship sentatives of adjacent boroughs, including of the characterized consin, charge cope Committee, strikes at other department gates upset; Board found damage recently work were Michigan and New organized borough Plant, John as Company. The members law should continue to work. July. Employees were stoned Violence Zion Ohio, a and by Francis C. who Johnstown connected operations at the Cambria of the Citizens’ calling United States newspaper reports of violence to the residents and closed automobiles toured continued until H. carrying Temple State called endeavored to Rabbi Abram M. Carl leading Pennsylvania, and the sheriff met community of Johnstown personal injury disorder emergency, extreme the event that such stoned apprehension Stanton, at on their in citizens and their Other Plant; occupants that “the existence of Police described Geis, Pennsylvania declared Committee was volun- Johnstown continued until some- steel with the connection group S. employees to and the Cambria Plant. Martin, vice-presi- the Fort Stanwix Johnstown, himself became and some automo- a business strikes which National the formation chairman W. O. disorder and violence did together way plants located and the York, street cars and respectable citi- strike who enter the vari- June families attacking Indiana, petitioner Presbyterian purposes was unable of violence petitioners. on Granowitz, Johnstown community; C. conceived were two the Rev- had been bring would The and Bank city and Sunday, to form vicinity in Wis- Sunday inman county police Plant, prop- when were vio- Illi- em- and po- in Reverend and order keep licity violence, lowed to members, bria mittee Mayor to ful. during the purposes; do vertisement the Citizens’ Committee on we as inducing ated for one the cessation he Thursday, officials to the auditorium about necessary addition on the advertisements collected and radio terested day of the and to wanted to stitutional Johnstown and Committee ers of those the First ously “ “ “To maintain “ “ “To form an public During the we were the strike continued martial referred to the fact everything had to take a . . . . of W. O. means evening, the situation Plant programs and the that. [39] . . . expressed: . city give S. same directed Committee’s in meeting at the who The fundamental . . thought .we .to publication of statements and of go the Governor money efforts to maintain law work, right. . meet Lutheran and to public to maintain law and emergency. The whereby George June in law. provide police protection the Citizens’ Committee was and it furnished attempted every by revoking specific function, to work because of . day. After wanted to ^[*] # ^[*] ^[*] ^[*] in our June come period rights organization vicinity felt . .” law which we expenses holding strictly its efforts we rights relations firms violence man C. papers, the persuade Committee peaceful Johnstown together W. 14. It we and order of the one Church, were, power from the formation of methods spent # sjc ought ^[*] ^[*] ^[*] and to foster the peacefully and Central that men were might help neutral work, we were as Nicely, Elks’ Club on Mon- employment control violence persuade regarded held June that would his reopen published on in the same and consider largely to public state and local Committee purpose ^[*] ^[*] sjs ^[*] ^[*] to June money sponsoring other, order, and also party solicited and keep June Johnstown, proclamation course Democrat High in Johnstown do included, maintain law to he incurred minister of do and meeting threats as the Cam- work something the lead- meetings so. much towards as prepare and that order in his orderly. support School was an ad- for its to the not al Mayor peace- Com- strike rights vari- until pub- ways held long con- cre- who and in- to Nicely the Reverend de- Her© Stanton. scribing a statement the Reverend *54 several out distance and speeches. hearing The within copy radio and

advertising statements, assured that advertisements, hearing and be and distance speeches know Business; it following: like, Citizens Committee means exemplified are Order; and preserve meeting means to Law on At a Citizens’ Committee June procla- endorsed a preserve the Reverend lives of Stanton means to Johnslown- below, Mayor, to referred mation well ers; its streets to make as it means heart went out and stated that his Mothers, Fathers, as safe for its its homes being and were to work men who wanted obliga- is the Daughters and That Sons. deprived right and that neces- of that it was tion of the Citizens Johnstown Mayor preserve and sary up back to taking the lead to Citizens Committee gave pub- right to work. The Committee obligation!” uphold that American prevailed dur- to the conditions licity ing which Mayor’s activities: On closed the strike and when Governor Mayor proclamation issued page full advertise- Plant. A Cambria June printed newspapers, which was Committee stated: ment the Citizens’ citizenry “arousing” spoke and “It which he “We Will Preserve Law Order!” responsibility,” sense re- “proper to to a Right every is the Constitutional man of our com- if ferred to “men not residents he so there is work work if desires disturbances,” and stated City! munity creating for him.” Is Our “Johnstown Johns- Is Our uphold that his “oath officeto Con- town Is Our Home! Johnstown Pennsyl- stitutions the United Greatest Interest! You States Allow Out- Will protect your lives, to It?” An- vania” bound him “to Destroy siders Come In and properties against by the be- all foreign other advertisement Committee homes print proclamation for enemies.” gan: Keep “We Safe I in full Will Johnstown margin.40 ohnstowners,” the Mayor and ended “Let all the ears On June J mayor All forces headed Law Order Must Prevail the sher- Times, Mayor Declares iff coordinated. Assuming leadership “The men who which carne head the same here to handling present they given movement of the emer- have his assurance characterized gency permit following will Johns- outside which arose influences to Mayor promote to come late Johnstown to or March stimu- Flood of town Daniel present himself labor disturbance. J. has addressed Shields “However, people for the benefit of Johnstown relative of the citi- County, zens of Johnstown said: and Cambria steel strike. He major policies my your set existence 1 mayor. forth of a herewith “Because industry fall, strictly I shall rise or but which labor disturbance adhere, policies: community, to these the backbone of our it be- right present every necessary “FIRST —It is the me comes you you your citizen to arouse American our streets facts traverse highways responsibility. proper without molestation. sense of not residents of our number of men “A right every is the “SECOND—It community here for some been any organiza- join —have citizen American organ- representing certain labor months tion, fraternal, of his or her They seen fit call have izations. choice. principal manu- steel in our cessation right “THIRD —To me the anof Amer- facturing plant. of this discon- Because worship citizen to ican he sees fit is tinuance, disturbances have taken certain inalienable. place mini- so of a far mayor “FOURTH —Your will insist character. mum any person shall cause none to be- my capacity mayor I “In official any labor, a member come fraternal warning you justified that trouble feel of religious organization by use of coer- appears inevita- a serious character cion, throat intimidation. uphold oath of took office to I ble. the Constitutions regard right “FIFTH —I as sacred United States employment go my Pennsylvania. Particularly does that my earn a brow livelihood to sweat provide protect binding me to make oath my and comforts for necessities against properties lives, your homes children. wife and foreign enemies. all dastardly independent term it a “SIXTH —I act am “Unencumbered attempts part of man de- who prepared the task before fullest undertake my family mayor prive your to feed me of In this me. cooperation threats, high- Boyle, in- he uses coercion M. J. when of Sheriff seeking objective. county. his peace timidation officerin the Efforts est *55 population tries and been en- industrial have among made a address in radio joying prosperity for time seven first things he stated: years. They just recovering are from the loss- peace es of the 1936 flood is es- and industrial ago gentlemen a to our “Some months came sential to business revival. insure the need To presence, community his and as result of simply preservation order.” of law and many today, homes are sad and these homes up gloom rise will continue in that until we by There was no the Board that finding things Ameri- and do the that all red-blooded the petitioners over the an- any assumed control do. . and cans should . . Cemmunism today archy city . are in our in evidence Committee members over or its or desiring their clothes men have had to work Mayor. representative petition- No naked forced to stand taken from them and suggested repre- ers any that or member your principal As ... streets. thoroughly mayor, majority opposed do, sentative of or the Citizens’ Committee I am convinced are and of our citizens want work refrain from doing, in connection anything Were dictation to the of outsiders. public with the issuance of statements or undesirables, peace by Johnstown not invaded speeches advertisements or or solicitations reign this time .... From at this would expenditures funds, will moment a ‘Back Work Movement’ activities. on wives, gain mothers, and sis- You momentum. by This was members testified to both workers, not. Idle fear of our steel ters representatives the Committee and cowards, being made, by let me but threats are petitioners. evidence Additional po- your mayor, I, you in a am assure Communist, lawless, accessory sition to crush and homes of effect was no connec- protect preserve anarchist, Committee and between Citizens’ good you citizens . . . offered, but, was I II, pointed topic rejected Evans, general mana- out in an assistant D. was S. Plant, examiner and the stated at Board. ger Cambria on meeting Citizens’ Committee June The contributions received the Citi- keep decided had peti- zens’ Committee the Company strike because of open during Plant tioner $32,078.25, totalling were made on responsibilities who wanted 18 and July 9 and 28 in various June work, and because it was fair to the amounts and all were made through D. S. citizens Evans also issued of Johnstown. Evans. He conditioned the contributions press following release terms: upon the being preser- used money vation of plant payment law order. The D. Evans “S. announced: The is con- operate tinuing departments. in all Em- $4,372 on July Mayor, was ployes given proper protec- work and want 'to Ellicott, made R.C. general manager of going jobs, tion be no difficulties. This is the to and from their there should Plant, the Cambria Mayor to meet bills the responsibility every community. public said paid. would have citizen Mayor to be given authorities have ployes assurance that the em- attempted Martin, to reach the chair- protected persisting bewill in their man of Committee, the Citizens’ but he was general rallying work. The to to their citizens are Ellicott, out the city connection support and we have been assured groups of Evans, various citizens that efforts of money S. D. furnished repelled a shut-down outsiders force will be Mayor. The detail of the bills does not by a united effort. some There was disorder appear, although the record does show night the turn last but conditions are much Mayor deputized large spe- number of improved morning. interrupt- this Work was only department. ed in some one division police cial equipment them, secured departments today we have more men rented number taxicabs and other any time than at classes of products, since the strike started. automobiles, and that at least some of these material made here include wire expenses paid city. plates, bars, cars, No ac- wheels axles. operation plant The continued is essen- counting Committee peo- tial ple the welfare of Johnstown and its Mayor expenditure. as to items of There products plant compe- as all are in no evidence money fur- elsewhere, many mills tition with which are nished either to the Committee or to the near to the market. located Johnstown’s indus- today “SBVENTH —I deem it “At a within conference here Governor my rights neighbor brother in- Earle made available a sufficient number provided any cause, maintaining terest me of State Police to assist gentlemanly, orderly process is law- order all times. mayor your city ful. “As I am deter- prevail mayor city mined that law and order shall “Your members earnestly your impartial, unprejudiced in Johnstown. operation.” seek co- council present neutral far as the situation concerned. *56 except Mayor order, any the to law to purpose was and Mayor for maintain used was protect right the to the and order. both work and preservation of law join right to and or strike the to prime that the finding a basis for its As join any organization. not to success- If was the Committee Citizens’ function of fully purpose into carried effect such a organization the vilifying union that of accomplish opposite would the interfer- of op- and hostility engendering public with, employees restraining coercing or strikers, its Board in position the the rights the in the exercise of their mentioned in the article referred to decision opinion my no Act. And there in show- is by I, written topic have been assumed directly by ing in case either war- or Andrews, appeared on the which one H. G. any inference that of rantable will Democrat page of the editorial Johnstown employee group employees cor- or of was months eight February of some or rupted by or overridden the utterances place. had taken after the strike of the Committee and advertisements in that the statements Board emphasized equipping Mayor by deputizing or was Committee article that Citizens’ special taxicabs police, renting or the of of breaking organized purpose Mayor, or by the automobiles of the Bethle- D. Evans strike and that S. per- by attempts of the Committee point IAs of this. hem knew to control suade the leaders of S.W.O.C. in I, was admitted topic article out in this In connec- violence members. this its limited for the evidence the examiner it to be noted that Board itself statements proving that purpose dismissed: and not had been therein contained truth of proving the purpose for the " allegations complaint . . . in those hearsay and cannot pure the same. n allege [petitioners] respondents that . . for the . the streets of a foundation caused Johnstown therefore constitute surrounding patrolled to be communities finding. purpose with, interfering armed for the men apart Despite absence coercing restraining employees; evidence — in- peaceful picketing contributions, terfered their strik- from circumstance ing employees; caused union members or- de- they be evidence —and if said ganizers unjustly arrested, to be detained finding of a spite the absence sentenced; union members to be caused the ac- petitioners controlled or directed brutally attacked and beaten its Johnstown in plant or the . Committee the Citizens’ . . tivities of discussing the in Mayor, assume I will points that, evidence The Board case that the aspect charge this in particularizes which, in no instance activi- responsible petitioners were employees any- employee group or did possible it think ties. I nevertheless they or thing which he or wished not do forth, conclude, above set under the facts doing he anything refrained from petitioners guilty were vio- any- do or desired to result of of law. lation Committee thing or either the said done charge 8(1) is a violation Section Mayor. not un- saying or the 1 am it of the Act which an unfair declares Mayor’s mindful reference in the with, restrain, practice or labor to interfere proclamation “foreign enemies” or of coerce in the exercise of the he the statement his radio address that self-organization, rights bar- collective lawless, position to “crush engagement ac- gaining and in concerted Communist, anarchist.” But purpose for the tivities bar- nothing facts which indicates gaining protection, other mutual or or aid reasonably of these use terms he guaranteed by Nothing Section 7. in the intended, reasonably or could have been expressly Act makes it unfair an intend, employees, thought to describe practice employer contribute were coerced action into funds aid activities of a citizens’ refraining into action his use of public committee official. There- persons terms. That lawless were these can guilty fore the a vio- clear; community facts make only lation of the Act if the activities nothing to and there is show Mayor actually the Committee state untrue communists with, interfered restrained or coerced the also bear in mind anarchists there. their rights. exercise of Mayor his radio the statement “ Work Under the ‘Back to Movement’ pur- evidence address case pose Act gain Nothing momentum.” the Citizens’ Committee will and of the generally. outside the ticipating press restore are ments Labor Relations Act and dispute, been false and at the Cambria tee of freedom of ercise lations Act to coercive tee and the union ers] offered inducements to engendered the Committee to defeat the ances and lawlessness tion it mittee, their is to be noted further that since the utter- ever of the Act ganization by restrain, show an effort union utterances mittee, effort employees organization tility ducted a so-called ‘baek-to-work’ it: than it self less Committee was that of forbids " “ If the fortiori Concerning the nothing strikers as such. And the facts do this is . protected by case subject Citizens’ Committee or the coercively dismissed: committed, employees themselves was to restrain violence . organization of the organization allege unlawful law and seeking to defeat the efforts of my disabled a back to must and prevents . warrants such or prime not to they opposition advertisements of concerned, again the Board it- affirmed a decree of those In National Labor Relations I . if opinion Mayor coerce unlawful public false and defamatory state- protection rights guaranteed . have express defamatory whomsoever in a manner to advertisements of the induced. are not disabled creating join Plant whether union or not. order. the Constitutional vilifying . against function .work allegations activities, of the merits of a labor same statements engendering were not shown their at the time pointed was, through the Com- the National and to and to nothing purposes been to violence and speech. or hostility strike to the activities, they were not themselves, short of respondents movement assist petitioners through vilifying the union statements. employees If violence. to certain of hostility Moreover, character or of destroy destroy out in they they movement, committed, not the National coercive, efforts If of interfere the Citizens’ strikers, said to movement public hos- participat- Labor were the Board union; Mayor employers efforts toso were not any more Board v. the law in the ex- whomso- 7 Section Commit- topic V, complaint *57 [petition- it. The facts of towards that or- guaran- opposi- so far There strike Com- were have have they par- with, their Re- con- ex- un- of ployees their own for collective National 13 construed or diminish But L.R. National Labor Laughlin was itself a resentatives tive self-organization 33, conduct employer gress of the owner zure and conversion foundations sabotage. force S. officers of tents in the contested to commit acts of violence or to seize employer’s plant. spoiling of its justify such conduct because of the existence essentially in order saying tion. The seizure had the duct of the deprived tice would be to be tain labor The Court said: members ployees lose the their unlawful Appeals and conducted in strike, of “We "... reasonably set aside a labor provides that construed as participation in principles 57 S.Ct. employer to meet protection extent bargaining Corporation this persons 1352]. instead also practices 306 U.S. think protection because thus right even the efforts of it of its is not Steel for the Seventh Circuit insofar recognition so as who had been recognized Court held that But A.L.R. different from an assault volition because of the dispute force of respondent, But of their own 57 S.Ct. protected Fansteel page questions as bargaining. wrong apart clear. To assure to strike but society. in ^[*] injury employing company, property of its from lawful Corp. though could Relations Board in its order without permitted Relations reprehensible law of an legal compliance and to the selection of compelling to interfere legal rights their nothing put a the true to reinstate conduct; 622 or We union .of protection way a sit-down and order which property. respondent Congress lawfully legal . remedies and to subvert lawlessness, ^[*] holding the men to resist evic- [81 employer, employ or other Metallurgical there is no may put. on one side actuated restraint or coercion. premium right lawful . the Board ‘the right S.Ct. activity discharged because to the choosing Associated Press v. purpose Board v. they L.Ed. the Act is not aspect with demands. To from . demands. Section Circuit Court of goods, plant unfair possession the Act discharge employers L.Ed. to right that where as was with or right of the [301 ^[*] cease was intent protection, conduct. certain regardless had no of [1937, unlawful an outlaw or circumstances strike. The any strike, on 893, is by unfair or the sei- 953]. or ground U.S.] for collec to strike.’ possession failure employees the em- to strilce’ directing 83 L.Ed. lie at that con- initiated Jones & resort agitation work buildings ‘shall Congress its con- his the de- acts ousting impede 301 U. —-that license is not Corp., to Court prac- Con Act. their page rep acts em up re- of A. to of strike, activities, contemplates plainly purpose ex concerted —the lawful quit unquestioned work. ercise bargaining or other mutual aid ” pages supplied] [306 U.S. at . . . [Italics protection,” in violation of Section page 495, 496, S.Ct. at read in 8(1) connection with Section 599.] A.L.R. L.Ed. The Board did find that re information employees of Accordingly, if activity organization lating to union in un- participating were actually petitioners, obtained activities connection lawful but in its decision refers to evidence im- strike, they no more Cambria reports the effect that were delivered community anyone else in the mune than Comp Agency representatives by citizens the exercise of efforts any.41 purpose For the discussion of to restore law and order. and officials topic, supportable will assume a finding I think the of the Board that the reports finding that were so delivered and with, petitioners interfered restrained or relating information contained *58 Plant, the Cambria employees coerced its activity organization. union The the through Committee and the Citizens’ employees Board did find that the knew rights self-organization, Mayor, in that were under surveillance and that ac- bargaining and concerted rights un result the exercise of their guaranteed them Section tivities any way with der the Act was in interfered Act, support rational is without restrained, were, employees or or that the case, think therefore and I the facts through and the knowl such surveillance Board that the conclusion of the that petitioners, thereof, any edge coerced in manner interference, restraint rights, the exercise or coercion, 8(1) had violated Section or obtained petitioners any used information And warrant in law. the Act is without anything an unfair labor constituting to do the Board’s decision I think that aspect practice. effect The Board’s decision in unwarrantedly assumes case upon no evidence conceded there was right partici- deny employer the to to an to based, might finding be which such public citizens and officials in the pate with there was none.42 preservation of law and order. aspect In this of the case there is there- single question of law: Does fore VIII securing an em- mere of information SüBVJBITjLANCE detectives, ployer, through the use con- em- Board found “that cerning organi- (including union activities Detective ployed Pinkerton’s National zation) constitute under the Act an unfair alia, Inc., purpose, inter Agency, practice question ? I think this labor should relating obtaining information to union negative. be Act answered does organization,” that thus activity prac- terms it an unfair labor make employer information, “interfered with the em- secure tice for self-organization, ployees right otherwise, in their through or either detectives con- form, join, organizations, Therefore, cerning or assist labor union activities. through bargain collectively representa- securing of information can become an un- choosing, practice engage only own tives of their fair other act labor previous topic employer In a referred uses the information ob- findings form tained do the defective surveillance some- thing difficulty thereby presented in an unfair un- constitutes labor to derstanding dealing practice. respondents this case. then state with employees in this case no appears from The concession the fol knowledge employment lowing excerpt from the Board’s deci Agency and that the record does not sion: respondents used in- show respondents [petitioners] con- “The Agency formation obtained from the hiring respect tend, with practice. unfair commit labor way agency, in no the Act detective to union forbids surveillance with “These contentions without merit. per argue They view, se. that such our activities of union surveillance or- ganization contravention surveillance can constitutes an interference only employees (1) employees’ seif-organ- if the Act know the they with and, though ization, showing are under as a re- surveillance even is no exercising sult, specific into are intimidated information obtained exercising any refraining used the commission an unfair guaranteed Act, rights (2) practice.” if

70á A.L.R, 642, 630, can, wit, by operating alone or 57 S.Ct. either 81 L.Ed. 1152; concurrently other to interfere and National Labor acts Relations Co., with, Friedman-Harry Clothing coerce Marks restrain or guaranteed 645, 630, 81 rights exercise of the U.S. S.Ct. If, example, knew Act. they L.Ed. 108 A.L.R. 1352. on that surveillance were under Board v. In National Labor Relations express themselves account felt unable survey- Court, Link-Belt Co. the meeting, if, result freely in a union credi- which it evidence held made concerning union information obtaining of activities of finding ble a that freedom of choice employer dis- employees, the Inde- organizing them, an against charged or discriminated by the pendent union forestalled— com- would have practice unfair labor by the company maintenance union surveil- proposition that mitted. But co- employer would until its abandonment violation constitutes a without more lance Independent recognition incide enjoined as no the Act which hostility to- —referred to the “declared Act, language support in union, practice long wards an ‘outside’ any of the support of I am aware recogni- espionage, quick industrial Indeed, in the under the Act. cases decided Independent,” tion of circum- directly upon the only case which rules stances, only This was the mention contrary. was to question, the decision opinion of surveillance in the of the Court. Na- Board v. Relations In National case question The whether it does not rule Cir., 1939, *59 Company,9 Bearing tional Motor necessary, in con- is order that a Com- 652, Board found the 105 F.2d prac- stitute surveillance unfair labor secretary-treasurer (the pany official tice, that knowledge there shall have been automo- plant manager) had loitered in an espionage by of the information employees the that or headquarters a un- of the bile ion front by employer obtained shall meeting organization during its first in fact have union used to been interfere taking purpose of —apparently for the opinion activities. the Cir- who had of the down the names Appeals ap- cuit Court it case43 to be meeting this attended held —and pears employee that an of the Link-Belt Co. Act, accordingly direct- violation monthly from 1915 1936 had ports re- made desist employer cease and ed the efficiency Company on meetings maintaining surveillance of fellow and that he attitude la- union or and activities employ also in National was The Cir- employees. organization itsof bor Association, Metal Trades that in Janu- enforce Appeals Court refused cuit joined 1937he I. re- ary signed May a C. O. union but saying: order, .provision of the this it had known after become Though constitute "... surveillance employ was he As- that the Trades [citing practice authorities] an unfair labor This indicates em- sociation. that with, interferes restrains not such unless they ployees knew that were respondent’s employees under surveil- in the ex- coerces guaranteed rights in section 7, ercise lance. interferes labor or- with a or dominates In National Labor v. Relations Board 8(2). ganization prohibited section page Metallurgical Corp. Board Fansteel [105 657.] F.2d at ...” anti-union and ac- found statements upon The six cases in Board relies Corporation superin- part tions on the aof Supreme Court: National United States tendent, by campaign to into introduce Co., Board v. Link-Belt Relations Labor January union, company “by plant a em- 6, 1941, L.Ed.-; 358, 61 S.Ct. 85 ” spy’ Cor- and use a ‘labor ployment Fansteel Labor Relations Board v. National Metallurgical poration had interfered with its Corp., 1939, 240, 306 U.S. ex- them in the and restrained and coerced 627, 251, 490, 59 83 L.Ed. 123 A.L.R. S.Ct. rights self-organization of their ercise 599; Edison v. Na Consolidated Act, guaranteed 7 1938, Section 305 Relations U. tional Labor had Corporation concluded that 126; Board 230, 206, 197, 83 Na 59 S.Ct. S. L.Ed. engaged practice con- an unfair labor Pennsyl thus Relations Board v. tional Labor trary 8(1). Section The Court held Greyhound 1938, 261, Lines, 303 U.S. vania 270, supported by finding 831, conclusion 571, 115 was 82 L.Ed. S.Ct. A.L.R. finding support had 307; that the substantial and in the evidence. National Labor Relations question But raised Co., 301 U.S. Fruehauf Trailer

43 Cir., 1540, F.2d “ Corporation Early respondent whether the . . case . hired duty detective whoso it was ‘to out ferret illegal purposes informa- use keep union activities of respondent the men’ and to “.spy,” whether by the nor tion obtained respond- This, informed. as the “spy,” employees knew of the use president stated, ent’s vice trou- to avoid keep steady rule not therefore ble and ‘to and the case does flow of business.’ purposes deception, For and in order without surveillance question whether eligible make the membership detective practice. more is an unfair labor respondent Union, gave employment. him joined v. Na- Edison In Consolidated He the Union and became its treasurer. He thus obtained a all list of the members of nothing tional Relations frequent reports the Union. He made to re- ex- of detectives concerning use said cept spondent and with the thus lists obtained re- following: spondent’s superintendent went about the fac- “ tory from time to time and espion- warned various With to industrial . . . employees against union companies say employment result age, activities. suspicion, these measures ‘caused agencies’ unrest and investigating sort of ‘outside among employees.’ confusion voluntarily prior ...” to No- been discontinued had vember, pages 54, 55, page U.S. at rightly urges L301 57 S.Ct. at the Board but 81 L.Ed. resumption. 108 A.L.E. 1352.] its ...” it was entitled to bar page 217, page 230, [305 U.S. at S.Ct. found prac- Board had unfair labor 126.] L.Ed. use was made of appear what tices It does not committed and the Court said whether or investigating agencies,” findings supported “outside were the evi- them, any, if excerpt information secured dence. opinion from the shows commission as a basis for the was used information obtained the detec- practice, whether the em- labor tive was unfair used interfere surveil- ployees knew with union part activities on em- again ployees therefore consti- lance. This case whose names obtained holding that surveillance se per Obviously, therefore, tutes no him. this case does practice. pass an unfair not on facts question whether surveillance without more is *60 un- an National Labor Relations Board v. In fair practice. labor only Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines the follow- reference to surveillance is In National Labor Relations v. of the Court: ing statement Friedman-Harry Co., Marks Clothing “ day [July . . . Before and after that only opinion reference of the Court 5, spondents’ passage Act], of of the re 1935 —the date is surveillance this: warning officers were active em against ployees joining and in the union threat “ president . . . Statements of the of tlie they ening discharge join, if them with should respondent showing antagonism his un to the meetings keeping and in the union under surveillance.” quoted by ion were the Board. At one time page [3 at U.S. 58 S.Ct. 03 group employees he stated to a of that he page 576, 307.] A.L.R. L.Ed. discharge every would one that attended the Examination the record of case in meeting. union Similar statements were made by respondent’s secretary. Respondent’s man Supreme Court shows that the agement ‘has maintained' over surveillance un Companies that the “threatened such found meetings ion [301 and activities.’ ...” employees discharge they if became page 75, page 647, U. atS. 57 S.Ct. at 81 L. organization members remained of such [a 1352.] Ed. 108 A.L.R. by organized the employees] union appears also in case that It actual there were surveillance of have maintained ings the meet- discharges employees for union meeting places organiza- such membership activity. It thus made is employees tion activities of their by obvious that information obtained sur- organization.” connection such No identity employees veillance as was raised in the question Court meeting being attending union used to whether as to surveillance without discourage activity. union This case does knowledge employees il- without question on the under rule discussion legal use of information obtained consti- instant case. an practice, tutes unfair labor and this case constitutes ruling therefore no on the issue Examination cases cited discussion. Ap- Board from various Circuit Courts of National Labor peals Relations Board discloses that in none of v. them is there opinion Trailer ruling Fruehauf that Co. of the a mere surveillance is unfair states: Court practice.44 City Light Co. Kansas Cir., Power & National Labor Relations plants, employees respect of the lives—or their is further noted violence,” against occurring that it a result of instant case as use of detectives racketeering never “communistic or or unlawful dispute is without or, ex- agency”; as otherwise acts against discrimination pressed, purpose mem- in- obtaining union on account of case, men being the formation “the various bership activity. That activities trying annoy informa- who and disturb their use of no there could have been employees,” purpose discrim- obtain- concerning activities for union ing information “the arrival and concerning ination. disturb- activities ers.” In an radicals outside pointed out there Although as above attempt prove Agen- no Board that finding .the cy for the particularly been retained had surveillance, Board’s knowledge had purpose C. or investigating W. O. S. as- attempts in this aid case brief O., Board, examining that; C. I. counsel for pect asserting Stiles, manager of the witness a division employees had no [that “The contention Pinkerton’s, questions, put, among knowledge disregards fact surveillance] Company employment of Pink- following: espionage Agency became erton’s for industrial Board]) (By “Q. [counsel Mr. Keller for the testimony Sep- following public Pinkerton’s Dykes repre- Stiles, Mr. now [a Mr. Senate Sub-Committee tember Investigating before the simply you say men sentative] didn’t want Right —‘I of Free Violations investigate O.,’ I. A. No. C. did he? Company’s employees etc., Speech, hence the say Well, “Q. did he that? A. what about may presumed coerced to have been already was, testified, I No. There lot of have knowledge. ...” throughout the coun- unrest violence presumption. assumption, not a This it, try, company, an- the that as I understood fact testi- presumption of There is they ticipated they trouble, have shall going Subcommittee mony before a Senate vi- to know what was on in the wanted cinity plants. of their per- actually to the attention have come Including “Q. I. the activities the C. O.? might been of inter- to whom sons Certainly, groups. That un- A. —all There no evi- known it. est yes.” it, derstood to their atten- came actually that it dence testified that de- Stiles also tion. Agency engage sired the services finding Finally, to be noted it is protect plants lives petitioner the Board and la- outside communists Detective “employed Pinkerton’s National (apparently Com- defined bor racketeers pany alia, Inc., purpose, Agency, for the inter representative Dykes) “people *61 union relating to information obtaining organiza- legitimate get of labor control ais distortion activity organization,” employer the tions shake down evidence, According to the evidence. of the testimony thus shows employee too.” The agreement employment between employed Agency was that the Detective Pinkerton petitioner the' that of ob- purpose than for a much broader represen- thát Pinkerton’s Agency provided activ- to union taining relating information any plants of not enter tatives should purpose organization, ity and Company informed Company, La- legitimate. the National Neither during of Agency at both outset any forbids a nor law Relations Act bor desire that it not to employment did employer secur- from property owner and investigation or to receive re- have an aiding purpose of information for any employees ports whether its toas employees property protection of union; any and the evi- members of were dence fails to committed. against whomsoever violence show that Pinkerton’s made Company petitioner any reports to the IX names of members of which mentioned the oe the Order Breadth what oc- any union or which mentioned think that above I have As I indicated any any meetings of union. curred at is with- this case Board in the order Moreover, Pink- the record shows Assum- or law. facts either Company out warrant the [petitioners’] Agency was erton retained this, a contrary of that there is ing, to the petitioner protect “to their 78; 76, 340; Corp. Underwear Co. Republic Atlas 1940, 109 F.2d F.2d Steel 111 Board, 6 Board, Labor Relations v. National 3 v. Labor National Relations 1023; 1020, 1941, Cir., Mont- 474; F.2d 1939, 472, 116 Cir., F.2d North 107 gomery Labor Re- Heights v. National & Co. Ward v. Ass’n Nation- Whittier Citrus Cir., 1940, 1940, Board, 115 F.2d 700. Board, Cir., 8 lations Relations al Labor *62 lation we has been found to have committed ple, straining, activities to restrain pursued form, ployer committing tices which proceedings, acts which the exercise guaranteed strain their own gaining proven unlawful Board, Relations bargain violation particulars. cease and courts order basis in the record for This broad terms the terms,45 had found the only of refusal Express Publishing case. “It “In “ court, Paragraph 1 think that without . the National petitioners to cease authority Act gist doing. restrains any issued 61 S.Ct. National join, . of a collectively nor state with read, , Act.” have committed choosing or practice other in Section other desist order was be called on to enforce other salutary generally connection the Court’s must, law he persuasively It would seem equally clear Section coercing conferred is obvious when 693, 85 respondent paragraph violation assist conduct. Publishing rights Labor manner (c) of mutual related unlawful purposes like it neither which it ^[*] and to through Board is too reasonable principle must be bargain collectively in judicially Court all other 8(5), labor sacrifice Company, March L.Ed. -, Relations with'Section an ruling is as follows: Relations ^[*] aid or interfering bo restrained self-organization, engage found is to do or refrain injunction order, I think the has found held representatives (c) in the instant but Section organizations, phrased order desist that when one in view National unlawful confirmed, related specificity broad protection to have been Act does not the Board’s an authority in concerted order by contempt that princi- acts in vio- the Board too broad. acts. Board v. with, from: requires order of 8(1) 7. in two guilty Labor prac- but also to restrain commission of from bar- But wholly em- re- re- 3, fully union in the bor ple, cause his contempt contemplate shall other to restrain commission nounced the unfair lation of of unfair labor 7. 46 Art because as not be otherwise because fair that section or 8(5). the Board had not 8(2), (3), (4) an order drawn vised other because tion nation union in the connection with Section drawn in the terms The order was held too [01 said in the second Section fair labor The order in the instant case because Section wit, National Labor Relations the Board relations that he has practices S.Gt. for refused employees 110 F.2d generic Thus the case a violation different is broad his 8(1) on the Board’s Section supervisory 8(1) phrased practices opinion supervisory discharge indefinite the Act. The at to pages discharge Metals read in connection with Sec found, unfair labor read employer “against practices specifically discriminated an bargain type, enough 8(1) of Section practices specifically (5) to restrain to employer who has it paragraph of Section 098, above peril in Construction denounced employees found a violation necessarily covered, join of the Act are future, not to unrelated to the un- connection violation of of an allegation, broad is7 obviously committed in quoted, only practice (2) employee, union. include except decision 8(3), against join conduct his broad his employee, 8(1) of that violation of summons have in Section holds that employees acts of discrimi have ad although the class a labor . .Section Section union,” read in enough defined species a labor advised unlaw found Court or Court exam could . L.Ed. -.] Cir., Section Act, por vio- un de be la . ” 7.” To vides bargaining activities, restrain, administration tection.” fair sist own to lectively ercise footnote To spell ^[46] 45 self-organization, The terms of Section labor choosing, : labor “Employees through dominate or Section organizations, or other practice coerce rights guaranteed this out: and to or formation representatives 8(1) or purpose employees shall to mutual “to interfere engage interfere form, makes to Section have the 8(1) of collective bargain in aid or join, in the any appear concerted with the Section ^[7] an un- or as- labor with, pro- pro- col- ex- in fusal age tion, sentatives lation of Section Section an of employment, also or is support discrimination organization rights guaranteed given testimony employment, emjdoyee obviously membership discharge in to 8(5). to it in violation of Section violation bargain because or an in or or to regard 8(4), and collectively in to contribute of Section interference by Section discrimination any under encourage any labor he has term or to hire or tenure filed violation 7, with repre- Act, 8(3), or discour- is also re- as is also with organiza- condition financial charges against in vio- 8(2)

708 goes proper purpose thus so seeks to 8(3), The order which the Board (4) (5). by can terms far restrain commission acts achieve the inclusion of those accomplished “agents,” (refusal bargain through collective be the term charged even ly 8(5), dis appears also order. National of Section violation —a against Hopwood em Retin- an v. charge of or discrimination Labor Relations Board ning parte Co., Cir., 1938, 97; charges or testi Ex ployee Inc., has filed 98 F.2d he 2 because Cir., Lennon, 1894, 320, af- Section fied the Act—a violation of 64 F. under re charged firmed, 1897, 548, 658, 41 but with 8(4) ), acts 166 U.S. 17 S.Ct. and also charges dismissed spect term which the L.Ed. 1110. Even without by against em attempt order (discrimination “agents” an evade the membership discourage corporate order ployees in utilization of the formation or -of per- organization would, principles violation a labor form familiar —a fiction, of the Su 8(3) ). mitting corporate The decision disregard of Section preme Publishing Express Gilpin Except Court for United be ineffectual. beyond puts 1937, doubt Company Corporation case I think Colo. Wilmore, v. too case is 456, instant 453, persuasive, that the order in the think which I P.2d held similarly phrased order A was broad. of the cases cited none Press this court in support too broad terms Board to the inclusion of the Board, Decem Relations assigns” v. National ber holds in the order “successors that such inclusion is 9, 1940,-App.D.C.-, F.2d proper.47 1118,85 —. L.Ed. certiorari denied 61 S.Ct. paragraph Thé order of the Board in ap- phrased of the Board is apply The order (a) “any is drawn as to other so Beth- ply “Bethlehem Steel organization employees.” Assum- labor them, each of Corporation, and lehem Steel record for an order a.foundation successors, officers,agents, and as- and their or dominating cease and desist from There signs (Italics supplied) ..” . interfering . administration of finding charge, Plans, agree, no evidence or language is, permitted I any. or as- case effect that successor Supreme ruling Court petitioners sign had committed above Express Publishing case practice, labor or that unfair to. In its context the reference referred purpose part peti- any plan on the or mean is intended to Act “Dominating the strictures of tioners to evade the-petitioners. To forbid „ pe- assignment or of the forma- order interfering or . . Indeed in their Plants. titioners’ interest labor or administration finding in charge, evidence there was the employees” organization of assigns concerning successors case forbid “other related acts” unlawful requires 10(b) of the Act all. Section permitted ruling Express as Publishing Company engaging in prac- unfair charge of labor An order sim- case. tices, 10(c) requires the orders and Section ilarly including within its “other restraint upon based Board to be evidence approved organizations” was in Na- Moreover, principles due findings. Relations v. Swift & tional Labor making process preclude Cir., the Board 988, cited Company, 7 108 F.2d persons affecting as to whom an order Express Pub- Court in the no evidence in the record and who there is case. lishing Company of, op- not even afforded notice X proceeding portunity in, to be heard CoNOi/crsiON the Board which the order before my duty tó discuss I have believed City National Bank Chase based. Norwalk, many think were errors detail the 431, 54 291 U.S. S.Ct. hearing48 during the extended 894; committed Donald, Scott v. 78 L.Ed. *63 they my preju- case. In view in this dicial to the 262, 107, 41 648. More- 17 S.Ct. inclusion of successors L.Ed. U.S. petitioners and of rights of the over, assigns or associations, employees’ intervening necessary. Any not order within the 1939, Cir., Colten, 6 47 Board v. City Relations National Bank of Nor- Chase v. 179, supra; Sidway F.2d walk, 183. 105 Land & v. Missouri typewritten original 48 record filed C.C.S.D.Mo.1902, Co., 116 F. Stock Live pages. 21,717, 390; this court consisted of 381, G. & Merriam v. C. Co. Saal printing designation Cir., 927; 1911, record field, 190 National 6 F. 11,072 printed Hopwood record of in a resulted Board Re- Labor Relations pages. tinning; supra; Co., Inc., National Labor 709 although a reservoir. Unless the out rights substantially, passes water also — through canals, laterals, intervention, smaller involved—of still not formal precision petitioners’ Plants. channels it a employees in never with reaches particular True, were the tract to make fruitful. Furthermore, think the errors land I it may many, far-reach- be product fundamental and channels made too of such long, tortuous, part too seep or too ing misconceptions on the Board and the water thus judicial evaporate subject com- before it ought the land be reaches correction, that con- toward in order which it has been But is ment and directed. it public equally that, part litigants in a if true channels fidence on the are no only through may flow, ultimately effective sanc- which tribunal —the it it will never impaired. Likewise, be reach that land. its orders—shall not the substantive pass through law must the channels misconceptions The fundamental to which pleading, procedure and evidence so that refer, apparent I think are and which may precisely apply itself to the solution record, point of from the are two : a view particular controversy of which part that was not apt. figure it adjective Like these those regard proceedings bound to its es- may channels also be over-refined. law; requirements adjective sential Congress But while avoid —minded misconception and a part on the —by largely committing discretion principles Board of the of substantive law of the Board ceedings pro the manner in which its case, governing the declared Con- on, should carried pro stitution, decisions, judicial Nation- viding that in those proceedings the rules al Relations Act itself. of evidence should controlling, not be necessity From duty the Board both evinced its intention proceedings of obliged regard require- the essential informal, Congress the Board should be procedure pleading, ments of the rules not to taken intended to re comprised evidence are obligation lieve Board from ap adjective congeries law. That law is ply adjective require minimum dispensable technicalities; on the necessary con- hearings ments if be or are to trary, in apply derly art assumes accomplish and thus effective to efficient, principles justice. substantive in an order- ends process And the due ly impersonal indispensa- manner, it Constitution, clause of the Cotigress Every has, ble. art addition to substan- could applying relieve the from aspect embracing organized tive adjective information the essentials of law because in and principles, technique through which them are safeguards the essential embraced the same carried into effect.49 The hearing. to fair guarantee Because of the 0 substantive law be likened to water in 5 process the due clause, a comrnis-

lic Utilities Commission of 301 life, plish istry; through forms which ples be of no avail medical art arts can the suffering coal are made effective. No more than other devised. ground devices, mands which the through formulae, blueprints, anatomy, physiology, cedures therapeutic, ^[49] 50 U.S. Cf. wore it these must be of mathematics, become Ohio through engineering mere 292, 304, 305, *64 necessity. air, Only engineering change surgical Bell juristic knowledge bridge satisfy thus fabric. which such prolongation Telephone principles for exact myriad art and sanitation physics, art carried art does iron raw 57 S.Ct. does not relief of human pathology human escape has in Again, battleship, matter Ohio, Co. v. into action and chem- diagnostic, measuring principles of human processes practice biology, the de- 724, accom- princi- wants, would 1937, Pub pro- into at proper powers L.Ed. Gas Co. v. Public Utilities Commission the exempt insistent been expert signed Co. v. 1) orable missions have been invested with broad Corp. S.Ct. judicial proceedings constitutional straints pages 730, 731, (No. 2), 1935] realm bestowed so 316, 320, 773; v. Railroad Indeed, to them Public Utilities Commission judgment deference safeguard’ within the have reached is the Court 294 Los administrative been restraints. West Ohio Gas U.S. S.Ct. much supervision 79 L.Ed. 81 L.Ed. U.S. said; Angeles need, when with due exacts from freely, Commission, obeyed. law. Even in sphere (St. “Regulatory 761; courts 1093, Gas & Electric Joseph informed and S.Ct. submission to if All discretion is page 70, power West receives a those re whore the ‘inex do duty when it within quasi- L.Ed. Stock more Ohio com (No. U.S. has as 55 710 my mistakenly sion. view legislative action sion, though relieved the National Labor Relations construed rules strict so-called application membership equality Act depart to: forbid evidence, must nevertheless power joint voting bar- and on collective preserve “obligation to imperative from the committees; employer gaining deny an to which of evidence rules

the essential voice, subject direction a ultimate Inter- defended.” are asserted or rights court, of a amendments of collective Louisville v. Commission state Commerce materially plans bargaining would 93, 1913, 88, 33 S.Ct. 227 U.S. Co., R. & N. adjust- procedure for grievance change 431; Abilene v. 185, United States 57 L.Ed. prevent a 274, ment, might plan from 44 or which Railway, 1924,265 U.S. & Southern selecting fair operating representatives method of as a 565, 68 L.Ed. S.Ct. bargain- and collective my opinion failure inwas materially ing, might increase or regard instant case Board in the employer’s obligation plan; under a the require separate law adjective requirements of essential organi- for labor charters following errors: resulted iii which Entry bargaining systems, and collective zations Board after order separate single charter statement in a biased ex- hearing before a conducted provisions relating of ganization to labor or- upon illegal restrictions aminer and bargaining and the exclusion subpoenas; the use respectively; arrangements, condemn peti- competent offered evidence friendly cooperation, relations, and normal them; charges against to refute the tioners innocent communications between em- findings proper draw failure to employers, ployer employees; deny form; follow the omission to those estab- Amendment contravention First principles logic reasoning lished Constitution, of ex- that freedom dependability which test of inferences pression concerning merits of labor evidence; substantiality of disputes organizations which has been (under case on the merits decision guar- recognized Court as interference, issues of domination and employees; employer forbid anteed disestablishment, contribution to the Citi- participate public citizens Mayor of zens’ Committee and the town, Johns- preserve in efforts to law and officials surveillance) substan- without order; employer from restrain upon assump- tial the basis of evidence— conjecture purpose securing information for the and without refer- proof ence to the burden of Board; protection aiding in the issuance of against an order property against violence. support contributing to the Plans when implicit Finally, the decision long such contribution ceased, since theory Act condemns Board is when there probability and repetition; was no such, compels local unions as the issuance of a final or- without destruction reference to the will binding der against employees,, requiring of affected the lat- future commission charged acts neither ter, all, organized to be if nor found been committed. join being national union. no There As substantive all evidence the case of domi- law—like tri- substantial system, bunals under our bound interference' nation or formation the Board is Plans, expressed concepts order administration Constitution, judicial justification of disestablishment can find statutes deci- States, quirement. 38, Co. Yards v. Co. Pub United West Ohio Gas v. 298 U.S. 73, 720, 735, 1033) 1), (No. 2), (No. 56 S.Ct. lic 80 L.Ed. Utilities Commission open hearing Hill, supra; he Brinkerhoff-Faris v. 281 maintained Co. fair integrity. 673, Morgan 682, States, in its L. 59 74 v. United U.S. S.Ct. 468, 480, 481, 906, Norwegian Nitrogen 911, 298 U.S. Co. 56 Ed. 1107. Cf. S.Ct. 1288; 294, [1933, 80 L.Ed. Interstate v. States U.S. Commerce United 350, Co., Commission v. & 77 L.Ed. There can be 796]. Louisville R. N. S.Ct. [1913, footing compromise U.S. S.Ct. of con L. hearing expediency, 431]. Ed. to such a venience or or because harassing play’ one ‘the de rudiments desire to be natural rid fair (Chicago, requirement Ry. Polt, lay, M. & St. P. that minimal Co. when ignored.” sup neglected (Italics 232 U.S. 34 S.Ct. L. 554) every litigant plied) Ed. assured Fourteenth Amendment aas minimal re-

711 762, “A union view, stated: This, my where the court theory alone. in such a single em- only Not limited to the Act. is unwarranted ployer legal other....” local terms condemn the Act not does associations, but, im contrary, on the dissatisfaction record evidences This In Sec pliedly warrants their existence. part of the present Plans on the with the organi “labor 2(5) definition of employees, no election —which representa “employee zation” includes conduct may within its discretion plan,” and Section tion committee Act —to deter- 9(c) of under Section bar given the employees are per- employees desire to whether the mine representatives collectively through gain Plans. Cer- petuate or to discontinue the Moreover, choosing.” “of own their purpose Nation- tainly primary said, involving case Supreme Court in a was to make Labor Relations Act al assume that union: “We a local criterion will of the the sole Board would in which are situations the character of for determination of concluding that there not be warranted bargain- organization labor of em for withdrawal occasion ing arrangements. premise to, existing union recognition of an ployer competent workmen are Act by employees under before an election themselves, § govern and that 9(c), though it had ordered the em even free, right, and should be made to do ployer practices. cease unfair ...” Yet, will of the employees without the so. National Relations Board v. Penn Labor consulted, having local associations Greyhound Lines, sylvania 303 U. destroyed. ordered L.Ed. S.Ct. S. order I think that the of the Board ac- And see A.L.R. 307. Ballston-Still injustice complishes petition- both for the Knitting National water Co. Re employers employees, and for the ers lations F.2d set themselves should be Cir., aside.